Lawyerly

GR No. 169254

2012-08-23

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former 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.[52]

GR No. 183122

2011-06-15

GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION v. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION

PEREZ, J.

The conflicting decisions in CA-G.R. CEB-SP Nos. 02226 and 02232 would have been, in the first place, avoided had the CA consolidated said cases pursuant to Section 3, Rule III of its 2002 Internal Rules (IRCA). [39] Being intimately and substantially related cases, their consolidation should have been ordered to avert the possibility of conflicting decisions in the two cases. [40] Although rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction acting within its authority, neither one of said decisions can, however, be invoked as law of the case insofar as the other case is concerned. The doctrine of "law of the case" 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, [41] so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. [42] Considering that a decision becomes the law of the case once it attains finality, [43] it is evident that, without having achieved said status, the herein assailed decisions cannot be invoked as the law of the case by either GMC or the Union.

GR No. 185020

2010-10-06

FILOMENA R. BENEDICTO v. ANTONIO VILLAFLORES

NACHURA, J.

It is settled that the award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the general rule; counsel's fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. Attorney's fees, as part of damages, are not necessarily equated to the amount paid by a litigant to a lawyer. In the ordinary sense, attorney's fees represent the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter; while in its extraordinary concept, they may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party. Attorney's fees as part of damages are awarded only in the instances specified in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. As such, it is necessary for the court to make findings of fact and law that would bring the case within the ambit of these enumerated instances to justify the grant of such award, and in all cases it must be reasonable.[18]

GR No. 164186

2010-10-04

FINANCIAL BUILDING CORPORATION v. RUDLIN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The counterclaim for attorney's fees must likewise be denied. We have stressed that the award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule, as they are not always awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. Attorney's fees as part of damages is awarded only in the instances specified in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. [48]

GR No. 179756

2009-10-02

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION

CARPIO MORALES, J.

There is bar by prior judgment when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Where there is identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, there is conclusiveness of judgment.[33] The first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined, not as to matters merely involved therein.

GR No. 175960

2008-02-19

PADILLA MACHINE SHOP v. Petitioners

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Finally, there is no merit in petitioners' claim that attorney's fees may not be awarded to the respondent since his case was being handled pro bono by the U.P. Office of Legal Aid, which provides free legal assistance to indigent litigants. In this jurisdiction, there are two concepts of attorney's fees. In the ordinary sense, attorney's fees represent the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. On the other hand, in its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party,[15] and not counsel. In its extraordinary sense, attorney's fees as part of damages is awarded only in the instances specified in Article 2208 of the Civil Code,[16] among which are the following which obtain in the instant case:(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;

GR No. 155033

2007-12-19

ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In addition, and with respect to Benjamin, the Court agrees with the CA that in the absence of a wrongful act or omission, or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded.[28] The adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful, or the party liable for it.[29] One may err, but error alone is not a ground for granting such damages.[30] In the absence of malice and bad faith, the mental anguish suffered by a person for having been made a party in a civil case is not the kind of anxiety which would warrant the award of moral damages.[31]

GR NO. 157911

2006-09-19

SPS. MANUEL A. AGUILAR AND YOLANDA C. AGUILAR v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Petitioners are barred from raising the issue on the prescription of execution of the decision by mere motion under the principle of the "law of the case," which is the practice of courts in refusing to reopen what has been decided. 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.[58]

GR NO. 157557

2006-03-10

REPUBLIC v. RAMON YU

There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But where there is identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is "conclusiveness of judgment." [17] Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action. [18] The identity of causes of action is not required but merely identity of issues.[19]

GR NO. 154973

2005-06-21

PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS LIQUIDATOR OF PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION v. WILFREDO D. REYES

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.

According to the principle of the law of the case, "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."[17] To this the Court must adhere, whether the legal principles laid down were "correct on general principles or not," or "whether the question is right or wrong."[18]

GR NO. 137775

2005-03-31

FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION v. ANG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The contention is without merit. There can be no res judicata as between Civil Case No. R-19341 and the case at bar. In order for res judicata to be made applicable in a case, the following essential requisites must be present: 1) the former judgment must be final; 2) the former judgment must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; 3) the former judgment must be a judgment or order on the merits; and 4) there must be between the first and second action identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of action.[6]

GR No. 139278

2004-10-25

CLEMENT L. CUCUECO v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, 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.[19] 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.[20]

GR No. 146364

2004-06-03

COLITO T. PAJUYO v. CA

CARPIO, J.

[83] Padillo v. Court of Appeals, 442 Phil. 344 (2001).

