Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 160758 2014-01-15	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. GUARIÑA AGRICULTURAL BERSAMIN, J.
other cases.[42] For practical considerations, indeed, once the appellate court has issued a pronouncement on a point that was presented to it with full opportunity to be heard having been accorded to the parties, the pronouncement should be regarded as the law of the case and should not be reopened on remand of the case to determine other issues of the case, like damages.[43] But the law of the case, as the name implies, concerns only legal questions or issues thereby adjudicated in the former appeal. The foregoing understanding of the concept of the law of the case exposes DBP's insistence to be unwarranted.
	GR No. 169214 2013-06-19	SPS. MANUEL SY AND VICTORIA SY v. GENALYN D. YOUNG BRION, J.
The rationale behind this rule is to enable an 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 upon any and every subsequent appeal. Without it, there would be endless litigation. Litigants would be free to speculate on changes in the personnel of a court, or on the chance of our rewriting propositions once gravely ruled on solemn argument and handed down as the law of a given case.[23]
	GR No. 178158 2009-12-04	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RADSTOCK SECURITIES LIMITED CARPIO, J.
Law of the case is defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. More specifically, it means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule 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 facts of the case before the court,[115] notwithstanding that the rule laid down may have been reversed in other cases.[116] Indeed, after the appellate court has issued a pronouncement on a point presented to it with a full opportunity to be heard having been accorded to the parties, that pronouncement should be regarded as the law of the case and should not be reopened on a remand of the case.[117]