This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-03-31 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, a writ of execution should strictly conform to every particular of the judgment to be executed, and not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce, nor may it go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed; the execution is void if it is in excess of and beyond the original judgment or award.[21] | |||||
|
2013-10-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The manner of execution of a final judgment is not a matter of "choice". It does not revolve upon the pleasure or discretion of a party as to how a judgment should be satisfied, unless the judgment expressly provides for such discretion. Foremost rule in execution of judgments is that "a writ of execution must conform strictly to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated, and may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce, nor may it go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed."[30] As a corollary rule, the Court has clarified that "a judgment is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision, but extends as well to those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto."[31] | |||||
|
2013-10-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The "some other person appointed by the court" can be the Branch Clerk of Court,[38] the Sheriff,[39] or even the Register of Deeds,[40] and their acts when done under such authority shall have the effect of having been done by Raymundo himself. A party cannot frustrate execution of a judgment for a specific act on the pretext of inability to do so as the Rules provide ample means by which it can be satisfied. | |||||
|
2011-09-21 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The imposition of treble costs of suit on the petitioners is meant to remind them and their attorney that the extent that an attorney's exercise of his professional responsibility for their benefit as his clients submits to reasonable limits beyond which he ought to go no further, and that his failure to recognize such limits will not be allowed to go unsanctioned by the Court. Thus, the Court has not hesitated to impose treble costs of suit (a) to stress its dislike for "any scheme to prolong litigation" or for "an unwarranted effort to avoid the implementation of a judgment painstakingly arrived at;"[18] (b) to sanction an appeal that was obviously interposed "for the sole purpose of delay;"[19] (c) to disapprove of the party's "lack of good and honest intentions, as well as the evasive manner by which it was able to frustrate (the adverse party's) claim for a decade;"[20] (d) to stifle a party's deplorable propensity to "go to extreme lengths to evade complying with their duties under the law and the orders of this Court" and thereby to cause the case to drag "for far too long with practically no end in sight;"[21] (e) to condemn the counsel's frantic search for "any ground to resuscitate his client's lost cause;"[22] and (f) to reiterate that a litigant, although his right to initiate an action in court is fully respected, is not permitted to initiate similar suits once his case has been adjudicated by a competent court in a valid final judgment, in the hope of securing a favorable ruling "for this will result to endless litigations detrimental to the administration of justice."[23] | |||||