GR No. 154411

2003-06-19

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO GUIVELONDO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

After the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to dismiss or discontinue the proceeding except on such terms as the court deems just and equitable. (underscoring ours) In the case at bar, petitioner did not appeal the Order of the trial court dated December 10, 1999, which declared that it has a lawful right to expropriate the properties of respondent Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo. Hence, the Order became final and may no longer be subject to review or reversal in any court.[33] A final and executory decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may be. Although judicial determinations are not infallible, judicial error should be corrected through appeals, not through repeated suits on the same claim.[34]

	GR No. 169254 2012-08-23	DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former 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.[52]
	GR No. 183122 2011-06-15	GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION v. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
The conflicting decisions in CA-G.R. CEB-SP Nos. 02226 and 02232 would have been, in the first place, avoided had the CA consolidated said cases pursuant to Section 3, Rule III of its 2002 Internal Rules (IRCA). [39] Being intimately and substantially related cases, their consolidation should have been ordered to avert the possibility of conflicting decisions in the two cases. [40] Although rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction acting within its authority, neither one of said decisions can, however, be invoked as law of the case insofar as the other case is concerned. The doctrine of "law of the case" 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, [41] so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. [42] Considering that a decision becomes the law of the case once it attains finality, [43] it is evident that, without having achieved said status, the herein assailed decisions cannot be invoked as the law of the case by either GMC or the Union.
	GR No. 185020 2010-10-06	FILOMENA R. BENEDICTO v. ANTONIO VILLAFLORES NACHURA, J.
It is settled that the award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the general rule; counsel's fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. Attorney's fees, as part of damages, are not necessarily equated to the amount paid by a litigant to a lawyer. In the ordinary sense, attorney's fees represent the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter; while in its extraordinary concept, they may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party. Attorney's fees as part of damages are awarded only in the instances specified in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. As such, it is necessary for the court to make findings of fact and law that would bring the case within the ambit of these enumerated instances to justify the grant of such award, and in all cases it must be reasonable.[18]
	GR No. 164186 2010-10-04	FINANCIAL BUILDING CORPORATION v. RUDLIN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The counterclaim for attorney's fees must likewise be denied. We have stressed that the award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule, as they are not always awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. Attorney's fees as part of damages is awarded only in the instances specified in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. [48]
	GR No. 179756 2009-10-02	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
There is bar by prior judgment when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Where there is identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, there is conclusiveness of judgment.[33] The first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined, not as to matters merely involved therein.
	GR No. 175960 2008-02-19	PADILLA MACHINE SHOP v. Petitioners YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Finally, there is no merit in petitioners' claim that attorney's fees may not be awarded to the respondent since his case was being handled pro bono by the U.P. Office of Legal Aid, which provides free legal assistance to indigent litigants. In this jurisdiction, there are two concepts of attorney's fees. In the ordinary sense, attorney's fees represent the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. On the other hand, in its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party,[15] and not counsel. In its extraordinary sense, attorney's fees as part of damages is awarded only in the instances specified in Article 2208 of the Civil Code,[16] among which are the following which obtain in the instant case:(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
	GR No. 155033 2007-12-19	ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In addition, and with respect to Benjamin, the Court agrees with the CA that in the absence of a wrongful act or omission, or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded.[28] The adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful, or the party liable for it.[29] One may err, but error alone is not a ground for granting such damages.[30] In the absence of malice and bad faith, the mental anguish suffered by a person for having been made a party in a civil case is not the kind of anxiety which would warrant the award of moral damages.[31]
	GR NO. 157911 2006-09-19	SPS. MANUEL A. AGUILAR AND YOLANDA C. AGUILAR v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioners are barred from raising the issue on the prescription of execution of the decision by mere motion under the principle of the "law of the case," which is the practice of courts in refusing to reopen what has been decided. 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.[58]
	GR NO. 157557 2006-03-10	REPUBLIC v. RAMON YU
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But where there is identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is "conclusiveness of judgment." [17] Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action. [18] The identity of causes of action is not required but merely identity of issues.[19]
	GR NO. 154973 2005-06-21	PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS LIQUIDATOR OF PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION v. WILFREDO D. REYES DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
According to the principle of the law of the case, "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."[17] To this the Court must adhere, whether the legal principles laid down were "correct on general principles or not," or "whether the question is right or wrong."[18]
	GR NO. 137775 2005-03-31	FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION v. ANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The contention is without merit. There can be no res judicata as between Civil Case No. R-19341 and the case at bar. In order for res judicata to be made applicable in a case, the following essential requisites must be present: 1) the former judgment must be final; 2) the former judgment must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; 3) the former judgment must be a judgment or order on the merits; and 4) there must be between the first and second action identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of action.[6]
	GR No. 139278 2004-10-25	CLEMENT L. CUCUECO v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, 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.[19] 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.[20]
	GR No. 146364 2004-06-03	COLITO T. PAJUYO v. CA CARPIO, J.
[83] Padillo v. Court of Appeals, 442 Phil. 344 (2001).
	GR No. 154411 2003-06-19	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO GUIVELONDO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
After the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to dismiss or discontinue the proceeding except on such terms as the court deems just and equitable. (underscoring ours) In the case at bar, petitioner did not appeal the Order of the trial court dated December 10, 1999, which declared that it has a lawful right to expropriate the properties of respondent Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo. Hence, the Order became final and may no longer be subject to review or reversal in any court.[33] A final and executory decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may be. Although judicial determinations are not infallible, judicial error should be corrected through appeals, not through repeated suits on the same claim.[34]

VERONICA PADILLO v. CA