This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-09-10 |
CARPIO, ACTING C.J. |
||||
| In Anama v. Court of Appeals,[29] we ruled that the three-day notice rule is not absolute. The purpose of the rule is to safeguard the adverse party's right to due process. Thus, if the adverse party was given a reasonable opportunity to study the motion and oppose it, then strict compliance with the three-day notice rule may be dispensed with. | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It is undisputed that the CA Decision dated September 29, 2006 is already final and executory. As a rule, once a judgment becomes final and executory, all that remains is the execution of the decision which is a matter of right. The prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution, the issuance of which is the trial court's ministerial duty.[39] The writ of execution, however, must conform substantially to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated. It must conform, more particularly, to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.[40] | |||||