Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OSCAR D. RAMOS v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 157810 2012-02-15	ROLANDO SOFIO v. ALBERTO I. VALENZUELA BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioners insist that the CA's denial of their motion to recall entry of judgment denied them fair play, justice, and equity; that pursuant to Ramos v. Court of Appeals,[23] a final and executory judgment may be amended under compelling circumstances; and that a compelling circumstance applicable to them was that their former counsel, Atty. Romulo A. Deles, had been guilty of gross negligence for not filing their appellee's brief in the CA, and for not filing a motion for reconsideration against the May 27, 1998 decision of the CA.
	GR No. 157810 2012-02-15	ROLANDO SOFIO v. ALBERTO I. VALENZUELA BERSAMIN, J.
Ramos v. Court of Appeals,[29] which the petitioners cited to buttress their plea for the grant of their motion to recall entry of judgment, is not pertinent. There, the Court allowed a clarification through a nunc pro tunc amendment of what was actually affirmed through the assailed judgment "as a logical follow through of the express or intended operational terms" of the judgment.
	GR NO. 127301 2007-03-14	DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET v. CITY GOVERNMENT OF CEBU AZCUNA, J.
Clarification after final judgment is allowed when what is involved is a clerical error or not an erroneous judgment or dispositive portion of the Decision.[15]
	AM NO. MTJ-05-1605 2006-06-08	PEDRO C. ABESA v. JUDGE JOSE P. NACIONAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In this light, length of service is not a magic word that once invoked will automatically be considered as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the party invoking it. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.[19]In Gallo v. Judge Cordero,[20] we imposed a fine ofP10,000 on the respondent municipal judge not only for impropriety in meeting with a litigant in his office but also for gross ignorance of the law and procedure regarding the disposition of the criminal complaint before him.[21] In the present case,respondent is not charged with gross ignorance of the law and procedure; neither has it been shown that he acted with malice or evil intent. Thus, under the circumstances, the Court deems it appropriate to reprimand respondent with a stern warning that the repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.