Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHARLIE VIOS AND SPS. ROGELIO AND TERESITA ANTONIO v. MANUEL PANTANGCO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 192406 2015-01-21	ONE SHIPPING CORP. v. IMELDA C. PEÑAFIEL PERALTA, J.
'even be more intolerable than the wrong and injustice it is designed to correct.'[9]
	GR No. 192486 2012-11-21	RUPERTA CANO VDA. DE VIRAY v. SPS. JOSE USI AND AMELITA USI VELASCO JR., J.
Now then, it is a hornbook rule that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct 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, as what remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the judgment.[49] Any attempt to reopen a close case would offend the principle of res judicata.
	GR Nos. 177857-58 2012-01-24	PHILIPPINE COCONUT v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
Yu v. Yu,[105] as effectively reiterated in Vios v. Pantangco,[106] defines and explains the ramifications of the law of the case principle as follows: 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, ... so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.
	GR No. 188995 2011-08-24	EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY v. JOSE PULIDO BERSAMIN, J.
That pronouncement became the law of the case, anything to the contrary of which the petitioner could not validly rely upon. The doctrine of the law of the case means that whatever is irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule between the same parties in the same case, whether correct on general principles or not, continues to be the law of the case for as long as the facts on which the legal rule was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.[14] It applies in a situation where an appellate court has made a ruling on a question on appeal and thereafter remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings; the question then settled by the appellate court becomes the law of the case binding the lower court and any subsequent appeal,[15] and questions necessarily involved and dealt with in a former appeal will be regarded as the law of the case in a subsequent appeal, although the questions are not expressly treated in the opinion of the court, inasmuch as the presumption is that all the facts in the case bearing on the point decided have received due consideration whether all or none of them are mentioned in the opinion.[16]
	GR No. 188995 2011-08-24	EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY v. JOSE PULIDO BERSAMIN, J.
That pronouncement became the law of the case, anything to the contrary of which the petitioner could not validly rely upon. The doctrine of the law of the case means that whatever is irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule between the same parties in the same case, whether correct on general principles or not, continues to be the law of the case for as long as the facts on which the legal rule was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.[14] It applies in a situation where an appellate court has made a ruling on a question on appeal and thereafter remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings; the question then settled by the appellate court becomes the law of the case binding the lower court and any subsequent appeal,[15] and questions necessarily involved and dealt with in a former appeal will be regarded as the law of the case in a subsequent appeal, although the questions are not expressly treated in the opinion of the court, inasmuch as the presumption is that all the facts in the case bearing on the point decided have received due consideration whether all or none of them are mentioned in the opinion.[16]
	GR No. 153809 2011-07-27	ELOISA L. TOLENTINO v. ATTY. ROY M. LOYOLA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The law of the case doctrine applies in a situation where an appellate court has made a ruling on a question on appeal and thereafter remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings; the question settled by the appellate court becomes the law of the case at the lower court and in any subsequent appeal.[13]
	GR No. 160506 2011-06-06	JOEB M. ALIVIADO v. PROCTER DEL CASTILLO, J.
The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment of adjudicating bodies must become final and executory on some definite date fixed by law. [...], the Supreme Court reiterated that the doctrine of immutability of final judgment is adhered to by necessity notwithstanding occasional errors that may result thereby, since litigations must somehow come to an end for otherwise, it would 'even be more intolerable than the wrong and injustice it is designed to correct.' [21]