This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-10-30 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| With regard to whether there was grave abuse of discretion on the issuance of the April 21, 1994 Order, the CA ruled that the CAR gravely misused its discretion considering that "once a decision becomes final, the Court can no longer amend, modify much less set aside the [decision]," citing Adez Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals;[11] and that "once a judgment has become final and executory, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to writ of execution, and the issuance thereof is a court's ministerial duty compellable by mandamus x x x," citing Valenzona v. Court of Appeals.[12] | |||||
|
2003-02-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the grounds adduced by complainants to quash the writ of execution, i.e., that the Decision in Civil Case No. 98-791 has not yet attained finality; that there was no opportunity given to complainant Go to oppose the motion for execution; and that a new trial should be conducted to determine the true amount of complainant Go's liability, are matters that have already been resolved and found to be unmeritorious. They also involve allegations that are easily proved as unmistakably false by a straightforward examination of the record of the civil case, i.e., complainant Go was given several opportunities to contest the motion for execution against him. Plainly, complainant's arguments do not justify a deferment of the execution of the trial court's Decision.[14] | |||||