Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

POLIAND INDUSTRIAL LIMITED v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 165907 2009-07-27	SPS. DOMINADOR R. NARVAEZ AND LILIA W. NARVAEZ v. SPS. ROSE OGAS ALCISO AND ANTONIO ALCISO CARPIO, J.
The rule is that only errors specifically assigned and properly argued in the appellant's brief will be considered, except jurisdictional and clerical errors.[24] However, the Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters not assigned as errors if their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision.[25]
	GR No. 168074 2008-09-26	EMPIRE EAST LAND HOLDINGS v. CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUPS NACHURA, J.
It is well established that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Supreme Court. It must be stressed that this Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties.[55] To be sure, findings of fact of lower courts are deemed conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court, save only in clear exceptional cases.[56]
	GR NO. 173076 2007-10-10	MT. CARMEL COLLEGE v. JOCELYN RESUENA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and accordingly DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED.[40] The general rule is that where there is conflict between the dispositive portion or the fallo and the body of the decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing.[41] Clearly, the award of backwages to respondents does not merely cover the period from 15 May 1998 up to 25 May 1999 alone.[42] The findings of the NLRC, which were affirmed with finality in CA-G.R. SP No. 80639, and subject of execution in the instant petition, pronounced:We rule that [respondents] were illegally dismissed and must therefore be ordered reinstated with payment of backwages from the time they were illegally dismissed up to the time of their actual reinstatement.
	GR NO. 164159 2007-07-17	HONORIO C. BULOS v. KOJI YASUMA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The general rule is that, where there is conflict between the dispositive portion or the fallo and the body of a decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing. However, where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision prevails.[34] In his complaint before the RTC, the respondent prayed for 20% of P2,240,000.00 as attorney's fees. In the body of the RTC decision, the trial court awarded outright respondent's prayer for attorney's fees without any discussion that it found the 20% respondent prayed for as excessive and that it was reducing the percentage of the attorney's fees to 10%. This court is more inclined to believe that the 10% attorney's fees in the body of the RTC decision is merely a typographical error. Consequently, the general rule applies to this case, and the 20% attorney's fees ordered paid by the fallo of the RTC decision controls.