Lawyerly

GR No. 206666

2015-01-21

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Other than the fallo, a decision or executory order contains a body the court's opinion explaining and discussing the decision. This opinion serves as the reason for the decision or order embodied in the fallo. In legalese, this opinion embodies the decision's ratio decidendi[54] or the matter or issue directly ruled upon and the terms and reasons for the ruling.

GR No. 180144

2014-09-24

LEONARDO BOGNOT v. RRI LENDING CORPORATION

BRION, J.

A solidary obligation is one in which each of the debtors is liable for the entire obligation, and each of the creditors is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the whole obligation from any or all of the debtors.[42] There is solidary liability when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides, or when the nature of the obligation so requires.[43] Thus, when the obligor undertakes to be "jointly and severally" liable, the obligation is solidary,

GR No. 198139

2014-09-08

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. FELICISIMO TARCELO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It has always been the rule that "[t]he only portion of the decision that may be the subject of execution is that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion. Whatever may be found in the body of the decision can only be considered as part of the reasons or conclusions of the court and serve only as guides to determine the ratio decidendi."[44] "[W]here there is a conflict between the dispositive portion of the decision and the body thereof, the dispositive portion controls irrespective of what appears in the body of the decision. While the body of the decision, order or resolution might create some ambiguity in the manner of the court's reasoning preponderates, it is the dispositive portion thereof that finally invests rights upon the parties, sets conditions for the exercise of those rights, and imposes corresponding duties or obligation."[45] Thus, with the decretal portion of the trial court's November 7, 2005 Decision particularly stating that NPC shall have the lawful right to enter, take possession and acquire easement of right-of-way over the affected portions of respondents' properties upon the payment of just compensation, any order executing the trial court's Decision should be based on such dispositive portion. "An order of execution is based on the disposition, not on the body, of the decision."[46]

GR No. 170139

2014-08-05

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES

LEONEN, J.

The fundamental effect of joint and several liability is that "each of the debtors is liable for the entire obligation."[138] A final determination may, therefore, be achieved even if only one of the joint and several debtors are impleaded in an action. Hence, in the case of overseas employment, either the local agency or the foreign employer may be sued for all claims arising from the foreign employer's labor law violations. This way, the overseas workers are assured that someone the foreign employer's local agent may be made to answer for violations that the foreign employer may have committed.

GR No. 188944

2014-07-09

SPS. RODOLFO BEROT AND LILIA BEROT v. FELIPE C. SIAPNO

SERENO, C.J.

The law further provides that to consider the obligation as solidary in nature, it must expressly be stated as such, or the law or the nature of the obligation itself must require solidarity. In PH Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[25] we held that: A solidary obligation is one in which each of the debtors is liable for the entire obligation, and each of the creditors is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the whole obligation from any or all of the debtors. On the other hand, a joint obligation is one in which each debtors is liable only for a proportionate part of the debt, and the creditor is entitled to demand only a proportionate part of the credit from each debtor. The well-entrenched rule is that solidary obligations cannot be inferred lightly. They must be positively and clearly expressed. A liability is solidary "only when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides or when the nature of the obligation so requires."

GR No. 125078

2011-05-30

BERNABE L. NAVIDA v. TEODORO A. DIZON

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It is true that, under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for the same quasi-delict is solidary. A solidary obligation is one in which each of the debtors is liable for the entire obligation, and each of the creditors is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the whole obligation from any or all of the debtors.[81]

GR No. 160610

2009-08-14

JUDELIO COBARRUBIAS v. PEOPLE

CARPIO, J.

The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the fallo, or the dispositive part, and the body of the decision or order, the fallo prevails on the theory that the fallo is the final order and becomes the subject of execution, while the body of the decision merely contains the reasons or conclusions of the court ordering nothing.[18] However, where one can clearly and unquestionably conclude from the body of the decision that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.[19] Thus, in Spouses Rebuldea v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[20] the Court held that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion when it corrected the dispositive portion of its decision to make it conform to the body of the decision, and to rectify the clerical errors which interchanged the mortgagors and the mortgagee.

