You are on page 1of 2



PE, petitioner, vs. JOHNNY PASTORIN

[G.R. No. 154295. July 29, 2005]

The same principle was adopted by the Highest Tribunal in the case of Alfredo Marquez vs. Sec. of
Labor, 171 SCRA 337 and quoted in the latter case of ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union
Members vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, 304 SCRA 497, where it was ruled that: The
active participation of the party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his failure to
object to the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body where the action is pending, is
tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the
case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or bodys jurisdiction.

Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an
adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the
court . . . And in Littleton vs. Burges, 16 Wyo, 58, the Court said that it is not right for a party who has
affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief,
to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.[

where the entertainment of the jurisdictional issue at a belated stage of the proceedings will result in a
failure of justice and render nugatory the constitutional imperative of protection to labor.

NOCOM vs. CAMERINO, G.R. No. 182984, February 10, 2009, First Division, Azcuna, J

However, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action.
Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any
stage of the action and/or such times as are just. If the petitioner or plaintiff refuses to implead an
indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter may dismiss the complaint or petition for
the petitioner or plaintiff’s failure to comply therefor. The remedy is to implead the non-party
claimed to be indispensable. (NOCOM vs. CAMERINO, G.R. No. 182984, February 10, 2009, First
Division, Azcuna, J.).

The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.[10] Parties may be added by
order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or at
such times as are just.



G.R. No. 193945 June 22, 2015

Indeed, the well-settled principle of immutability of final judgments demands that once a judgment
has become final, the winning party should not, through a mere subterfuge, be deprived of the fruits
of the verdict.29There are, however, recognized exceptions to the execution as a matter of right of a
final and immutable judgment, one of which is the existence of a supervening event.30 "A
supervening event is a fact which transpires or a new circumstance which develops after a judgment
has become final and executory. This includes matters which the parties were unaware of prior to or
during trial because they were not yet in existence at that time."31 To be sufficient to stay or stop the
execution, a supervening event must create a substantial change in the rights or relations of the
parties which would render execution of a final judgment unjust, impossible or inequitable making it
imperative to stay immediate execution in the interest of justice.

All the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a judgment becomes final
and executory; execution of the decision proceeds as a matter of right as vested rights are acquired by
the winning party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the
winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case. After all, a
denial of a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits. Otherwise, there
will be no end to litigation, and this will set to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the
enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable
controversies with finality (THENAMARIS PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
AMANDA C. MENDIGORIN, G.R. No. 191215, February 3, 2014)

G.R. No. 193397


"[W]hen a judgment has been satisfied, it passes beyond review, satisfaction being the last act and the
encl of the proceedings, and payment or satisfaction of the obligation thereby established produces
permanent and irrevocable discharge; hence, a judgment debtor who acquiesces to and voluntarily
complies with the judgment is estopped from taking an appeal therefrom."

Declaration against Interest:

Admissions against interest are those made by a party to a litigation or by

one in privity with or identified in legal interest with such party, and are
admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness.[15]
Declarations against interest are those made by a person who is neither a
party nor in privity with a party to the suit, are secondary evidence, and
constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. They are admissible only when
the declarant is unavailable as a witness.[16]

G.R. No. 152364