This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-10-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Armovit Law Firm, in insisting on its claim, pins its entire case on the statement in the body of the Decision that "we do not find Atty. Armovit's claim for `twenty percent of all recoveries' to be unreasonable."[27] In this regard, our ruling in Grageda v. Gomez [28] is enlightening: It is basic that when there is a conflict between the dispositive portion or fallo of a Decision and the opinion of the court contained in the text or body of the judgment, the former prevails over the latter. An order of execution is based on the disposition, not on the body, of the Decision. 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. | |||||