Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

WILSON ONG CHING KIAN CHUNG and DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL LIBRARY v. CHINA NATIONAL CEREALS OIL

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR Nos. 167274-75 2013-09-11	CIR v. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
(b) where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in the body of the decision.[14]
	GR No. 163033 2009-10-02	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. EDUARDO L. TEODOSIO PERALTA, J.
Findings of the court are to be considered in the interpretation of the dispositive portion of the judgment.[43] Verily, to grasp and delve into the true intent and meaning of a decision, no specific portion thereof should be resorted to - the decision must be considered in its entirety. The Court may resort to the pleadings of the parties, its findings of fact and conclusions of law as expressed in the body of the decision to clarify any ambiguities caused by any inadvertent omission or mistake in the dispositive portion thereof.[44] This assures swift delivery of justice and avoids any protracted litigation anchored only on trivial matters as a result of any inadvertent omissions or mistakes in the fallo. Thus, to conform to the ratio, the date in the fallo when respondent became a regular employee should be modified from September 1996 to September 1992.
	GR NO. 137884 2008-03-28	INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
the opinion may be referred to for purposes of construing the judgment, because the dispositive part of a decision must find support from the decision's ratio decidendi;[43] and (b).where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in the body of the decision.[44] Considering the circumstances of the instant case, the Court finds that the exception to the general rule applies to the instant case. The RTC should have referred to the body of the decision for purposes of construing the reasonable compensation judgment, because the
	GR NO. 137884 2008-03-28	INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
the opinion may be referred to for purposes of construing the judgment, because the dispositive part of a decision must find support from the decision's ratio decidendi;[43] and (b).where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in the body of the decision.[44] Considering the circumstances of the instant case, the Court finds that the exception to the general rule applies to the instant case. The RTC should have referred to the body of the decision for purposes of construing the reasonable compensation judgment, because the
	GR NO. 137884 2008-03-28	INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
dispositive part of a decision must find support from the decision's ratio decidendi. Findings of the court are to be considered in the interpretation of the dispositive portion of the judgment.[45] Indeed, to grasp and delve into the true intent and meaning of a decision, no specific portion thereof should be resorted to - the decision must be considered in its entirety.[46] The Court may resort to the pleadings of the parties, its findings of fact
	GR NO. 150253 2006-11-30	DAVAO LIGHT v. ANTONIO G. DIAZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(b) where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in the body of the decision.[46]