This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-04-12 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The general rule is that it is the ministerial duty of the court to order the execution of its final judgment.[41] However, Rule 135, Section 5(g) of the Rules of Court provides that the trial court may amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. It has the inherent power to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial offices, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a case before it, in every manner appertaining thereto.[42] The inherent power of the court carries with it the right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution.[43] The court may stay or suspend the execution of its judgment if warranted by the higher interest of justice.[44] It has the authority to cause a modification of the decision when it becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice or when supervening events warrant it.[45] The court is also vested with inherent power to stay the enforcement of its decision based on antecedent facts which show fraud in its rendition or want of jurisdiction of the trial court apparent on the record.[46] In another case, [47] the Court held that an execution will ordinarily be stayed pending the termination of the proceedings connected with the principal case. | |||||
|
2003-06-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Sec. 7. Partial new trial or reconsideration. If the grounds for a motion under this Rule appear to the court to affect the issues as to only a part, or less than all of the matters in controversy, or only one, or less than all, of the parties to it, the court may order a new trial or grant reconsideration as to such issues if severable without interfering with the judgment or final order upon the rest. (Emphasis supplied.) It is clear from the foregoing rules that a judge can order a partial reconsideration of a case that has not yet attained finality. Considering that private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period, the trial court's decision of July 14, 1999 can still be modified. Moreover, in Sañado v. Court of Appeals,[16] we held that the court could modify or alter a judgment even after the same has become executory whenever circumstances transpire rendering its decision unjust and inequitable, as where certain facts and circumstances justifying or requiring such modification or alteration transpired after the judgment has become final and executory[17] and when it becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice or when supervening events warrant it.[18] In our view, there are even more compelling reasons to do so when, as in this case, judgment has not yet attained finality. | |||||