LAW OF THE CASE
(Not an absolute law, just a common law)T
he Law of the case is a legal term of art that is applicable mainly incommon law, or Anglo-American, jurisdictions that recognize the related doctrine of stare decisis. The phrase refers to instances where "rulings made by a trial court and not challenged on appeal become the law of the case." [1] "Unless the trial court's rulings were clearly in error or there has been an important change in circumstances, the Court's prior rulings must stand." [2] Usually the situation occurs when either a case is on appeal for the second time--e.g., if the reviewing court remanded the matter back to the trial court and the party appeals again, or the case was appealed to a higher appellate court--for example, from an appellate court to the highest court.As generally used, the term law of the case designates the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.[3]The doctrine provides that an appellate court’s determination on a legal issue is binding on both the trial court on remand and an appellate court on a subsequent appeal given the same case and substantially the same facts.[4]Law of the case, however, is one of policy only and will be disregarded when compelling circumstances call for a redetermination of the determination of a point of law on prior appeal, and this is particularly true where an intervening or a contemporaneous change in law has occurred by overruling former decisions or the establishment of new precedent by controlling authority.[5]The law of the case doctrine precludes reconsideration of a previously decided issue unless one of three "exceptional circumstances" exists: (1) when substantially different evidence is raised at a subsequent trial; (2) when a subsequent contrary view of the law is decided by the controlling authority; or (3) when a decision is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.
JM Tuason v Mariano GR. No. L-33140 10.23.78
F: The case involves the question of validity of ownership of a land title of the petitioners filed by the respondents. A previous civil case was already decided upon by the court upholding the validity of said title owned by the petitioners. The petitioners herein filed a motion for certiorari and prohibition.
I: WON the respondents may still question the validity of said land title.
R: The court held they cannot question an issue that has already been decided by the court in finality. The validity of said title is no longer open for attack as it is against public policy that matters already decided on its merits be re-litigated once again.
Buaya v Stronghold GR. No, 139020 10.11.00F: Stronghold filed a case against Buaya who is the manager of its Cebu branch for recovery of un-remitted collection of money. The lower court ruled on Stronghold’s favor. Buaya appealed before the CA which ruled in his favor remanding the case back to the lower court. Subsequent hearings were set with failure of Buaya and his counsel to appear many times until Stronghold filed a petition to reinstate the previous decision of the court. The court decision becomes final and executory and it denied all other appeals made before it. Buaya thus herein files a motion for certiorari.
I: (1) Can a decision from the lower court that is annulled by the appellate court be reinstated by the same court that rendered the decision; (2) When the appellate court annuls the decision of the lower court on grounds of failure to give notice to Buaya at pre-trial and remanded it back to the said lower court, does the proceeding in the lower court merely requires presentation of evidence by Buaya alone without requiring Stronghold to present its evidence for cross examination by Buaya.
R: (1) On annulled decision, the court correct that the CA did not annulled the lower court’s decision but merely set aside to allow petitioner to present his evidence. There is nothing wrong when the court reinstated its decision after failure of petitioner to present evidence despite the ample time given for him to do so. It is also required for the petitioner to attach an authentic copy of the original decision to support his claim that the CA annulled the lower court’s decision. Failure to comply said requirement is a ground for dismissal of petition.(2) On final and executory judgment, it becomes the law of the case regardless of claims that it is erroneous. Final judgments are decisions rendered by court with competent jurisdiction acting within its authority and its judgment cannot be altered even at risk of occasional legal infirmities of errors it may contain. Litigation must end sometime and somewhere. In view of efficient and effective administration of judgment once a decision has become final, the prevailing party should not be deprived of the favorable judgment rendered upon them on suits involving the same issues and parties.
Argel v Pascua A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131 8.20.01
F: Petitioner who was charged with murder was previously acquitted by Judge Pascua. After his acquittal, said Judge modified her decision on the account that she made a mistake of rendering her previous judgment believing there was no witness against the accused due to the fact that the testimony of the witness was not attached to the records when she wrote her decision. After finding the accused guilty of murder she ordered the arrest of the accused.
I: WON a final judgment by the court can be susceptible for amendment or modification.
R: No. The final judgment becomes the law of the case and is immune from alteration or modification regardless of claims of incorrectness or error. A judgment of acquittal in criminal cases becomes immediately effective upon its promulgation. It cannot be recalled for amendment only in case of any clerical error, clarify any ambiguity caused by omission or mistake in the dispositive portion. The inherent power of the court to modify its decision does not extend to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case.
