Doctrine of the Law of the Case
Petitioner seeks the nullification of the 1996 amendment. The 2000 case of Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & de los Angeles, v. Home Development Mutual Fund has done so, however:
In the present case, when the Board of Trustees of the HDMF required in Section 1, Rule VII of the 1995 Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 7742 that employers should have both provident/retirement and housing benefits for all its employees in order to qualify for exemption from the Fund, it effectively amended Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. And when the Board subsequently abolished that exemption through the 1996 Amendments, it repealed Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. Such amendment and subsequent repeal of Section 19 are both invalid, as they are not within the delegated power of the Board. The HDMF cannot, in the exercise of its rule-making power, issue a regulation not consistent with the law it seeks to apply. Indeed, administrative issuances must not override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out. Only Congress can repeal or amend the law.
In affirming respondents denial of petitioners request for waiver from Fund coverage for the year 1996, the appellate court harped on the law of the case doctrine. Thus it held:
Undisputedly, petitioners application anew for waiver/exemption from Fund coverage is anchored on the decision of the Supreme Court in the China Bank case which declared as null and void Section 1 of Rule VII of the Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. [No.] 7742, and HDMF Circular No. 124-B prescribing the Revised Guidelines and Procedure for Filing Applications for Waiver or Suspension of Fund coverage under P.D. [No.] 1752, as amended by R.A. No. 7742. It is in this view that petitioner contends that respondent should have considered its application for waiver/exemption from the coverage of the Fund. On the other hand, respondent invoked the doctrine of the law of the case pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 132416 in denying petitioners application for waiver/exemption from the Fund coverage.
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 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. Contrary to respondents position the law of the case doctrine applies only to the application for waiver/exemption for Fund coverage for the year 1996 and not to the applications for the succeeding years in view of the subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court in the China Bank case. The Supreme Court's decision, which attained finality, limited itself only to petitioners application for waiver/exemption from Fund coverage for the year 1996. Apparently, petitioner applied for waiver/exemption from Fund coverage for the years 1996-2000 by virtue of the decision in the China Bank case. Thus, except for year 1996, respondent may still consider the remaining years, as they are not covered by the earlier application that was denied by the respondent and eventually decided by the Supreme Court with finality. Succinctly stated, the decision of the Supreme Court in the earlier case became the law of the case only for petitioners application for the year 1996. x x x
Expounding on the doctrine of the law of the case, the Supreme Court, in Villa v. Sandiganbayan, held:
The doctrine has been defined as that principle under which determination of questions of law will generally be held to govern a case throughout all its subsequent stages where such determination has already been made on a prior appeal to a court of last resort. It is merely a rule of procedure and does not go to the power of the court, and will not be adhered to where its application will result in an unjust decision. It relates entirely to questions of law, and is confined in its operation to subsequent proceedings in the same case.
In Jarantilla v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held:
Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. It is a rule of general application that the decision of an appellate court in a case is the law to the case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings in the case in both the trial and appellate courts and no question necessarily involved and decided on that appeal will be considered on a second appeal or writ of error in the same case, provided the facts and issues are substantially the same as those on which the first question rested and, according to some authorities, provided the decision is on the merits.
The doctrine of the law of the case does not apply to the present case vis-a-vis the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 132416. The present case is not a subsequent proceeding of the same case G.R. No. 132416. This is an entirely new one which was commenced by petitioners filing of an original petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Court of Appeals against respondent.
Even assuming arguendo that the present proceeding may be considered a subsequent proceeding of G.R. No. 132416, the doctrine of the law of the case just the same does not apply because the said case was not resolved on the merits. The Order of the Supreme Court denying petitioners petition for review in G.R. No. 132416 found no reversible error in the Order of the Quezon City RTC, Branch 222 dismissing petitioners case primarily on a procedural ground failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
At all events, the doctrine is merely a rule of procedure and does not go to the power of the court, and will not be adhered to where its application will result in an unjust decision. To sustain respondents refusal to grant a waiver of Fund coverage to petitioner on the basis of amendments to implementing rules which had priorly been declared null and void by the Supreme Court would certainly be unjust.
