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. | |||||
|
2001-03-12 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In Bustos v. Court of Appeals,[42] we held that once a decision becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court to order its execution. Execution can be suspended when suspension is warranted by the higher interest of justice[43] and when certain facts and circumstances transpired after the finality of the judgment which would render the execution of judgment unjust.[44] Neither circumstance obtains in the present case. | |||||