GR No. 169536

2007-09-21

REMIGIA GRAGEDA v. NIMFA C. GOMEZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

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.[21] An order of execution is based on the disposition, not on the body, of the Decision.[22] 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.[23]

GR No. 168779

2007-09-14

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN S. GO

NACHURA, J.

The dispositive portion, or the fallo, is its decisive resolution and is thus the subject of execution.[25] Since the execution must conform to that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision,[26] the subject dispositive portion must provide the proper order for execution of the judgment. As we have held in the past, a judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party.[27] Hence, this Court must rectify the error.

GR NO. 174153

2006-10-25

RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)[4] and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department)[5] and by adding Article XVIII entitled "Transitory Provisions."[6] These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The Lambino Group prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters' ratification: DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER? On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative.[7]

GR NO. 163605

2006-09-20

GIL M. CEMBRANO v. CITY OF BUTUAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The petitioners and the respondent City are correct in their contention that the general rule is that the fallo or the dispositive portion of the decision is the subject of execution. Where there is a conflict between the dispositive portion and the opinion of the court contained in the text or body of the decision, the former must prevail over the latter on the theory that the dispositive portion is the final order, while the opinion is merely a statement ordering nothing.[67] The other parts of the decision may be resorted to in order to determine the ratio decidendi of the dispositive portion of the decision.[68] Where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.[69]

GR No. 153535

2005-07-28

SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORPORATION

PANGANIBAN, J.

Furthermore, nothing supports the alleged joint liability of the individual petitioners because, as correctly pointed out by the two lower courts, the evidence shows that there is only one debtor: the corporation. In a joint obligation, there must be at least two debtors, each of whom is liable only for a proportionate part of the debt; and the creditor is entitled only to a proportionate part of the credit.[15]

GR No. 154127

2003-12-08

ROMEO C. GARCIA v. DIONISIO V. LLAMAS

PANGANIBAN, J.

It must be noted that in a solidary obligation, the creditor is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the whole obligation from any or all of the debtors.[26] It is up to the former to determine against whom to enforce collection.[27] Having made himself jointly and severally liable with De Jesus, petitioner is therefore liable[28] for the entire obligation.[29]

