This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-11-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence is replete with cases which provide for the exceptions to the rule cited above. These are the existence of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which prevented the defendant from making the monthly deposit, or the occurrence of supervening events which have brought about a material change in the situation of the parties and would make the execution inequitable or where there is compelling urgency for the execution because it is not justified by the prevailing circumstances.[14] | |||||
|
2004-03-12 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| execution is mandatory.[26] In Fernandez v. Español, the Court held: . . . . Considering these principles, respondent judge should simply have ascertained from the records the allegations in complainant's motion for execution and, on that basis, resolved the motion. Had she done this, she could not have failed to notice that the defendant had | |||||