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. | |||||
|
2013-06-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It irritates the Court to know that petitioners have delayed for nearly 17 years now the full implementation of the final and immutable decision of November 20, 1989, as modified by the CA . It is high time, then, that the Court puts a firm stop to the long delay in order to finally enable the heirs and successors-in-interest of Francisco Faylona as the winning parties to deservedly enjoy the fruits of the judgment in their favor.[14] | |||||
|
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] | |||||