	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Other than the fallo, a decision or executory order contains a body the court's opinion explaining and discussing the decision. This opinion serves as the reason for the decision or order embodied in the fallo. In legalese, this opinion embodies the decision's ratio decidendi[54] or the matter or issue directly ruled upon and the terms and reasons for the ruling.
	GR No. 180144 2014-09-24	LEONARDO BOGNOT v. RRI LENDING CORPORATION BRION, J.
A solidary obligation is one in which each of the debtors is liable for the entire obligation, and each of the creditors is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the whole obligation from any or all of the debtors.[42] There is solidary liability when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides, or when the nature of the obligation so requires.[43] Thus, when the obligor undertakes to be "jointly and severally" liable, the obligation is solidary,
	GR No. 198139 2014-09-08	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. FELICISIMO TARCELO DEL CASTILLO, J.
It has always been the rule that "[t]he only portion of the decision that may be the subject of execution is that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion. Whatever may be found in the body of the decision can only be considered as part of the reasons or conclusions of the court and serve only as guides to determine the ratio decidendi."[44] "[W]here there is a conflict between the dispositive portion of the decision and the body thereof, the dispositive portion controls irrespective of what appears in the body of the decision. While the body of the decision, order or resolution might create some ambiguity in the manner of the court's reasoning preponderates, it is the dispositive portion thereof that finally invests rights upon the parties, sets conditions for the exercise of those rights, and imposes corresponding duties or obligation."[45] Thus, with the decretal portion of the trial court's November 7, 2005 Decision particularly stating that NPC shall have the lawful right to enter, take possession and acquire easement of right-of-way over the affected portions of respondents' properties upon the payment of just compensation, any order executing the trial court's Decision should be based on such dispositive portion. "An order of execution is based on the disposition, not on the body, of the decision."[46]
	GR No. 170139 2014-08-05	SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES LEONEN, J.
The fundamental effect of joint and several liability is that "each of the debtors is liable for the entire obligation."[138] A final determination may, therefore, be achieved even if only one of the joint and several debtors are impleaded in an action. Hence, in the case of overseas employment, either the local agency or the foreign employer may be sued for all claims arising from the foreign employer's labor law violations. This way, the overseas workers are assured that someone the foreign employer's local agent may be made to answer for violations that the foreign employer may have committed.
	GR No. 188944 2014-07-09	SPS. RODOLFO BEROT AND LILIA BEROT v. FELIPE C. SIAPNO SERENO, C.J.
The law further provides that to consider the obligation as solidary in nature, it must expressly be stated as such, or the law or the nature of the obligation itself must require solidarity. In PH Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[25] we held that: A solidary obligation is one in which each of the debtors is liable for the entire obligation, and each of the creditors is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the whole obligation from any or all of the debtors. On the other hand, a joint obligation is one in which each debtors is liable only for a proportionate part of the debt, and the creditor is entitled to demand only a proportionate part of the credit from each debtor. The well-entrenched rule is that solidary obligations cannot be inferred lightly. They must be positively and clearly expressed. A liability is solidary "only when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides or when the nature of the obligation so requires."
	GR No. 125078 2011-05-30	BERNABE L. NAVIDA v. TEODORO A. DIZON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is true that, under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for the same quasi-delict is solidary. A solidary obligation is one in which each of the debtors is liable for the entire obligation, and each of the creditors is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the whole obligation from any or all of the debtors.[81]
	GR No. 160610 2009-08-14	JUDELIO COBARRUBIAS v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the fallo, or the dispositive part, and the body of the decision or order, the fallo prevails on the theory that the fallo is the final order and becomes the subject of execution, while the body of the decision merely contains the reasons or conclusions of the court ordering nothing.[18] However, where one can clearly and unquestionably conclude from the body of the decision that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.[19] Thus, in Spouses Rebuldea v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[20] the Court held that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion when it corrected the dispositive portion of its decision to make it conform to the body of the decision, and to rectify the clerical errors which interchanged the mortgagors and the mortgagee.
	GR No. 169536 2007-09-21	REMIGIA GRAGEDA v. NIMFA C. GOMEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
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.[21] An order of execution is based on the disposition, not on the body, of the Decision.[22] 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.[23]
	GR No. 168779 2007-09-14	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN S. GO NACHURA, J.
The dispositive portion, or the fallo, is its decisive resolution and is thus the subject of execution.[25] Since the execution must conform to that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision,[26] the subject dispositive portion must provide the proper order for execution of the judgment. As we have held in the past, a judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party.[27] Hence, this Court must rectify the error.
	GR NO. 174153 2006-10-25	RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)[4] and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department)[5] and by adding Article XVIII entitled "Transitory Provisions."[6] These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The Lambino Group prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters' ratification: DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER? On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative.[7]
	GR NO. 163605 2006-09-20	GIL M. CEMBRANO v. CITY OF BUTUAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
The petitioners and the respondent City are correct in their contention that the general rule is that the fallo or the dispositive portion of the decision is the subject of execution. Where there is a conflict between the dispositive portion and the opinion of the court contained in the text or body of the decision, the former must prevail over the latter on the theory that the dispositive portion is the final order, while the opinion is merely a statement ordering nothing.[67] The other parts of the decision may be resorted to in order to determine the ratio decidendi of the dispositive portion of the decision.[68] Where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.[69]
	GR No. 153535 2005-07-28	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
Furthermore, nothing supports the alleged joint liability of the individual petitioners because, as correctly pointed out by the two lower courts, the evidence shows that there is only one debtor: the corporation. In a joint obligation, there must be at least two debtors, each of whom is liable only for a proportionate part of the debt; and the creditor is entitled only to a proportionate part of the credit.[15]
	GR No. 154127 2003-12-08	ROMEO C. GARCIA v. DIONISIO V. LLAMAS PANGANIBAN, J.
It must be noted that in a solidary obligation, the creditor is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the whole obligation from any or all of the debtors.[26] It is up to the former to determine against whom to enforce collection.[27] Having made himself jointly and severally liable with De Jesus, petitioner is therefore liable[28] for the entire obligation.[29]

PH CREDIT CORPORATION v. CA