Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GREATER METROPOLITAN MANILA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE v. JANCOM ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 209672-74 2015-01-14	EDMUND SIA v. WILFREDO ARCENAS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
As already discussed, the judgment in SCA No. V-7075 sought to be enforced in the case at bar only declared valid the auction sale where petitioner bought the subject lots, and accordingly ordered the City Treasurer to issue a Final Bill of Sale to petitioner. Since the said judgment did not order that the possession of the subject lots be vested unto petitioner, the RTC Br. 15 substantially varied the terms of the aforesaid judgment and thus, exceeded its authority in enforcing the same when it issued the corresponding writs of possession and demolition to vest unto petitioner the possession of the subject lots. It is well-settled that orders pertaining to execution of judgments must substantially conform to the dispositive portion of the decision sought to be executed. As such, it may not vary, or go beyond, the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce.[58] Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has no validity.[59] Had the petitioner pursued an action for ejectment or reconveyance, the issuance of writs of possession and demolition would have been proper; but not in a special civil action for mandamus, as in this case.
	GR No. 188051 2010-11-22	ASIA UNITED BANK v. GOODLAND COMPANY NACHURA, J.
Under Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court, for a substitution of attorney to be effectual, the following essential requisites must concur: (1) there must be a written application for substitution; (2) it must be filed with the written consent of the client; (3) it must be with the written consent of the attorney substituted; and (4) in case the consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot be obtained, there must at least be proof of notice that the motion for substitution was served on him in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Court. [17]
	GR No. 182485 2009-07-03	SPS. HENRY O AND PACITA CHENG v. SPS. JOSE JAVIER AND CLAUDIA DAILISAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is basic that the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution the issuance of which is the trial court's ministerial duty, compellable by mandamus.[27] However, the prevailing party must comply with the time limitations in enforcing judgments. Section 6, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court states that:A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations. The purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations for enforcing judgments by action is to prevent obligors from sleeping on their rights.[28]
	AM No. MTJ-08-1698 2008-03-03	JAIME RACINES v. JUDGE JOSE P. MORALLOS and SHERIFF III BENJAMIN CABUSAO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court is not convinced. It is presumed that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act[22] and unless the requirements for proper substitution were made, a lawyer enjoys the presumption of authority given him by his client.[23] Racines does not deny that the signatures in the pleadings were his. He also does not claim that he was prevented by Atty. Manalad from reading the contents thereof. He only said that since he fully trusted Atty. Manalad he immediately signed the documents. From the foregoing, it is clear that Racines acquiesced and gave his stamp of approval to the pleadings filed in court. Considering however that he is not learned in the intricacies of law, the Court finds the penalty of reprimand with warning to be sufficient in his case.[24]
	GR No. 131913 2007-06-08	SPS. DELIO GUINYAWAN AND EMILIA GUINYAWAN v. LOUISA AYOGAT AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The next question then is whether the questioned writ of execution and sheriff's return exceeded the scope of the January 31, 1992 RTC Decision, as modified by the May 30, 1994 CA Decision. It is axiomatic that a writ of execution that varies a final judgment may be struck down.[60] To determine whether the December 1, 1997 Writ of Execution suffers from such infirmity, its text has to be examined. The writ reads in part:Whereas, the Second Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila, rendered a Decision on appeal in the above-entitled case docketed as CA-GR-No. 37446 dated March 30, 1994, the dispositive portion of which, reads as follows: