Friday, September 14, 2012

"Law of the case doctrine" - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/august2012/169254.pdf

sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/august2012/169254.pdf

"x x x.


We note that both G.R. No. 168477 and this petition are offshoots of petitioner’s purported temporary measures to preserve its neutrality with regard to the perceived void in the union leadership. While these two cases arose out of different notices to strike filed on April 3, 2003 and August 27, 2003, it is undeniable that the facts cited and the arguments raised by
petitioner are almost identical. Inevitably, G.R. No. 168477 and this petition seek only one relief, that is, to absolve petitioner from respondent’s charge of committing an unfair labor practice, or specifically, a violation of Article 248(g) in relation to Article 252 of the Labor Code.

For this reason, we are constrained to apply the law of the case doctrine in light of the finality of our July 20, 2005 and September 21, 2005 resolutions in G.R. No. 168477. In other words, our previous affirmance of the Court of Appeals’ finding – that petitioner erred in suspending collective
bargaining negotiations with the union and in placing the union funds in escrow considering that the intra-union dispute between the Aliazas and BaƱez factions was not a justification therefor — is binding herein.

Moreover, we note that entry of judgment in G.R. No. 168477 was made on November 3, 2005, and that put to an end to the litigation of said issues once and for all.51

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

x x x."