This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-06-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The conflicting decisions in CA-G.R. CEB-SP Nos. 02226 and 02232 would have been, in the first place, avoided had the CA consolidated said cases pursuant to Section 3, Rule III of its 2002 Internal Rules (IRCA). [39] Being intimately and substantially related cases, their consolidation should have been ordered to avert the possibility of conflicting decisions in the two cases. [40] Although rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction acting within its authority, neither one of said decisions can, however, be invoked as law of the case insofar as the other case is concerned. The doctrine of "law of the case" means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, [41] so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. [42] Considering that a decision becomes the law of the case once it attains finality, [43] it is evident that, without having achieved said status, the herein assailed decisions cannot be invoked as the law of the case by either GMC or the Union. | |||||