This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-04-22 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Here, the Province failed to refute that it received a copy of the Civil Service Commission's April 14, 2008 Resolution. It was given an opportunity to be heard, which is the essence of administrative due process.[103] It did not even justify why it failed to file a motion for reconsideration despite its receipt of the Civil Service Commission's Resolution. Contrary to the Province's claim, there was no extrinsic fraud since the Province was not prevented "from fully and fairly presenting [its] defense[.]"[104] The Civil Service Commission correctly denied the Province's Petition for Relief. | |||||
|
2013-08-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Thus, our 2007 Decision unequivocally affirmed the CA Decision dated 14 May 2004[88] without modification. Since there is no qualification stated in either the body or the dispositive portion, the ordinary and literal meaning of the word "affirm" should prevail, that is, that the CA Decision had been affirmed in its entirety; including the five-year limit imposed by the appellate court.[89] This Court in Jose Clavano, Inc. v. HLURB[90] reiterated previous rulings wherein We nullified orders that veered away from the dispositive portion of final judgments:Clearly, there is nothing in the body much less in the dispositive portion of the HLURB Decision nor in the pleadings of the parties from where we may deduce that petitioner must pay for the amounts spent in transferring title to private respondents. It is well-settled that under these circumstances no process may be issued to enforce the asserted legal obligation. In De la Cruz Vda. de Nabong v. Sadang we nullified an order requiring an indemnity bond since the requirement was not contained in the dispositive part of the final judgment. Similarly in Supercars, Inc. v. Minister of Labor we set aside the award of backwages for the period that the writ of execution was unserved since the final and executory decision of the Minister of Labor merely directed the reinstatement of the laborers to their former positions. Finally, David v. Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals mandating the payment of simple legal interest only with nothing said about compounded interest since the judgment sought to be executed therein ordered the payment of simple legal interest only and held nothing about payment of compounded interest. This Court can do no less than follow these precedents in the instant petition. | |||||