Res judicata on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which

Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim
preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already]
judged", and refers to either of two concepts: in both civil
law and common law legal systems, a case in which there
has been a final judgment and is no longer subject
to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or
preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues
between the same parties. In this latter usage, the term is
synonymous with "preclusion".
In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised
again, either in the same court or in a different court. A
court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a
matter.
The doctrine of res judicata is a method of preventing
injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but
perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary
waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does
not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting
earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying
judgments, and confusion.
RATIONALE Res judicata is intended to strike a balance
between competing interests. Its primary purpose is to
assure an efficient judicial system. A related purpose is to
create "repose" and finality
EXCEPTION Res judicata does not restrict
the appeals process,[6] which is considered a linear
extension of the same lawsuit as the suit travels up (and
back down) the appellate court ladder. Appeals are
considered the appropriate manner by which to challenge
a judgment rather than trying to start a new trial. Once the
appeals process is exhausted or waived, res judicata will
apply even to a judgment that is contrary to law. In states
that permit a judgment to be renewed, a lawsuit to renew
the judgment would not be barred by res judicata,
however in states that do not permit renewal by action (as
opposed to renewal by scire facias or by motion), such an
action would be rejected by the courts as vexatious.
LAW OF THE CASE
the legal rule or decision was predicated continue to be
the facts of the case before the court. VIOS VS
PANTANGCO
"rulings made by a trial court and not challenged on
appeal become the law of the case."
once a judge has decided a legal question during the con
duct of a lawsuit, he/she is unlikely to change his/her view
s andwill respond that ruling is the "law of the case."
The principle that if the highest appellate court has determ
ined a legal question and returned the case to the court b
elow foradditional proceedings, the question will not be de
termined differently on a subsequent appeal in the same c
ase where thefacts remain the same.
The law of the case expresses the rule that the final judg
ment of the highest court is the final determination of the ri
ghts ofthe parties. The doctrine of "law of the case" is one
of policy only, however, and will be disregarded when com
pellingcircumstances require a redetermination of the poin
t of law decided on the prior appeal. Such circumstances
exist when anintervening or contemporaneous change in t
he law has transpired by the establishment of new preced
ent by a controllingauthority or the overruling of former de
cisions.
Courts have ruled that instructionsdirections given by th
e judge to the jury concerning the law applicable to the ca
searethe "law of the case" where the appealing defenda
nt, the petitioner, accepted the instructions as correct at th
e time they weregiven.

The law of the case doctrine applies in a situation where

an appellate court has made a ruling on a question on
appeal and thereafter remands the case to the lower court
for further proceedings; the question settled by the
appellate court becomes the law of the case at the lower
court and in any subsequent appeal. It means that
whatever is 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