This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-12-18 |
|||||
| We likewise made the same holding in Pelayo v. Perez :[42] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. It is a term applied to an established rule that when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal. It 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, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.[35] Indeed, courts must adhere thereto, whether the legal principles laid down were "correct on general principles or not" or "whether the question is right or wrong" because public policy, judicial orderliness and economy require such stability in the final judgments of courts or tribunals of competent jurisdiction.[36] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal.[23] More specifically, it 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, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.[24] Indeed, courts must adhere thereto, because public policy, judicial orderliness and economy require such stability in the final judgments of courts or tribunals of competent jurisdiction.[25] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' asseveration deserves scant consideration. Pelayo v. Perez[6] is closely analogous to the present case. Petitioners in Pelayo also sent their motion for reconsideration of the decision of the CA through a private messengerial service, hence, said motion was deemed filed on the date of actual receipt thereof. The CA ruled that the motion was filed beyond the reglementary period. In said case, this Court ruled thus: Petitioners never denied the CA finding that their motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period. On that point alone, the CA is correct in denying due course to said motion. The motion having been belatedly filed, the CA Decision had then attained finality. Thus, in Abalos vs. Philex Mining Corporation, we held that: x x x Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.[7] (Emphasis ours) The foregoing ruling finds exact application in the present case. | |||||
|
2005-11-15 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Law of the case is the opinion delivered on a former appeal.[36] It applies to an established rule that when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal.[37] It further 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, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.[38] | |||||