Chapter 5

Case law and Precedent

to parties who relied on the old doctrine

and acted in good faith.3
Court Decisions as Law
Notes:
Court Decisions Rulings of the lower
courts  All lower courts are bound by supreme
These decisions are These are rulings which Court decisions.
“laws” by their own bind the parties to
 The judiciary has to speak with one voice to
right because they specific case alone.
interpret what the law assure stability in legal relations and to
says or mean. avoid confusion.
Supreme Court A ruling of a division of  It speaks with finality, logically and rightly,
decisions are “universal the Court of Appeals
through the highest judicial organ, which is
in their scope and cannot bind or
application, and equally prejudice a ruling of the Supreme Court.
mandatory in another division  Supreme Court rulings “should be definitive
character. 1 and authoritative, binding on those
occupying the lower ranks in the judicial
hierarchy.”4
When does an application or
 The Supreme Court has the last word on
interpretation become a part of the law? what the law is, and its decisions applying
1. The application or interpretation placed by or interpreting the Constitution and laws
the Court upon a law is part of the law “as form part of this country’s legal system.
of the date of the enactment of the said law  All other courts should then be guided by
since the Court’s application or the decisions of the Supreme Court.5
interpretation merely establishes the  There is only one Supreme Court from
contemporaneous legislative intent that the whose decisions should take their bearings. 6
construed law purports to carry into
Stare Decisis, Res Judicata, and Law of the
effect”.2
2. A judicial interpretation becomes a part of
Case
3
the law as of the date that the law was De Jesus v. Aquino, G.R No. 164662, February 18, 2013. Supreme
Court decisions are also subject to Article 4 of the Civil Code which
originally passed. However, when doctrine provides that “laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the
of the Court is overruled and the Court contrary is provided.” See also Spouses Gauvain v. CA, G.R No.
97973, January 27, 1992.
adopts a different view, or when there is a 4
Barrera v. Barrera, G.R No. L-31589, July 31, 1970.
5
reversal of the doctrine, the new doctrine Conducto v. Monzon, Administrative Matter No. MTJ-98-1147,
July 2, 1998.
applies prospectively and should not apply 6
Tugade v. CA, G.R. No. L-47772, August 31, 1978.

1
Philippine Veterans Affairs Office v. Segundo, G.R. No. 51570,
August 15, 1988.
2
People v. Licera, G.R No. L- 39990, July 22, 1975. See also
National Amnesty Commission v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No.
156982, September 08, 2004.

Page 1 of 6
 Chapter 5

Case law and Precedent

The Doctrine of Law of the Case vs. Stare Decisis Like cases ought to be decided alike.
It operates only in the The ruling adhered to We stress that when a court has laid
particular case and only in the particular case
down a principle of law as applicable to
as a rule of policy and under the doctrine of
not as one of law. the law of the case a certain state of facts, it will adhere to
need not be followed that principle and apply it to all future
as a precedent in a cases in which the facts are
subsequent litigation
substantially the same. Stare Decisis et
between other parties,
neither by the non quieta movere. Stand by the
appellate court which decisions and disturb not what is
made the decision settled. Stare decisis simply means that
followed on a
for the sake of certainty, a conclusion
subsequent appeal in
the same case, nor by reached in one case should be applied
any court. to those that follow if the facts are
substantially the same, even though the
The ruling covered by Once a point of law has parties may be different. It proceeds
the doctrine of the law been established by the
of the case is adhered court, that of point of from the first principle of justice that,
to in a single case when law will, generally, be absent any powerful countervailing
it arises, but is not followed by the same considerations, like cases ought to be
carried into other cases court and by all courts decided alike.9
as a precedent. of lower rank in
subsequent cases Note:
where the same legal
issue is raised.7 The Philippine Supreme Court has held that
abandoning stare decisis must be based on strong
and compelling reasons; otherwise, the
STARE DECISIS
predictability which is expected from its decisions
8
Means that like cases should be decided alike. would be immeasurably affected, and the public’s
confidence in the stability of the solemn
Reasoning under the principle of stare
pronouncements diminished. “Verily, only upon
decisis is reasoning by analogy. As explained by the
showing the circumstances attendant in a particular
Supreme Court,
case override the great benefits derived by our
Stare decisis simply means that a judicial system from the doctrine of stare decisis,
judgment reached in one case should can the courts be justified in setting aside the
be applied to successive ones in which same.”10
the facts are substantially identical even
The Court “may be guided but is not
though the parties may be different.
controlled by precedent.” Thus the Court, especially
with a new membership, is not obliged to follow
7
Ayala Corporation v. Rosa – Diana Realty and Development
Corporation, G.R No. 134284, December 1, 2000.
8
See Steven L. Burton, An introduction to Law and Legal
9
Reasoning and Legal Method 46-47 (1981). Villena v. Spouses Chavez, G.R. No. 148126, November 10, 2003.
10
Lazatin v. Desierto, G.R. No. 147097, June 5, 2009.