In fine, the doctrine of the law of the case cannot be made to apply to the case at bar, hence, petitioners application for waiver from Fund coverage for the year 1996 must be processed by respondent. (G.R. No. 171438; December 19, 2007)
In affirming respondents denial of petitioners request for waiver from Fund coverage for the year 1996, the appellate court harped on the law of the case doctrine. Thus it held:
Undisputedly, petitioners application anew for waiver/exemption from Fund coverage is anchored on the decision of the Supreme Court in the China Bank case which declared as null and void Section 1 of Rule VII of the Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. [No.] 7742, and HDMF Circular No. 124-B prescribing the Revised Guidelines and Procedure for Filing Applications for Waiver or Suspension of Fund coverage under P.D. [No.] 1752, as amended by R.A. No. 7742. It is in this view that petitioner contends that respondent should have considered its application for waiver/exemption from the coverage of the Fund. On the other hand, respondent invoked the doctrine of the law of the case pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 132416 in denying petitioners application for waiver/exemption from the Fund coverage.
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 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. Contrary to respondents position the law of the case doctrine applies only to the application for waiver/exemption for Fund coverage for the year 1996 and not to the applications for the succeeding years in view of the subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court in the China Bank case. The Supreme Court's decision, which attained finality, limited itself only to petitioners application for waiver/exemption from Fund coverage for the year 1996. Apparently, petitioner applied for waiver/exemption from Fund coverage for the years 1996-2000 by virtue of the decision in the China Bank case. Thus, except for year 1996, respondent may still consider the remaining years, as they are not covered by the earlier application that was denied by the respondent and eventually decided by the Supreme Court with finality. Succinctly stated, the decision of the Supreme Court in the earlier case became the law of the case only for petitioners application for the year 1996. x x xExpounding on the doctrine of the law of the case, the Supreme Court, in Villa v. Sandiganbayan, held:
The doctrine has been defined as that principle under which determination of questions of law will generally be held to govern a case throughout all its subsequent stages where such determination has already been made on a prior appeal to a court of last resort. It is merely a rule of procedure and does not go to the power of the court, and will not be adhered to where its application will result in an unjust decision. It relates entirely to questions of law, and is confined in its operation to subsequent proceedings in the same case.
In Jarantilla v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held:
Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. It is a rule of general application that the decision of an appellate court in a case is the law to the case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings in the case in both the trial and appellate courts and no question necessarily involved and decided on that appeal will be considered on a second appeal or writ of error in the same case, provided the facts and issues are substantially the same as those on which the first question rested and, according to some authorities, provided the decision is on the merits.
The doctrine of the law of the case does not apply to the present case vis-a-vis the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 132416. The present case is not a subsequent proceeding of the same case G.R. No. 132416. This is an entirely new one which was commenced by petitioners filing of an original petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Court of Appeals against respondent.
Even assuming arguendo that the present proceeding may be considered a subsequent proceeding of G.R. No. 132416, the doctrine of the law of the case just the same does not apply because the said case was not resolved on the merits. The Order of the Supreme Court denying petitioners petition for review in G.R. No. 132416 found no reversible error in the Order of the Quezon City RTC, Branch 222 dismissing petitioners case primarily on a procedural ground failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
At all events, the doctrine is merely a rule of procedure and does not go to the power of the court, and will not be adhered to where its application will result in an unjust decision. To sustain respondents refusal to grant a waiver of Fund coverage to petitioner on the basis of amendments to implementing rules which had priorly been declared null and void by the Supreme Court would certainly be unjust.
In fine, the doctrine of the law of the case cannot be made to apply to the case at bar, hence, petitioners application for waiver from Fund coverage for the year 1996 must be processed by respondent. (G.R. No. 171438; December 19, 2007)