This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-08-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Nunc pro tunc is Latin for "now for then." Its purpose is to put on record an act which the court performed, but omitted from the record through inadvertence or mistake.[53] It is neither intended to render a new judgment nor supply the court's inaction.[54] In other words, a nunc pro tunc entry may be used to make the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it did not speak but ought to have spoken.[55] | |||||
|
2013-09-11 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| After a scrutiny of the body of the aforesaid July 21, 2008 Decision, the Court finds it necessary to render a judgment nunc pro tunc and address an error in the fallo of said decision. The office of a judgment nunc pro tunc is to record some act of the court done at a former time which was not then carried into the record, and the power of a court to make such entries is restricted to placing upon the record evidence of judicial action which has actually been taken.[9] The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the rendering of a new judgment and the ascertainment and determination of new rights, but is one placing in proper form on the record, that has been previously rendered, to make it speak the truth, so as to make it show what the judicial action really was, not to correct judicial errors, such as to render a judgment which the court ought to have rendered, in place of the one it did erroneously render, not to supply non-action by the court, however erroneous the judgment may have been.[10] The Court would thus have the record reflect the deliberations and discussions had on the issue. In this particular case it is a correction of a clerical, not a judicial error. The body of the decision in question is clear proof that the fallo must be corrected, to properly convey the ruling of this Court. | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the rendering of a new judgment and the ascertainment and determination of new rights, but is one placing in proper form on the record, the judgment that had been previously rendered, to make it speak the truth, so as to make it show what the judicial action really was, not to correct judicial errors, such as to render a judgment which the court ought to have rendered, in place of the one it did erroneously render, nor to supply nonaction by the court, however erroneous the judgment may have been. (Wilmerding vs. Corbin Banking Co., 28 South., 640, 641; 126 Ala., 268.)[30] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A nunc pro tunc entry in practice is an entry made now of something which was actually previously done, to have effect as of the former date. Its office is not to supply omitted action by the court, but to supply an omission in the record of action really had, but omitted through inadvertence or mistake. (Perkins vs. Haywood, 31 N. E., 670, 672.)[19] | |||||
|
2008-07-21 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| We do not agree, however, with the appellate court's ruling that the sale should be considered a pactum commissorium prohibited under Article 2088 of the Civil Code.[21] There is no stipulation in any of the contracts between the parties which states that ownership of the property in question shall automatically vest in petitioner upon respondents' failure to perform their obligations under the mortgage contract, which is the essence of pactum commissorium.[22] There does not even appear to have been any demand or default yet. That the parties entered into a separate Deed of Absolute Sale is proof that there was no automatic transfer of ownership. | |||||