Lawyerly

GR No. 198139

2014-09-08

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. FELICISIMO TARCELO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It has always been the rule that "[t]he only portion of the decision that may be the subject of execution is that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion. Whatever may be found in the body of the decision can only be considered as part of the reasons or conclusions of the court and serve only as guides to determine the ratio decidendi."[44] "[W]here 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. While the body of the decision, order or resolution might create some ambiguity in the manner of 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 corresponding duties or obligation."[45] Thus, with the decretal portion of the trial court's November 7, 2005 Decision particularly stating that NPC shall have the lawful right to enter, take possession and acquire easement of right-of-way over the affected portions of respondents' properties upon the payment of just compensation, any order executing the trial court's Decision should be based on such dispositive portion. "An order of execution is based on the disposition, not on the body, of the decision."[46]

GR No. 190106

2014-01-15

MAGDALENA T. VILLASI v. SPS. FILOMENO GARCIA

PEREZ, J.

The explanation proffered by the Spouses Garcia, that the City Assessor merely committed an error when it declared the property for taxation purposes in the name of FGCI, appears to be suspect in the absence of any prompt and serious effort on their part to have it rectified before the onset of the instant controversy. The correction of entry belatedly sought by the Spouses Garcia is indicative of its intention to put the property beyond the reach of the judgment creditor. Every prevailing party to a suit enjoys the corollary right to the fruits of the judgment and, thus, court rules provide a procedure to ensure that every favorable judgment is fully satisfied.[27] It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the suit. Hailing it as the "life of the law," ratio legis est anima,[28] this Court has zealously guarded against any attempt to thwart the rigid rule and deny the prevailing litigant his right to savour the fruit of his victory.[29] A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty triumph for the prevailing party.[30]

GR No. 162100

2012-01-18

PENTA CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION v. TEODORO BAY

SERENO, J.

We are not convinced. The mere fact that RTC QC's subsequent computation applied rollovers is an insufficient basis to rule that these were proper. We stress that "execution must conform to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive part of the decision; consequently, where the order of execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, the order has pro tanto no validity."[38] In the present case, we observe that nowhere in the RTC QC judgment is there a provision calling for the "roll over" of the P185,000.00 and P 3,639,470.82 awards.

GR No. 168848

2009-06-30

HEIRS OF LATE JOSE DE LUZURIAGA v. REPUBLIC THRU OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

VELASCO JR., J.

Basic is the rule that execution must conform to what the decision dispositively decrees.[36] Logically, an execution is void if it does not strictly conform to every essential particulars of the judgment rendered.[37] Be that as it may, the issuance of the reconstituted title is rendered moot and ineffective by the grant of relief from judgment.

GR No. 180587

2009-03-20

SIMEON CABANG v. MR.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Furthermore, as a matter of settled legal principle, a writ of execution must adhere to every essential particulars of the judgment sought to be executed.[15] An order of execution may not vary or go beyond the terns of the judgment it seeks to enforce.[16] A writ of execution must conform to the judgment and if it is different from, goes beyond or varies the tenor of the judgment which gives it life, it is a nullity.[17] Otherwise stated, when the order of execution and the corresponding writ issued pursuant thereto is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, they have pro tanto no validity[18] - to maintain otherwise would be to ignore the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property without due process of law.[19]

GR No. 146157

2009-02-13

LA CAMPANA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of the law.[58] A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party.[59] Litigation must end sometime and somewhere. An effective and efficient administration of justice requires that once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must, therefore, guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.[60]

GR No. 150592

2009-01-20

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. CA

PUNO, C.J.

This Court has repeatedly held that execution is the final stage of litigation,[20] the fruit and end of the suit.[21] Thus, the proceedings before the RTC were not terminated by the filing of the appeal to the CA. The same could not be executed - hence, not yet terminated - until the appeal is decided with finality. Consequently, the proceedings before the RTC could be suspended in accordance with the SEC's stay order.