Page 2 of 6
 Chapter 5

Case law and Precedent

blindly a particular decision that it determines, after construed the Constitution to confer a right of
11
re-examination, to call for rectification. privacy that extended to homosexual sodomy and,
for all intents and purposes, had decided the case at
bar. The Court was unwilling to announce that there
Illustrative Cases existed a fundamental right to engage in
homosexual sodomy. It added:
Facts:
Nor are we inclined to take a more expansive
Hardwick was charged with violating the view of our authority to discover new
Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing fundamental rights imbedded in the Due
that act with another adult male in the bedroom of Process Clause. The Court is most vulnerable
his home. After a preliminary hearing, the District and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it
Attorney decided not to present the matter to the deals with judge – made constitutional law
grand jury unless further evidence developed. having little or no cognizable roots in the
language or design of the Constitution.
Hardwick brought suit in the Federal
District Court, challenging the constitutionality of A few years later, the Court reversed its
the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual ruling in Bowers. In Lawrence v. Texas,12 officers of
sodomy. The District Court granted the defendant’s the Harris County Police Department were
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The dispatched to a private residence in response to a
Court of Appeals reversed and held that the statue reported weapons disturbance. They entered an
violated Hardwick’s fundamental rights because his apartment where John Geddes Lawrence resided.
homosexual activity was a private and intimate The officers observed Lawrence and Tyrone Garner
association beyond the reach of state regulation by engaging in a sexual act. The two petitioners were
reason of the Ninth Amendment and the Due arrested, charged, and convicted before a Justice of
Process Clause of the Fourth Amendment. The case the Peace.
was remanded for trial, at which the State would
have to prove that the statute was supported by a Issues:
compelling interest and was the most narrowly 1. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions
drawn means of achieving that end. under the Texas “Homosexual Conduct”
The issue presented in that case was law – which criminalizes sexual intimacy by
whether the Federal Constitution “confers a same - sex couples, but not identical
fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in behavior by different – sex couples –
sodomy, and hence invalidates the laws of the many violate the Fourteenth Amendment
States that still make such conduct illegal, and have guarantee of equal protection of laws?
done so for a very long time.” 2. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions
for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the
The Supreme Court disagreed with the home violate their vital interests in liberty
Court of Appeals that the Court’s prior case had
11
Abaria v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
12
154113, December 11, 2011. 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

Page 3 of 6
 Chapter 5

Case law and Precedent

and privacy protected by the Due Process Philippine national anthem, saluting the Philippine
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? flag, and reciting the patriotic pledge.13
3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, should be
Sometimes, a doctrine may be abandoned
overruled?
because Congress amended the pertinent law that
Ruling: was the basis of a Supreme Court decision. A
doctrine, which has been followed for years, no
The Court re-examined its ruling in Bowers, matter how sound it may be, if found to be contrary
pointing out how it misapprehended the history of to law, must be abandoned “because the principle
sodomy laws. Sodomy laws did not have ancient of stare decisis does not and should not apply when
roots as Bowers suggested, and it was not until the there is conflict between the precedent and the
1970s that any State singled out same – sex law.”14 For example, prior to the amendment of
relations for criminal prosecution, and only nine Presidential Decree No. 1866, when homicide or
States had done so. murder was committed with the use of an
Over the course of the last decades, States with the unlicensed firearm, such use of such firearm was
same-sex prohibitions have moved toward considered as an aggravating circumstance. After
abolishing them. Lawrence also noted Bowers’ amendment of the law, the Supreme Court had no
assertion that anti-sodomy laws reflected values choice but to abandon its previous ruling in People
shared with a wider civilization, but the reasoning v. Quijada.15 The Court ruled that violation of
and holding in Bowers have been rejected Presidential Decree No. 1866 is now an offense
elsewhere, said the Court. The Court was distinct from murder.16
empathetic about overturning Bowers: “Bowers was
De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola Products
not correct when it was decided, and it is not
Philippines.
correct today. It ought not to remain binding
precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now The Philippine Supreme Court applied the
is overruled.” doctrine of stare decisis in De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola

