This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-12-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Because the writ of execution varied the terms of the judgment and exceeded them, it had no validity. The writ of execution must conform to the judgment which is to be executed, as it may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. Neither may it go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed. Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has pro tanto no validity.[20] | |||||
|
2006-08-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Considering that the modifications made by Assistant Director dela Torre in the 5 June 1995 Writ of Execution were made precisely to correct the errors contained in the Notice of Computation/Execution, with the intention of making said order in conformity with the 5 December 1991 Order, We cannot ascribe error upon said action. As has been remarked earlier, a Writ of Execution may not vary, or go beyond, the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce.[20] By amending the original Notice of Computation/Execution in accordance with the final Order it seeks to enforce, Assistant Director dela Torre merely adhered to a fundamental legal precept that a Writ of Execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the decision sought to be executed.[21] | |||||