This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-09-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It is clear from the pleadings submitted before PAGC - particularly in the Affidavit Complaint filed by CELLDA against Cataquiz and in the Counter-Affidavit submitted by the latter - that the resolution referred to as having been violated by the respondent was Board Resolution No. 28, and not No. 68, as was erroneously indicated in the PAGC Resolution. Thus, pursuant to the rule that the judgment should be in accordance with the allegations and the evidence presented,[53] the typographical error contained in the PAGC Resolution can be amended. Clerical errors or any ambiguity in a decision can be rectified even after the judgment has become final by reference to the pleadings filed by the parties and the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the court.[54] | |||||
|
2001-10-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| As early as Locsin v. Paredes[16] we ruled that the trial judge may clarify omissions and set forth specificities that can be ascertained from the allegation of the complaint, the prayer thereof, the evidence and the conclusions of fact and law.[17] With more reason should this rule apply in the instant case considering that the dispositive portion of the Resolution-Order itself carries the standard by which to determine petitioner's legal fees, and the failure to specify the amount so collectible is a mere omission that the court may correct even at finality of judgment by supplemental or amended order.[18] | |||||