This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-04-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| While a judge may not be disciplined for error of judgment absent proof that such error was made with a conscious and deliberate intent to cause an injustice,[51] the facts on hand prove otherwise. Florin's issuance of the writ of execution and writ of possession in order to fully implement Regional Director Dalugdug's Order dated February 15, 1999 clearly constitutes ignorance of the law for as a rule, a writ of execution is issued only after the subject judgment or order has already become final and executory.[52] As aptly stated by IBP Commissioner San Juan, Florin ordered the issuance of such writs despite the pendency of the appeal with the DARAB.[53] Consequently, the Court finds merit in the recommendation of suspension. | |||||
|
2012-11-13 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Considering the finality of this Court's 23 November 2005 Decision affirming the Sandiganbayan's 14 March 2002 Decision in Civil Case No. 0022, we find that the Estate and HMHMI correctly argue against the disposition of the proceeds of TDC Nos. 162828 and 162829 in favor of the Republic by means of the writ of execution the latter sought a quo. Having been sourced from the disposition of said Liwayway shares, the proceeds of the subject TDCs cannot be released in favor of the Republic without varying the decision sought to be executed which, as admitted, did not make any determination regarding the validity of the ownership of the same shares and/or the legality of the transfer thereof. It is a matter of settled legal principle that a writ of execution must adhere to every essential particular of the judgment sought to be executed.[64] The writ cannot vary or go beyond the terms of the judgment and must conform to the dispositive portion thereof.[65] Time and again, it has been ruled that an order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment or, for that matter, exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.[66] | |||||
|
2012-01-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the family home is a sacred symbol of family love and is the repository of cherished memories that last during one's lifetime.[29] It is likewise without dispute that the family home, from the time of its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein, is generally exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment.[30] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Since the alias writ of execution did not conform, is different from and thus went beyond or varied the tenor of the judgment which gave it life, it is a nullity.[10] To maintain otherwise would be to ignore the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property without due process of law.[11] | |||||
|
2010-04-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, a question involving the regularity of notarization as well as the due execution of the subject sworn statement of Basilisa would require an inquiry into the appreciation of evidence by the trial court. It is not the function of this Court to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. A question of fact would arise in such event. Settled is the rule that questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court and are not proper for its consideration.[23] The rationale behind this doctrine is that a review of the findings of fact of the trial courts and the appellate tribunal is not a function this Court normally undertakes.[24] The Court will not weigh the evidence all over again unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower courts are totally devoid of support or are clearly erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.[25] Although there are recognized exceptions[26] to this rule, none exists in the present case to justify a departure therefrom. | |||||