This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-03-20 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that a writ of execution should strictly conform to every essential particular of the promulgated judgment as indicated in the dispositive portin (fallo) thereto[17] since it is portion of the decision that actually a constitutes the resolution of the court.[18] Consequently, even if there is a conflict between the dispositive portion and the opinion of a court contained in the body of the decision, it would be the dispositive portion.[19] This principle is based on the theory that the dispositive portion is final order, while the opinion is merely a statement ordering nothing.[20] A writ of execution would be rendered void if it is in excess of and beyond the original judgment or award spelled out in the dispositive portion of the decision.[21] | |||||
|
2009-03-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation. It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected from adults under similar circumstances. The range of emotions shown by rape victim is yet to be captured even by calculus. It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims (People v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004). The Court finds no need to discuss in detail the alleged actuations of the complainants after the alleged rapes and acts of lasciviousness. The alleged actuations are evidentiary in nature and should be evaluated after full blown trial on the merits. This is necessary to avoid a suspicion of prejudgment against the accused.[22] As can be seen, the body of the assailed Order not only plainly stated that the court found probable cause against the petitioners, but likewise provided an adequate discussion of the reasons for such finding. Indeed, the general rule is that where there is a conflict between the dispositive portion or the fallo and the body of the decision, the fallo controls. However, where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.[23] | |||||
|
2006-10-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)[4] and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department)[5] and by adding Article XVIII entitled "Transitory Provisions."[6] These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The Lambino Group prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters' ratification: DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER? On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative.[7] | |||||
|
2006-01-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| More to the point is another well-recognized doctrine, that the final judgment of the court as rendered in the judgment of the court irrespective of all seemingly contrary statements in the decision. "A judgment must be distinguished from an opinion. The latter is the informal expression of the views of the court and cannot prevail against its final order or decision. While the two may be combined in one instrument, the opinion forms no part of the judgment. So, ... there is a distinction between the findings and conclusions of a court and its Judgment. While they may constitute its decision and amount to the rendition of a judgment, they are not the judgment itself. They amount to nothing more than an order for judgment, which must, of course, be distinguished from the judgment." (1 Freeman on Judgments, p. 6). At the root of the doctrine that the premises must yield to the conclusion is perhaps, side by side with the needs of writing finis to litigations, the recognition of the truth that "the trained intuition of the judge continually leads him to right results for which he is puzzled to give unimpeachable legal reasons." "It is an everyday experience of those who study judicial decisions that the results are usually sound, whether the reasoning from which the results purport to flow is sound or not." (The Theory of Judicial Decision, Pound, 36 Harv. Law Review, pp. 9, 51). It is not infrequent that the grounds of a decision fail to reflect the exact views of the court, especially those of concurring justices in a collegiate court. We often encounter in judicial decisions, lapses, findings, loose statements and generalities which do not bear on the issues or are apparently opposed to the otherwise sound and considered result reached by the court as expressed in the dispositive part, so called, of the decision. Succinctly stated, "where there is a conflict between the dispositive portion of the decision and the body thereof, the dispositive portion controls irrespective of what appears in the body of the decision." [22] While the body of the decision, order or resolution might create some ambiguity in the manner the court's reasoning preponderates, it is the dispositive portion thereof that finally invests rights upon the parties, sets conditions for the exercise of those rights, and imposes the corresponding duties or obligations. [23] | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| assailed judgment is affirmed."[13] It should be noted that the "assailed judgment" referred to the NLRC Decision which declared that respondent was not illegally dismissed but that she abandoned her employment. Even in the award of back wages and exemplary damages the two (2) decisions are at odds: The award of back wages made by the NLRC was a gratuity or an act of grace from petitioners while the award made by the Court of Appeals could be assumed to be anchored on its finding of illegal dismissal. How should the inconsistency be reconciled? Where there is conflict between the dispositive portion of the decision and the body thereof, the dispositive portion controls irrespective of what appears in the body.[14] While the body of the decision, order or resolution might create some ambiguity | |||||