Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 191555 2014-01-20	UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On November 9, 2005, the RTC issued an Order[46] denying the above-mentioned motion for lack of merit, holding that Union Bank's stated grounds were already addressed by the Court in the January 13, 2004 Decision in G.R. No. 155838. With Union Bank's motion for reconsideration therefrom having been denied, it filed a petition for certiorari[47] with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 93833.
	GR No. 191555 2014-01-20	UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Dissatisfied, Union Bank moved for reconsideration which was, however, denied by the Court in a Resolution dated March 24, 2004 with finality. Thus, the January 13, 2004 Decision attained finality on April 30, 2004.[41] Thereafter, DBP moved for the execution of the said decision before the RTC. After numerous efforts on the part of Union Bank proved futile, the RTC issued a writ of execution (September 6, 2005 Writ of Execution), ordering Union Bank to return to DBP all funds it received pursuant to the October 15, 2001 Writ of Execution.[42]
	GR No. 191555 2014-01-20	UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The aforementioned Court decision had already attained finality on April 30, 2004[55] and, hence, pursuant to the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, the facts and issues actually and directly resolved therein may not be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different cause of action.[56] Its pertinent portions are hereunder quoted for ready reference:[57]
	GR NO. 160358 2006-08-31	LYDIA LAO v. PHILIP KING GARCIA, J.
Concededly, it is a fundamental legal axiom that an order of execution must substantially conform to the dispositive portion of the decision sought to be executed. The order of execution may not vary, or go beyond, the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. If it does, the order is null and void.[7]
	GR NO. 164633 2006-08-07	GERONIMO S. BANQUERIGO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is a fundamental legal axiom that a Writ of Execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the decision sought to be executed.[18] Quite conspicuously, the final order sought to be executed by the 5 June 1995 Writ of Execution is the 5 December 1991 Order of Labor Secretary Torres and not the 12 April 1995 Notice of Computation/Execution issued by Regional Director Macaraya.