Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ASB DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 165887 2011-06-06	MAJORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. MIGUEL LIM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The petitioners majority stockholders and China Bank cannot be permitted to raise any issue again regarding the validity of any assignment of credit made during the effectivity of the suspension order and before the finality of the September 18, 2002 Order lifting the same. While China Bank is not precluded from questioning the validity of the December 20, 1983 suspension order on the basis of res judicata, it is, however, barred from doing so by the principle of law of the case. We have held that when the validity of an interlocutory order has already been passed upon on appeal, the Decision of the Court on appeal becomes the law of the case between the same parties. 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 of 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."[75]
	GR No. 185644 2010-03-02	HEIRS OF ESTELITA BURGOS-LIPAT v. HEIRS OF EUGENIO D. TRINIDAD CORONA, J.
In Lipat,[16] this Court upheld the RTC decision giving petitioners five months and 17 days from the finality of the trial court's decision to redeem their foreclosed property. Lipat, already final and executory, has therefore become the law of the case between the parties, including their heirs who are petitioners and respondents in this case. In Union Bank of the Philippines v. ASB Development Corporation,[17] we explained: Law of the case has been defined as "the opinion delivered on a former appeal. More specifically, it means that whatever is already 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."[18]