G.R. No. L-40867 July 26, 1988
LITTON MILLS, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. GALLEON TRADER, INC., SUPREME INVESTMENT CORPORATION and OVERSEAS INSURANCE CORPORATION, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Litton Mills, Inc. and Galleon Trader, Inc. entered into a dealership contract. Galleon incurred an obligation to Litton amounting to P84,368.24, evidenced by an Acknowledgment of Indebtedness and Promissory Note. Supreme Investment Corporation bound itself solidarily with Galleon for the payment, while Overseas Insurance Corporation issued a surety bond. The agreement stipulated that failure to pay any installment would render the entire obligation due. Galleon failed to pay the first installment on September 15, 1968, making the full amount demandable. Partial payments reduced the balance to P42,912.16, but subsequent demands yielded no further payment, prompting Litton to file a complaint for sum of money.
Litton moved for summary judgment, attaching an affidavit from its credit manager, asserting that the defendants’ answers failed to tender any genuine issue of fact. The defendants opposed but did not submit a counter-affidavit. The trial court granted the motion and rendered summary judgment against all defendants, jointly and severally. It also granted Litton’s motion for execution pending appeal, denying the defendants’ offer of a supersedeas bond. The defendants challenged these orders via a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court’s actions. This Court denied a subsequent petition for review, making the Court of Appeals decision final.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal, which again challenged the propriety of the summary judgment, the execution pending appeal, and the denial of a supersedeas bond.

RULING

The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the final decision of the Court of Appeals in the earlier certiorari proceeding (CA G.R. No. 45428 -R) had conclusively resolved the very issues the defendants sought to re-litigate. In that decision, the appellate court found the defenses frivolous and upheld the trial court’s exercise of discretion in rendering summary judgment, ordering execution pending appeal, and refusing a supersedeas bond. This finding constitutes the “law of the case,” a binding doctrine which mandates that a controlling legal rule established between the parties in a case continues to govern so long as the facts remain unchanged. The defendants’ present appeal was merely a reiteration of their already-rejected procedural objections and not an attack on the merits of their liability under the agreement. To entertain it would be to reopen finally settled matters, countenance endless appeals, and tolerate a clear dilatory tactic designed to delay the execution of a valid judgment. The Court emphasized it would not sanction such maneuvers, which result in a denial of justice.