Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 161596 2013-02-20	ROBERTO BORDOMEO v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
On December 24, 1997,[29] Secretary Quisumbing, affirming his August 27, 1996 order, denied IPI's Motion for Reconsideration for being rendered moot and academic by the full satisfaction of the May 24, 1995 writ of execution. He also denied Atty. Arnado's omnibus motion for lack of merit; and dealt with the issue involving the June 5, 1995 writ of execution issued in favor of the second group of employees, which the Court eventually resolved in the decision promulgated in G.R. No. 164633.[30]
	GR No. 174209 2009-08-25	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. RIZALINA RAUT NACHURA, J.
Petitioner's contention splits hairs. Indeed, an order of execution must conform to the decision sought to be enforced.[7] The Labor Arbiter's order of execution does ostensibly appear to increase the original judgment award if, as what petitioner has done, only the dispositive portions of the lower tribunals' decisions are laid out. However, we point out that the Labor Arbiter's decision specifically declared "that the [respondents] were never the employees of Peerless Integrated Services, Inc., as they were all the time employees of [petitioner]."