LYNN PAZ T. DELA CRUZ, FERNANDO SERRANO, NATHANIEL LUGTU, AND JANET S.

PINEDA, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AND THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 161929, 8 December 2009

DEL CASTILLO, J

FACTS: Petitioners were charged with violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019 for the
construction/ renovation of chapels in Tarlac which were purported to be multi-
purpose halls. Accused then moved for reinvestigation for lack of opportunity to be
heard when Ombudsman reversed its earlier finding of lack of probable cause. The
reinvestigation was granted, however the finding of probable cause was upheld. The
Sandiganbayan then upheld the validity of the information in its April 2003 decision.
The accused were then preventively suspended. Hence this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE/S: Was the preventive suspension valid? Is the principle of the law of the case
applicable in this case?

RULING: The preventive suspension of the accused under Section 13 of RA No. 3019
is mandatory upon a finding that the information is valid.

Section 13 of RA No. 3019 provides:

Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits - Any public officer against whom any
criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under the provisions
of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from
office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity
benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and
to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the
meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.

Yes. The principle of the law of the case is an established rule in this jurisdiction. Thus,
when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case to the lower court
for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law of the case upon
subsequent appeal. The court reviewing the succeeding appeal will not re-litigate the
case but instead apply the ruling in the previous appeal. This enables the appellate court
to perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently which would be impossible if a
question, once considered and decided by it, were to be litigated anew in the same case
and upon any and subsequent appeal.