(Not an absolute law, just a common law)T
he Law of the case is a legal term of art that is applicable mainly incommon law, or Anglo-American, jurisdictions that recognize the related doctrine of stare decisis. The phrase refers to instances where "rulings made by a trial court and not challenged on appeal become the law of the case." [1] "Unless the trial court's rulings were clearly in error or there has been an important change in circumstances, the Court's prior rulings must stand." [2] Usually the situation occurs when either a case is on appeal for the second time--e.g., if the reviewing court remanded the matter back to the trial court and the party appeals again, or the case was appealed to a higher appellate court--for example, from an appellate court to the highest court.As generally used, the term law of the case designates the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.[3]The doctrine provides that an appellate court’s determination on a legal issue is binding on both the trial court on remand and an appellate court on a subsequent appeal given the same case and substantially the same facts.[4]Law of the case, however, is one of policy only and will be disregarded when compelling circumstances call for a redetermination of the determination of a point of law on prior appeal, and this is particularly true where an intervening or a contemporaneous change in law has occurred by overruling former decisions or the establishment of new precedent by controlling authority.[5]The law of the case doctrine precludes reconsideration of a previously decided issue unless one of three "exceptional circumstances" exists: (1) when substantially different evidence is raised at a subsequent trial; (2) when a subsequent contrary view of the law is decided by the controlling authority; or (3) when a decision is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.
JM Tuason v Mariano GR. No. L-33140 10.23.78
F: The case involves the question of validity of ownership of a land title of the petitioners filed by the respondents. A previous civil case was already decided upon by the court upholding the validity of said title owned by the petitioners. The petitioners herein filed a motion for certiorari and prohibition.
I: WON the respondents may still question the validity of said land title.
R: The court held they cannot question an issue that has already been decided by the court in finality. The validity of said title is no longer open for attack as it is against public policy that matters already decided on its merits be re-litigated once again.
Buaya v Stronghold GR. No, 139020 10.11.00F: Stronghold filed a case against Buaya who is the manager of its Cebu branch for recovery of un-remitted collection of money. The lower court ruled on Stronghold’s favor. Buaya appealed before the CA which ruled in his favor remanding the case back to the lower court. Subsequent hearings were set with failure of Buaya and his counsel to appear many times until Stronghold filed a petition to reinstate the previous decision of the court. The court decision becomes final and executory and it denied all other appeals made before it. Buaya thus herein files a motion for certiorari.
I: (1) Can a decision from the lower court that is annulled by the appellate court be reinstated by the same court that rendered the decision; (2) When the appellate court annuls the decision of the lower court on grounds of failure to give notice to Buaya at pre-trial and remanded it back to the said lower court, does the proceeding in the lower court merely requires presentation of evidence by Buaya alone without requiring Stronghold to present its evidence for cross examination by Buaya.
R: (1) On annulled decision, the court correct that the CA did not annulled the lower court’s decision but merely set aside to allow petitioner to present his evidence. There is nothing wrong when the court reinstated its decision after failure of petitioner to present evidence despite the ample time given for him to do so. It is also required for the petitioner to attach an authentic copy of the original decision to support his claim that the CA annulled the lower court’s decision. Failure to comply said requirement is a ground for dismissal of petition.(2) On final and executory judgment, it becomes the law of the case regardless of claims that it is erroneous. Final judgments are decisions rendered by court with competent jurisdiction acting within its authority and its judgment cannot be altered even at risk of occasional legal infirmities of errors it may contain. Litigation must end sometime and somewhere. In view of efficient and effective administration of judgment once a decision has become final, the prevailing party should not be deprived of the favorable judgment rendered upon them on suits involving the same issues and parties.
Argel v Pascua A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131 8.20.01
F: Petitioner who was charged with murder was previously acquitted by Judge Pascua. After his acquittal, said Judge modified her decision on the account that she made a mistake of rendering her previous judgment believing there was no witness against the accused due to the fact that the testimony of the witness was not attached to the records when she wrote her decision. After finding the accused guilty of murder she ordered the arrest of the accused.
I: WON a final judgment by the court can be susceptible for amendment or modification.
R: No. The final judgment becomes the law of the case and is immune from alteration or modification regardless of claims of incorrectness or error. A judgment of acquittal in criminal cases becomes immediately effective upon its promulgation. It cannot be recalled for amendment only in case of any clerical error, clarify any ambiguity caused by omission or mistake in the dispositive portion. The inherent power of the court to modify its decision does not extend to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case.
RSS Feed