TITLE Litton Mills, Inc. v. Galleon Trader, Inc. | GR. No.

L-40867
MAIN POINT Once a judgment has become flnal, the issues therein should be laid to rest.
FACTS On 25 July 1967, a contract of dealership was entered into between Galleon Trader, Inc. (Galleon, hereafter) and Litton Mills,
Inc., (Litton, hereafter) whereby the former was authorized to distribute a particular product manufactured by the latter. In
connection with said contract, Galleon incurred an obligation with Litton amounting to P84,368.24. As proof of said
obligation, Galleon executed an Acknowledgment of Indebtedness and Promissory Note 2 dated 15 August 1968 (agreement,
for short) in favor of Litton. In the same document, Supreme Investment Corporation (Supreme, for short) bound itself
solidarily with Galleon in the payment of the obligation to Litton, while a surety bond 3 was issued by Overseas Insurance
Corporation (Overseas, for short) in favor of Litton in an amount not less than 150% of P64,368.24 or P96,552.36, with a
minimum maturity date of four (4) months from 15 August 1968.

Galleon defaulted in his month payments. Despite said demands, no payment was made to Litton; hence, the latter filed a
complaint for recovery of sum of money against defendants-appellants before the Court of First Instance of Manila.
RTC: After the defendants had filed their respective answers to the complaint, plaintiff Litton moved for summary judgment, on the
ground that defendants' answers failed to tender any valid defense or raise an issue of fact that could give rise to a valid
defense. The motion for summary judgment was affirmed by the court. Plaintiff Litton then filed a motion for execution
pending appeal.

Defendants then filed a motion for leave to file a supersedeas bond but the same was denied.
CA: A petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction was filed by the defendants with the Court of appeals and
contended that the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering a
summary judgment and in denying their motion to file a supersedeas bond to stay execution of said judgment pending appeal.
After careful examination, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari.

A petition for review of the aforesaid Court of Appeals decision was filed by defendants before this Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court committed an error in ordering premature execution and in refusing to stay the same
notwithstanding offer of supersedeas bond.
RULING: NAn act of a court or tribunal may only be considered as committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was
performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner
by reason of passion or personal hostility. It was the finding of the Court of Appeals that the questioned summary judgment,
the execution pending appeal and the rejection of a supersedeas bond to stay such execution, were in accordance with law,
thereby warranting the conclusion that the respondent judge did not act in grave abuse of discretion or in excess of
jurisdiction.

This finding is now "the law of the case" and it cannot be raised anew in this appeal. Whatever has been irrevocably
established as the controlling legal rule between the parties in a 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. Once a judgment has become final, the issues therein should be laid to rest.