Clearly, long established rulings can be Products Philippines,17 citing Article 8 of the Civil
Code as the express law in which the principle of
reversed. There is nothing so sacred about a
Supreme Court decision that it cannot be revisited stare decisis is entrenched: Judicial decisions
applying or interpreting laws of the Constitution
and reversed. In the Philippines, the Supreme Court
had an opportunity to re-examine a three-decade shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines. The case involved Pepsi Cola’s 1992
old issue: whether school children who are
members of a religious sect known as Jehovah’s 13
Ebralinag v. Division of Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, G.R.
Witness may be expelled from school (both public No. 95770, March 1, 1993.
14
and private), for refusing, on account of their Chong v. Secretary of labor, G.R. No. 47617, September 16,
1947. For a study of Congressional overrides of Supreme Court
religious beliefs, to take part in the flag ceremony decisions in the U.S., see Matthew R. Christiansen & William N.
which includes playing (by a band) or singing the Eskridge, Jr., Congressional Overrides of Supreme Court Statutory
Interpretation Decisions, 1967 – 2011, 92 TEX. L. REX. 1317 (2014).
15
G.R. Nos. 115008-09, July 24, 1996.
16
People v. Samonte, G.R. No. 126048, September 29, 2000.
17
G.R. Nos. 153063-70, August 19, 2005.

Page 4 of 6
 Chapter 5

Case law and Precedent

promotional campaign called “Number fever”, a 2. The judgment or order must be on the
contest wherein holders of soft drink bottle caps merits;18
bearing the chosen combinations are given prizes. 3. It must have been rendered by a court
In one of its draws, it announced the winning having jurisdiction over the subject and the
combination to be “349”. However, Pepsi revoked parties; and
such announcement citing security code problems. 4. There must be, between the first and the
Three sets of complaints for specific performance second actions, identity or parties, of
were filed by wining crown holders against Pepsi: subject matter and of cause of action.19
the Mendoza group, the Rodrigo group, and the De
Mesa group. Both the Mendoza and Rodrigo
The last requisite is sometimes called the
groups’ complaints were dismissed with finality. The
elements of res judicata and explained further
De Mesa group’s petition was subsequently
in this manner:
dismissed and the petition for certiorari filed by the
De Mesa group was denied by the Supreme Court. 1. Identity of parties or at least such as
representing the same interest in both
The Court ruled that while the parties
actions;
involved in the cases are different, the Court
2. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
observed that the legal rights and relations of the
for, the relief being founded on the same
parties, the facts, the applicable laws, the causes of
facts; and
action, the issues, and the evidence are exactly the
3. The identity in the two particulars is such
same in all three cases when it dismissed the third
that any judgment which may be rendered
complaint on the basis of its previous dismissal of
in the other action will, regardless of which
two complaints involving the same issues. Since the
party is successful, amount to res judicata
issue had already been settled in the earlier cases of
in the action under consideration.20
Mendoza and Rodrigo, the Court was already bound
by the finality of the said judgments.
18
A judgment or an order on the merits is one rendered after a
determination of which party is upheld, as distinguished from an
order rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely
RES JUDICATA technical point. Strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to
decisions or orders adjudicating interlocutory motions. See
Literally means “a matter adjudged; a thing Macahilig v. Heirs of Magalit, G.R. No. 141423, November 15,
2000. A judgment on the merits is one rendered after a
judicially acted upon or decided, a thing or matter determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a
settled by judgment.” judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely
technical point. The dismissal of the case “without prejudice”
indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the
For res judicata to apply, the following requisites parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action as though
must concur: the dismissed action had not been commenced. See Presidential
Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
152500, September 14, 2011.
1. The former judgment or order must be 19
Development bank of the Philippines v. La Campana
final; Development Corporation, G.R. No. 137694, January 17, 2005. See
also Puerto Azul Land, Inc. v. Pacific Wide Realty Development
Corporation, G.R. No 184000, September 17, 2014.
20
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Pagayatan, G.R. No. 177190,
February 23, 2011.

Page 5 of 6
 Chapter 5

Case law and Precedent

Res Judicata different from Litis

Pendentia.

Litis pendentia is a ground for the dismissal

of a civil action which arises where two actions are
pending between the same parties for the cause of
action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary
and vexatious.

It exists when the following requisites are present:

 Identity of the parties in the two actions;

 Substantial identity in the cause’s pf action
and in the reliefs sought by the parties;
 The identity between the two actions
should be such that any judgment that may
be rendered in one case, regardless of
which party is successful, would amount to
res judicata in the other.21

Res Judicata different from Stare Decisis

The focal point of res judicata is the

judgment. The principle states that a judgment on
the merits in a previous case rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction would bind a subsequent
case if, between the first and second actions, there
exist an identity of parties, of subject matter, and of
causes of action.

The focal point of stare decisis is the

doctrine created. The principle states that, for the
sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case
should be applied to those that follow if the facts
are substantially the same, even thought the parties
may be different.22

LAW OF THE CASE

21
Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corporation, G.R. No.
167246, July 20, 2011.
22
Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013.

Page 6 of 6