GR No. 174698

2008-07-28

AURORA TAMAYO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Well-settled is the rule that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer be disturbed, altered or modified in any respect except to correct clerical errors or to make nunc pro tunc entries.[34] Nothing further can be done to a final judgment except to execute it.[35] No court, not even this Court, has the power to revive, review, or modify a judgment which has become final and executory.[36] This rule is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that the judgment of the court must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[37] It is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause therein should be laid to rest.[38]

GR No. 173566

2008-07-04

SOLAR RESOURCES v. INLAND TRAILWAYS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioner's right to these levied properties is founded on its right, as a prevailing party, to enjoy the finality of the decision by execution and satisfaction of the judgment. It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the suit. Hailing it as the "life of the law," ratio legis est anima,[32] this Court has zealously guarded against any attempt to thwart the rigid rule and deny the prevailing litigant his right to savour the fruit of his victory. A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty triumph for the prevailing party.[33]

GR No. 168779

2007-09-14

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN S. GO

NACHURA, J.

The dispositive portion, or the fallo, is its decisive resolution and is thus the subject of execution.[25] Since the execution must conform to that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision,[26] the subject dispositive portion must provide the proper order for execution of the judgment. As we have held in the past, a judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party.[27] Hence, this Court must rectify the error.

GR No. 170563

2006-12-20

SPS. PEDRO AND PAZ SURTIDA v. RURAL BANK OF MALINAO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Irrefragably, when petitioners filed their petition in this Court, the Decision of the CA was already final and executory. The corresponding entry of judgment[24] was already made of record. Clearly then, the decision of the appellate court is immutable and unalterable. The rule is that a final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.[25] The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time.[26]

GR NO. 174153

2006-10-25

RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC

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]

GR NO. 170563

2005-12-20

SPS. PEDRO AND PAZ SURTIDA v. RURAL BANK OF MALINAO PROMULGATED:

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Irrefragably, when petitioners filed their petition in this Court, the Decision of the CA was already final and executory. The corresponding entry of judgment[24] was already made of record. Clearly then, the decision of the appellate court is immutable and unalterable. The rule is that a final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.[25] The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time.[26]

