This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-06-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| True, the dispositive portion of the DOLE Resolution does not specifically enumerate the names of those who actually participated in the strike but only mentions that those strikers who failed to heed the return-to-work order are deemed to have lost their employment. This omission, however, cannot prevent an effective execution of the decision. As was held in Reinsurance Company of the Orient, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[41] any ambiguity may be clarified by reference primarily to the body of the decision or supplementary to the pleadings previously filed in the case. In any case, especially when there is an ambiguity, "a judgment | |||||
|
2009-07-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| At the time the motion for execution pending appeal was filed, the RTC had already assumed jurisdiction over the case. Hence, the MeTC was no longer in a position to correct the error contained in the dispositive portion. The duty devolved upon the RTC, before which the appeal was pending, to rectify the error contained in the dispositive portion of the judgment sought to be executed. Clerical error or ambiguity in the dispositive portion of a judgment may be rectified or clarified by reference primarily to the body of the decision itself and, suppletorily, to the pleadings previously filed.[15] | |||||
|
2004-11-22 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Even so, the Court allows a judgment which had become final and executory to be clarified when there is an ambiguity caused by an omission or mistake in the dispositive portion of the decision.[37] In Reinsurance Company of the Orient, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[38] we held:In Republic Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Court applying the above doctrine said: | |||||