This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-11 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Respondent Commissioner, on the other hand, argues that per the CTA, no reversible error may be attributed to the tax court in rejecting, without more, the prayer for the additional writ of execution pertaining to CTA Case No. 6612, subject of CA G.R. SP No. 83165. For the purpose, the Commissioner cited a catena of cases on the limits of a writ of execution. It is pointed out that such writ must conform to the judgment to be executed; its enforcement may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce, nor go beyond its terms. As further asseverated, "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 while they may serve as guide or enlightenment to determine the ratio decidendi, what is controlling is what appears in the dispositive part of the decision."[7] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| We have always recognized the general rule that in appellate proceedings, the reversal of the judgment on appeal is binding only on the parties in the appealed case and does not affect or inure to the benefit of those who did not join or were not made parties to the appeal. An exception to the rule exists, however, where a judgment cannot be reversed as to the party appealing without affecting the rights of his co-debtor, or where the rights and liabilities of the parties appealing are so interwoven and dependent on each other as to be inseparable, in which case a reversal as to one operates as a reversal as to all. This exception which is based on a communality of interest of said parties is recognized in this jurisdiction.[25] (emphasis supplied) | |||||