small claim form/motion for execution

 

FORM 12-SCC

 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


 

 

 

                                                                           ,

Plaintiff,

 

vs.                                                                Civil Case No.               

For:                                  

                                                                           ,

Defendant.

x------------------------------------------------------- x

 

 

MOTION FOR EXECUTION

Plaintiff/Defendant, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges that:

1.        On                                   , a judgment was rendered by the  Court, the dispositive portion of which reads:

2.        The judgment is final, executory and unappealable.

3.        The defendant has not complied with the judgment.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that a writ of execution be issued to implement the judgment of the Court dated

                                        .

                                                 ,                                         .

 

 


Plaintiff/Defendant

NOTICE OF HEARING

 

NAME OF DEFENDANT (If filed by the Plaintiff) NAME OF PLAINTIFF (If filed by the Defendant)

 

NAME OF CLERK OF COURT

 

Please be notified that the undersigned will submit the foregoing motion for the consideration and approval of the Court on      

at                                .

 

         (place)     ,    (date)  .    

 


Plaintiff/Defendant

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

[ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Before this Court is a direct recourse from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via petition [1]  for review on the question of whether Section 5 [2]  of the  Judicial   Affidavit   Rule  (JAR) applies to hostile or adverse witnesses.  The petition seeks to annul and set aside the May 28, 2014 [3]  and August 27, 2014 [4]  Orders of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City in Civil Case No. 08-1028. This case stemmed from a collection suit filed by China Banking Corporation (China Bank) against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company Inc. (Ever), the heirs of Go Tong, Vicente Go, George Go and petitioner Ng Meng Tam sometime in December 2008.  China Bank alleged that it granted Ever a loan amounting to P5,532,331.63.  The loan was allegedly backed by two surety agreements executed by Vic...
Read more

DIGEST/ ANDRINO / RONALD GERALINO M. LIM and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners vs. EDWIN M. LIM, Respondent/2019

  Facts: Ronald Geralino M. Lim (Ronald) filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor a Complaint for grave threats against his brother Edwin M. Lim (Edwin). Acting favorably on the Complaint, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed an Information against Edwin before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Iloilo City. On arraignment, Edwin pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. The case was then referred to the Philippine Mediation Center for mediation. But due to the parties' failure to reach a settlement, the case was referred back to the court.  On August 12, 2013, the case was set for pre-trial. 1âшphi1  However, because of Ronald's and his counsel's absence, pre-trial was reset to September 5, 2013.  After Edwin's counsel had filed a Motion for time to submit a counter-affidavit, pre-trial was again reset to October 17, 2013. On October 17, 2013, the defense counsel moved that the hearing be set at 10:00 a.m. However, because the private pro...
Read more

DIGEST/ACOPIADO/ LARA GIFTS V. PNB 2018

Lara Gifts and Decors, Inc. vs. PNB GR. Nos. 230429-30| January 24, 2018 Digest by: A. Acopiado FACTS: Petitioner company insured a building with respondent bank. Sometime later, the subject of the insurance was gutted by fire. Respondent engaged services of independent appraisers for the fire loss, but the latter were unable to ascertain the damage due to petitioner’s failure to supply documents. Respondent thus denied the insurance claim.  Petitioner sued in the RTC. In the pre-trial the parties agreed to the facts and issues in dispute and the judge issued an order which stipulated that the parties agree to the presentation of additional evidence. None of the parties objected to the stipulation.  Sometime later, petitioner introduced an affidavit and documents which were not submitted in the pre-trial. Respondent objected stating that the same is violative of the judicial affidavit rule and the court memo governing pre-trial procedures and modes of discovery (A....
Read more