This case has been cited 22 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, when an appeal raises only pure questions of law, it is this Court that has the sole jurisdiction to entertain the same. On the other hand, appeals involving both questions of law and fact fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CA.[30] | |||||
|
2015-04-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| As we see matters, the question before us is what the law is on the offense Benitez committed based on the facts of the case, which we find to be clearly a question of law.[27] It does not involve the probative value of the evidence adduced, which is a question of fact.[28] We thus find no procedural infirmity in the petition. | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence dictates that there is a "question of law" when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts or circumstances; on the other hand, there is a "question of fact" when the issue raised on appeal pertains to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The test for determining whether the supposed error was one of "law" or "fact" is not the appellation given by the parties raising the same; rather, it is whether the reviewing court can resolve the issues raised without evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is one of fact.[35] In other words, where there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether or not the conclusions drawn from these facts are correct is a question of law.[36] However, if the question posed requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relationship to each other, the issue is factual.[37] | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The Court ruled in favor of Land Bank. For both Land Bank and Suntay (including his assignee Lubrica), the holding in Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R. No. 157903) became the law of the case that now controlled the course of subsequent proceedings in the RTC as a Special Agrarian Court. In Cucueco v. Court of Appeals,[81] the Court defined law of the case as "the opinion delivered on a former appeal." Law of the case 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.[82] With the pronouncement in G.R. No. 157903 having undeniably become the law of the case between the parties, we cannot pass upon and rule again on the same legal issue between the same parties. | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court has, on many occasions, distinguished between a question of law and a question of fact. We held that when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, then it is a question of law; but when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts, then it is a question of fact. [58] "Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct, is a question of law." [59] To elucidate further, this Court, in Hko Ah Pao v. Ting [60] said: One test to determine if there exists a question of fact or law in a given case is whether the Court can resolve the issue that was raised without having to review or evaluate the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it will be a question of fact. Thus, the petition must not involve the calibration of the probative value of the evidence presented. In addition, the facts of the case must be undisputed, and the only issue that should be left for the Court to decide is whether or not the conclusion drawn by the CA from a certain set of facts was appropriate. [61] (Emphases ours.) | |||||
|
2011-04-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[54] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| And relying on the Court's pronouncement in Cucueco v. Court of Appeals[50] on the principle of the "law of the case," OSCI asserts that the ruling of the July 30, 1999 NLRC Decision, remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter for clarificatory hearings requiring the personal appearance of Bastol and the testimonies of Dr. Lim and Dr. Vicaldo, may no longer be disturbed and must be complied with. Thus, it argues that the non-compliance thereof and the belated submission of an alleged affidavit by Dr. Vicaldo are clear contraventions of the prevailing "law of the case" as embodied in the final and executory July 30, 1999 NLRC Decision. | |||||
|
2009-12-08 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The issues and arguments in the instant petition were already included in the issues and arguments raised and resolved in G.R. No. 158308.[29] The Court En Banc's June 17, 2003 Resolution should, thus, have put to rest the issue of the validity of the subject information. Yet, petitioners would have us now revisit the same issue in the instant petition. This cannot be done. Under the principle of the law of the case, when a question is passed upon by an appellate court and the case is subsequently remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, the question becomes settled upon a subsequent appeal. 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.[30] Thus, considering that the validity of the information has long been settled in G.R. No. 158308, the Sandiganbayan properly granted the motion to suspend the accused pendente lite. | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The foregoing ruling lays to rest the issue concerning the propriety of the COMELEC's recommendation and directive in its February 28, 2003 resolution for the filing of disqualification proceedings against petitioners. It is a basic legal principle that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the 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.[18] We, thus, agree with petitioners that the COMELEC erred in ordering the docketing of the electoral aspect of the complaint as a disqualification case. | |||||
|
2009-07-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| There is a "question of law" when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts, and which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a "question of fact" when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct, is a question of law.[27] | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The foregoing ruling is the law of the case and thus lays to rest the issues posed by petitioner in his assignment of errors. We see no reason in this case to deviate therefrom. It is a basic legal principle that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the 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.[5] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
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.[38] Thus, the court reviewing the succeeding appeal will not re-litigate the case but instead apply the ruling in the previous appeal. This enables the appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently which would be impossible if a question, once considered and decided by it, were to be litigated anew in the same case and upon any and subsequent appeal.[39] | |||||
|
2009-04-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The petition asks for a review of the CA's assailed ruling remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter for hearing on the merits. This necessarily requires a determination of whether the parties' submissions sufficiently provide a basis for the appellate court to decide the case on the merits. In order to resolve this issue, as we held in Cucueco v. Court of Appeals,[43] we only need to look into the pleadings and the parties' submissions without necessarily going into the truth or falsity of the allegations and submissions made. | |||||
|
2007-02-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Consequently, the issue involving the binding effect of the injunction issued by the Quezon City RTC became the law of the case between the parties. Under this legal principle, whatever is irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, so long as the facts on which the decision was predicated continue.[12] Stated otherwise, the doctrine holds that once an appellate court has declared the law in a case that declaration continues to hold even in subsequent appeal.[13] The reason lies in the fact that public policy dictates that litigations must be terminated at some definite time and that the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party.[14] | |||||
|
2007-02-02 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| There is a "question of fact" when "the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts."[41] This is distinguished from a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[24] For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[25] The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[26] Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[27] | |||||
|
2006-06-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| A question of fact exists when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. If the query requires a reevaluation of the credibility of witnesses or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, the issue in that query is factual. On the other hand, there is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts and which does not call for an existence of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. In a case involving a question of law, the resolution of the issue rests solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.[27] Ordinarily, the determination of whether an appeal involves only questions of law or both questions of law and fact is best left to the appellate court.[28] All doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of the appellate court will be resolved in favor of the CA unless it commits an error or commits a grave abuse of discretion.[29] | |||||
|
2006-03-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, 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" (Emphasis and underscoring supplied, italics in the original)[22] WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The August 10, 2004 decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another is entered DISMISSING Pasay City Regional Trial Court Sp. Proc. No. 03-0048-CFM and ordering Branch 69 of Pasig City Regional Trial Court to continue, with dispatch, the proceedings in JDRC No. 6190. | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal.[19] 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.[20] 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.[21] Since this Court's Decision in G.R. No. 94918 has already attained finality, its ruling that herein complainant and her siblings are deemed heirs of Marcelo Suarez has become immutable and, therefore, controlling. Hence, respondent judge's reliance on Yaptinchay is misplaced. | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Necessarily, the validity of the arbitral award became the law of the case between the parties. Under this legal principle, whatever is 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 the decision was predicated continues.[22] Otherwise stated, the principle holds that once an appellate court has declared the law in a case, that declaration continues to hold even in a subsequent appeal.[23] Reasons of public policy, judicial orderliness and economy require such stability in the final judgments of courts or tribunals of competent jurisdiction.[24] | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| the same parties in the 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.[13] IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on February 18, 2004 is hereby LIFTED. | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, under the principle of law of the case, said ruling of the CA is now binding on petitioners. Such principle was elucidated in Cucueco vs. Court of Appeals,[6] to wit: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. | |||||