G.R. No. L-25747 August 21, 1980
BUENO INDUSTRIAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, petitioners, vs. R. C. AQUINO TIMBER AND PLYWOOD CO., INC., RAFAEL C. AQUINO, and JUDGE MONTANO A. ORTIZ, in his capacity as Judge, CFI, Agusan, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, Bueno Industrial and Development Corporation and the Director of Forestry, filed this certiorari and prohibition proceeding. They alleged that the private respondents, R.C. Aquino Timber and Plywood Co., Inc. and Rafael C. Aquino, were persistently filing unmeritorious special civil actions to evade compliance with forestry laws and final Supreme Court decisions. This pattern was established in several prior cases between the parties. The immediate grievance was the filing of Special Civil Case No. 199 in the Court of First Instance of Agusan, which petitioners contended was another devious tactic to allow respondents to continue illegally using a road right-of-way. This Court initially issued a resolution restraining proceedings in that case.

ISSUE

Whether the filing of Special Civil Case No. 199 by the private respondents constitutes an abuse of the right to litigate, warranting the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition to nullify the lower court’s proceedings and order the case’s dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court acknowledged the fundamental right of a party to seek judicial redress, citing Justice Cardozo on the duty to enforce one’s rights. However, this right can be abused through the filing of actions that are utterly devoid of merit upon scrutiny. The Court found this to be one such case. The ruling heavily relied on the principle of the “law of the case,” as established in Kabigting v. Acting Director of Prisons, which holds that a final Supreme Court decision constitutes the binding law of that particular case for all inferior courts. The Court reviewed its prior decision in Bueno Industrial and Development Corporation v. Ortiz, which explicitly detailed how the private respondents, with the encouragement of a lower court, persistently sought to circumvent not only forestry regulations but also the Supreme Court’s own injunctive orders. The filing of Special Civil Case No. 199 was a clear attempt to re-litigate matters already settled with finality. The Court held that the principle of the law of the case applies not only to the express terms of a decision but also to what is implicitly necessary for its faithful execution, allowing no circumvention. Consequently, the writ of certiorari was granted to nullify the CFI order, and the writ of prohibition was issued to perpetually restrain the judge from acting on the case except to dismiss it, making the preliminary restraining order permanent.