This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-03-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| and conclusions of law as expressed in the body of the decision to clarify any ambiguities caused by any inadvertent omission or mistake in the dispositive portion thereof.[47] In Reinsurance Company of the Orient, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[48] the Court held:In Republic Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Court applying the above doctrine said: x x x We clarify, in other words, what we did affirm. What is involved here is not what is ordinarily regarded as a clerical error in the dispositive part of the decision of the Court of First Instance, which type of error is perhaps best typified by an error in arithmetical computation. At the same time, what is involved here is not a correction of an erroneous judgment or dispositive portion of a judgment. What we believe is involved here is in the nature of an inadvertent omission on the part of the Court of First Instance (which should have been noticed by private respondent's counsel who had prepared the complaint), of what might be described as a logical follow-through of something set forth both in the body of the decision and in the dispositive portion thereof: the inevitable follow-through, or translation into, operational or behavioral terms, of the annulment of the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage, from which petitioners' title or claim of title embodied in TCT 133153 flow.[49] (Emphasis supplied) In the present case, the omission of the award of payment of rental from April 15, 1997 was obviously through mere inadvertence. The pleadings, findings of fact and conclusions of law of the MeTC bear out that upon the termination of the lease on April 15, 1997, Toyota's | |||||