This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A review of similar jurisprudence would tell us that this Court had repeatedly recognized this distinction and awarded interest at a rate of 6% on actual or compensatory damages arising from a breach not only of construction contracts,[28] such as the one subject of this case, but also of contracts wherein one of the parties reneged on its obligation to perform messengerial services,[29] deliver certain quantities of molasses,[30] undertake the reforestation of a denuded forest land,[31] as well as breaches of contracts of carriage,[32] and trucking agreements.[33] We have explained therein that the reason behind such is that said contracts do not partake of loans or forbearance of money but are more in the nature of contracts of service. | |||||
|
2007-10-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Padillo v. Court of Appeals,[35] this Court had the occasion to explain this principle thus: Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. 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. As a general rule, a decision on a prior appeal of the same case is held to be the law of the case whether that question is right or wrong, the remedy of the party deeming himself aggrieved being to seek a rehearing. | |||||