This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-08-06 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The rule is that in case of ambiguity or uncertainty in the dispositive portion of a decision, the body of the decision may be scanned for guidance in construing the judgment.[31] After scrutiny of the subject decision, nowhere can it be found that the Court intended to delete the award of legal interest especially that, as Diesel argues, it was never raised. In fact, what the Court carefully reviewed was the principal amount awarded as well as the liquidated damages because they were specifically questioned. Recall that the CA modified the awards granted by the CIAC, but not the legal interest. In finally resolving the controversy, the Court affirmed the amount of unpaid balance of the contract price in favor of Diesel but expressly deleted the award of liquidated damages. There being no issue as to the legal interest, the Court did not find it necessary anymore to disturb the imposition of such. As correctly observed by the CA: x x x. A panoramic view of the case from its inception in the arbitral level to this Court and then to the Supreme Court reveals the context of the decisions rendered by the three (3) tribunals in its totality. The Supreme Court already took into context the previous decisions of public respondent CIAC and this Court which consistently included the payment of legal interest in their dispositive portions. Hence, the Supreme Court merely ruled on the current issues presented by petitioner which did not include legal interest. It is already an act of redundancy for it to repeat what had already been adequately settled and explained by public respondent CIAC and this Court.[32] | |||||
|
2014-08-06 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As a final note, it is herein reiterated that the manner of the execution of a final judgment is not a matter of "choice." As to how a judgment should be satisfied does not revolve upon the pleasure or discretion of a party unless the judgment itself 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." 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."[36] | |||||