September 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > September 2010 Resolutions >
[UDK No. 12952 : September 08, 2010] JUANITO S. GONZALES V. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION :
[UDK No. 12952 : September 08, 2010]
JUANITO S. GONZALES V. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 September 2010 which reads as follows:
UDK No. 12952 (Juanito S. Gonzales v. Employees Compensation Commission). � Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Resolutions issued by this Court denying his petition for review on certiorari.
Court records show that, on October 30, 2000, petitioner filed the above-mentioned petition seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision[1] dated October 13, 1999, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. SP No. UDK-2998 which dismissed his petition for review for lack of merit and for failure to comply with the formal requirements. Petitioner likewise seeks to set aside the Resolution[2] dated September 8, 2000, which refused to entertain his letter asking for reconsideration on the ground that the questioned CA Decision had already become final and executor}' and had already been recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments.
On January 15, 2001, this Court issued a Resolution[3] denying the petition for review on certiorari for failure of petitioner to comply with the requirements of the pertinent provisions of Rules 13, 45 and 56 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied with finality by the Court in a Resolution[4] dated June 18, 2001.
Undaunted, petitioner filed with the Court en banc a letter[5] dated August 9, 2001, treated as a second motion for reconsideration and was denied by the Court in a Resolution[6] dated August 29, 2001. In the same Resolution the Court directed that no further pleadings or motions shall be entertained in this case and that entry of final judgment be made in due course.
Consequently, an Entry of Judgment[7] was made on October 19, 2001 and remand of the records was made on February 26, 2002.[8]
Per report of the Clerk of Court of the Third Division of this Court, petitioner has, from the date his petition was denied, filed a total of 27 letters asking reconsideration and praying that his claim for disability benefits be granted. Most of these letters were noted without action by the Court owing to the finality of the Resolution denying his petition.
In a Resolution[9] dated February 21, 2007, the Court resolved to expunge from the records of this case petitioner's letter of December 19, 2006
On November 28, 2007, the Court issued another Resolution[10] directing the Division Clerk of Court not to report anymore similar letters that the Court may receive from petitioner.
On July 12, 2010, petitioner filed yet another letter complaining that the Clerk of Court and the Honorable Chairman of the Third Division of this Court did not reply nor did they take action regarding the letters petitioner sent them with respect to his claim for permanent disability benefits.
At the outset, the Court finds it proper to reiterate that per Resolution of the CA dated September 8: 2000, the CA Decision challenged in petitioner's petition for review on certiorari had already become final and executory on November 26, 1999 and had already been recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on July 28, 2000.
The bottom line in the instant case is that petitioner lost his right to appeal before this Court and now seeks to resurrect the same via the above-mentioned letters. The time-honored, rule is that the failure to perfect an appeal in the manner and within the period fixed by law renders the decision final and unappealable.[11] Consequently, no court can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review such decision. It is axiomatic that final and executory judgments can no longer be attacked by any of the parties or be modified,, directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the land.[12]
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict.[13] Courts must, therefore, guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result[14] Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.[15]
In the present case, both the challenged Decision of the CA, as well as the Resolution of this Court denying petitioner's petition for review on certiorari, had already become final and executory.
WHEREFORE, the Court NOTES WITHOUT ACTION petitioner's letter dated July 12, 2010.
The Court REITERATES its directive to the Clerk of Court not to report any similar letters that the Court may receive from petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
UDK No. 12952 (Juanito S. Gonzales v. Employees Compensation Commission). � Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Resolutions issued by this Court denying his petition for review on certiorari.
Court records show that, on October 30, 2000, petitioner filed the above-mentioned petition seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision[1] dated October 13, 1999, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. SP No. UDK-2998 which dismissed his petition for review for lack of merit and for failure to comply with the formal requirements. Petitioner likewise seeks to set aside the Resolution[2] dated September 8, 2000, which refused to entertain his letter asking for reconsideration on the ground that the questioned CA Decision had already become final and executor}' and had already been recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments.
On January 15, 2001, this Court issued a Resolution[3] denying the petition for review on certiorari for failure of petitioner to comply with the requirements of the pertinent provisions of Rules 13, 45 and 56 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied with finality by the Court in a Resolution[4] dated June 18, 2001.
Undaunted, petitioner filed with the Court en banc a letter[5] dated August 9, 2001, treated as a second motion for reconsideration and was denied by the Court in a Resolution[6] dated August 29, 2001. In the same Resolution the Court directed that no further pleadings or motions shall be entertained in this case and that entry of final judgment be made in due course.
Consequently, an Entry of Judgment[7] was made on October 19, 2001 and remand of the records was made on February 26, 2002.[8]
Per report of the Clerk of Court of the Third Division of this Court, petitioner has, from the date his petition was denied, filed a total of 27 letters asking reconsideration and praying that his claim for disability benefits be granted. Most of these letters were noted without action by the Court owing to the finality of the Resolution denying his petition.
In a Resolution[9] dated February 21, 2007, the Court resolved to expunge from the records of this case petitioner's letter of December 19, 2006
On November 28, 2007, the Court issued another Resolution[10] directing the Division Clerk of Court not to report anymore similar letters that the Court may receive from petitioner.
On July 12, 2010, petitioner filed yet another letter complaining that the Clerk of Court and the Honorable Chairman of the Third Division of this Court did not reply nor did they take action regarding the letters petitioner sent them with respect to his claim for permanent disability benefits.
At the outset, the Court finds it proper to reiterate that per Resolution of the CA dated September 8: 2000, the CA Decision challenged in petitioner's petition for review on certiorari had already become final and executory on November 26, 1999 and had already been recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on July 28, 2000.
The bottom line in the instant case is that petitioner lost his right to appeal before this Court and now seeks to resurrect the same via the above-mentioned letters. The time-honored, rule is that the failure to perfect an appeal in the manner and within the period fixed by law renders the decision final and unappealable.[11] Consequently, no court can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review such decision. It is axiomatic that final and executory judgments can no longer be attacked by any of the parties or be modified,, directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the land.[12]
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict.[13] Courts must, therefore, guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result[14] Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.[15]
In the present case, both the challenged Decision of the CA, as well as the Resolution of this Court denying petitioner's petition for review on certiorari, had already become final and executory.
WHEREFORE, the Court NOTES WITHOUT ACTION petitioner's letter dated July 12, 2010.
The Court REITERATES its directive to the Clerk of Court not to report any similar letters that the Court may receive from petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 59-62.
[2] Id. at 17-18.
[3] Id. at 64.
[4] Id. at 74.
[5] Id. at 44-88.
[6] Id. at 91.
[7] Id. at 106-107.
[8] Id. at 117.
[9] id. at 253-A.
[10] Id. at 289.
[11] Republic Cement Corporation v. Guimnapang, G.R. No. 168910, August 24, 2009, 596 SCRA 6S8, 694.
[12] Fua, Jr. v. Commission on Audit, G.R, No. 175803, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 347, 353.
[13] Marmosy Trading, Inc. and Victor Morales v. Court of Appeals, et at., G.R. No. 170515, May 6, 2010; Bongcac v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 156687-83, May 21, 2009, 588 SCRA 64, 71; Yau v. Silverio, SK, G.R. Nos. 158848 and 171994, February 4, 2008, 543 SCRA 520, 531.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