	GR No. 198139 2014-09-08	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. FELICISIMO TARCELO DEL CASTILLO, J.
It has always been the rule that "[t]he only portion of the decision that may be the subject of execution is that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion. Whatever may be found in the body of the decision can only be considered as part of the reasons or conclusions of the court and serve only as guides to determine the ratio decidendi."[44] "[W]here 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. While the body of the decision, order or resolution might create some ambiguity in the manner of 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 corresponding duties or obligation."[45] Thus, with the decretal portion of the trial court's November 7, 2005 Decision particularly stating that NPC shall have the lawful right to enter, take possession and acquire easement of right-of-way over the affected portions of respondents' properties upon the payment of just compensation, any order executing the trial court's Decision should be based on such dispositive portion. "An order of execution is based on the disposition, not on the body, of the decision."[46]
	GR No. 190106 2014-01-15	MAGDALENA T. VILLASI v. SPS. FILOMENO GARCIA PEREZ, J.
The explanation proffered by the Spouses Garcia, that the City Assessor merely committed an error when it declared the property for taxation purposes in the name of FGCI, appears to be suspect in the absence of any prompt and serious effort on their part to have it rectified before the onset of the instant controversy. The correction of entry belatedly sought by the Spouses Garcia is indicative of its intention to put the property beyond the reach of the judgment creditor. Every prevailing party to a suit enjoys the corollary right to the fruits of the judgment and, thus, court rules provide a procedure to ensure that every favorable judgment is fully satisfied.[27] It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the suit. Hailing it as the "life of the law," ratio legis est anima,[28] this Court has zealously guarded against any attempt to thwart the rigid rule and deny the prevailing litigant his right to savour the fruit of his victory.[29] A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty triumph for the prevailing party.[30]
	GR No. 162100 2012-01-18	PENTA CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION v. TEODORO BAY SERENO, J.
We are not convinced. The mere fact that RTC QC's subsequent computation applied rollovers is an insufficient basis to rule that these were proper. We stress that "execution must conform to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive part of the decision; consequently, where the order of execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, the order has pro tanto no validity."[38] In the present case, we observe that nowhere in the RTC QC judgment is there a provision calling for the "roll over" of the P185,000.00 and P 3,639,470.82 awards.
	GR No. 168848 2009-06-30	HEIRS OF LATE JOSE DE LUZURIAGA v. REPUBLIC THRU OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL VELASCO JR., J.
Basic is the rule that execution must conform to what the decision dispositively decrees.[36] Logically, an execution is void if it does not strictly conform to every essential particulars of the judgment rendered.[37] Be that as it may, the issuance of the reconstituted title is rendered moot and ineffective by the grant of relief from judgment.
	GR No. 180587 2009-03-20	SIMEON CABANG v. MR. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Furthermore, as a matter of settled legal principle, a writ of execution must adhere to every essential particulars of the judgment sought to be executed.[15] An order of execution may not vary or go beyond the terns of the judgment it seeks to enforce.[16] A writ of execution must conform to the judgment and if it is different from, goes beyond or varies the tenor of the judgment which gives it life, it is a nullity.[17] Otherwise stated, when the order of execution and the corresponding writ issued pursuant thereto is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, they have pro tanto no validity[18] - to maintain otherwise would be to ignore the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property without due process of law.[19]
	GR No. 146157 2009-02-13	LA CAMPANA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of the law.[58] A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party.[59] Litigation must end sometime and somewhere. An effective and efficient administration of justice requires that once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must, therefore, guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.[60]
	GR No. 150592 2009-01-20	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. CA PUNO, C.J.
This Court has repeatedly held that execution is the final stage of litigation,[20] the fruit and end of the suit.[21] Thus, the proceedings before the RTC were not terminated by the filing of the appeal to the CA. The same could not be executed - hence, not yet terminated - until the appeal is decided with finality. Consequently, the proceedings before the RTC could be suspended in accordance with the SEC's stay order.
	GR No. 174698 2008-07-28	AURORA TAMAYO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer be disturbed, altered or modified in any respect except to correct clerical errors or to make nunc pro tunc entries.[34] Nothing further can be done to a final judgment except to execute it.[35] No court, not even this Court, has the power to revive, review, or modify a judgment which has become final and executory.[36] This rule is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that the judgment of the court must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[37] It is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause therein should be laid to rest.[38]
	GR No. 173566 2008-07-04	SOLAR RESOURCES v. INLAND TRAILWAYS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner's right to these levied properties is founded on its right, as a prevailing party, to enjoy the finality of the decision by execution and satisfaction of the judgment. It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the suit. Hailing it as the "life of the law," ratio legis est anima,[32] this Court has zealously guarded against any attempt to thwart the rigid rule and deny the prevailing litigant his right to savour the fruit of his victory. A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty triumph for the prevailing party.[33]
	GR No. 168779 2007-09-14	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN S. GO NACHURA, J.
The dispositive portion, or the fallo, is its decisive resolution and is thus the subject of execution.[25] Since the execution must conform to that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision,[26] the subject dispositive portion must provide the proper order for execution of the judgment. As we have held in the past, a judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party.[27] Hence, this Court must rectify the error.
	GR No. 170563 2006-12-20	SPS. PEDRO AND PAZ SURTIDA v. RURAL BANK OF MALINAO CALLEJO, SR., J.
Irrefragably, when petitioners filed their petition in this Court, the Decision of the CA was already final and executory. The corresponding entry of judgment[24] was already made of record. Clearly then, the decision of the appellate court is immutable and unalterable. The rule is that a final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.[25] The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time.[26]
	GR NO. 174153 2006-10-25	RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC 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]
	GR NO. 170563 2005-12-20	SPS. PEDRO AND PAZ SURTIDA v. RURAL BANK OF MALINAO PROMULGATED: CALLEJO, SR., J.
Irrefragably, when petitioners filed their petition in this Court, the Decision of the CA was already final and executory. The corresponding entry of judgment[24] was already made of record. Clearly then, the decision of the appellate court is immutable and unalterable. The rule is that a final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.[25] The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time.[26]

VICENTE FLORENTINO v. RIVERA