11/5/2019 Summary

Reviewer
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0

Pauline Eunice Lobigan

LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0 PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN

originally passed. However, when doctrine

Chapter 5 of the Court is overruled and the Court
Case law and Precedent adopts a different view, or when there is a
reversal of the doctrine, the new doctrine
COURT DECISIONS AS LAW applies prospectively and should not apply
to parties who relied on the old doctrine and
Court Decisions Rulings of the lower
acted in good faith.3
courts
These decisions are These are rulings which Notes:
“laws” by their own bind the parties to
right because they specific case alone. • All lower courts are bound by supreme Court
interpret what the law
says or mean. decisions.
Supreme Court A ruling of a division of • The judiciary has to speak with one voice to
decisions are “universal the Court of Appeals assure stability in legal relations and to avoid
in their scope and cannot bind or confusion.
application, and equally prejudice a ruling of
mandatory in character. another division • It speaks with finality, logically and rightly,
1 through the highest judicial organ, which is
the Supreme Court.
• Supreme Court rulings “should be definitive
When does an application or interpretation and authoritative, binding on those
become a part of the law? occupying the lower ranks in the judicial
hierarchy.”4
1. The application or interpretation placed by
• The Supreme Court has the last word on
the Court upon a law is part of the law “as of
what the law is, and its decisions applying or
the date of the enactment of the said law
interpreting the Constitution and laws form
since the Court’s application or
part of this country’s legal system.
interpretation merely establishes the
• All other courts should then be guided by the
contemporaneous legislative intent that the
decisions of the Supreme Court.5
construed law purports to carry into effect”.2
• There is only one Supreme Court from whose
2. A judicial interpretation becomes a part of
decisions should take their bearings.6
the law as of the date that the law was

1 Philippine Veterans Affairs Office v. Segundo, G.R. No. 51570, 6 Tugade v. CA, G.R. No. L-47772, August 31, 1978.
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.
3 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
provides that “laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the
contrary is provided.” See also Spouses Gauvain v. CA, G.R No.
97973, January 27, 1992.
4 Barrera v. Barrera, G.R No. L-31589, July 31, 1970.
5 Conducto v. Monzon, Administrative Matter No. MTJ-98-1147,

July 2, 1998.

Page 1 of 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0 PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN

STARE DECISIS, RES JUDICATA, AND LAW though the parties may be different. Like

OF THE CASE cases ought to be decided alike. We

stress that when a court has laid down a
The Doctrine of Law of the Case vs. Stare Decisis principle of law as applicable to a certain
It operates only in the The ruling adhered to in state of facts, it will adhere to that
particular case and only the particular case
principle and apply it to all future cases
as a rule of policy and under the doctrine of
not as one of law. the law of the case need in which the facts are substantially the
not be followed as a same. Stare Decisis et non quieta
precedent in a movere. Stand by the decisions and
subsequent litigation
disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis
between other parties,
neither by the appellate simply means that for the sake of
court which made the certainty, a conclusion reached in one
decision followed on a case should be applied to those that
subsequent appeal in
follow if the facts are substantially the
the same case, nor by
any court. same, even though the parties may be
different. It proceeds from the first
The ruling covered by Once a point of law has principle of justice that, absent any
the doctrine of the law been established by the
powerful countervailing considerations,
of the case is adhered court, that of point of
to in a single case when law will, generally, be like cases ought to be decided alike.9
it arises, but is not followed by the same
carried into other cases court and by all courts Note:
as a precedent. of lower rank in
The Philippine Supreme Court has held that
subsequent cases
where the same legal abandoning stare decisis must be based on strong
issue is raised.7 and compelling reasons; otherwise, the
predictability which is expected from its decisions
would be immeasurably affected, and the public’s
STARE DECISIS
confidence in the stability of the solemn
Means that like cases should be decided alike. 8 pronouncements diminished. “Verily, only upon
showing the circumstances attendant in a particular
Reasoning under the principle of stare
case override the great benefits derived by our
decisis is reasoning by analogy. As explained by the
judicial system from the doctrine of stare decisis, can
Supreme Court,
the courts be justified in setting aside the same.”10
Stare decisis simply means that a
The Court “may be guided but is not
judgment reached in one case should be
controlled by precedent.” Thus the Court, especially
applied to successive ones in which the
with a new membership, is not obliged to follow
facts are substantially identical even

7 Ayala Corporation v. Rosa – Diana Realty and Development

Corporation, G.R No. 134284, December 1, 2000. 9 Villena v. Spouses Chavez, G.R. No. 148126, November 10, 2003.
8 See Steven L. Burton, An introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning 10 Lazatin v. Desierto, G.R. No. 147097, June 5, 2009.
and Legal Method 46-47 (1981).

Page 2 of 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0
blindly a particular decision that it determines, after
11
re-examination, to call for rectification.
Illustrative Cases
Facts:
Hardwick was charged with violating the
Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing
that act with another adult male in the bedroom of
his home. After a preliminary hearing, the District
Attorney decided not to present the matter to the
grand jury unless further evidence developed.
Hardwick brought suit in the Federal District
Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute
insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The
District Court granted the defendant’s motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of
Appeals reversed and held that the statue violated
Hardwick’s fundamental rights because his
homosexual activity was a private and intimate
association beyond the reach of state regulation by
reason of the Ninth Amendment and the Due
Process Clause of the Fourth Amendment. The case
was remanded for trial, at which the State would
have to prove that the statute was supported by a
compelling interest and was the most narrowly
drawn means of achieving that end.
The issue presented in that case was
whether the Federal Constitution “confers a
fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in
sodomy, and hence invalidates the laws of the many
States that still make such conduct illegal, and have
done so for a very long time.”
The Supreme Court disagreed with the
Court of Appeals that the Court’s prior case had
11 Abaria v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
154113, December 11, 2011.
12 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN
construed the Constitution to confer a right of
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
existed a fundamental right to engage in homosexual
sodomy. It added:
Nor are we inclined to take a more expansive
view of our authority to discover new
fundamental rights imbedded in the Due
Process Clause. The Court is most vulnerable
and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it
deals with judge – made constitutional law
having little or no cognizable roots in the
language or design of the Constitution.
A few years later, the Court reversed its
ruling in Bowers. In Lawrence v. Texas,12 officers of
the Harris County Police Department were
dispatched to a private residence in response to a
reported weapons disturbance. They entered an
apartment where John Geddes Lawrence resided.
The officers observed Lawrence and Tyrone Garner
engaging in a sexual act. The two petitioners were
arrested, charged, and convicted before a Justice of
the Peace.
Issues:
1. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions
under the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” law
– which criminalizes sexual intimacy by
same - sex couples, but not identical
behavior by different – sex couples – violate
the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of
equal protection of laws?
2. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions
for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the
Page 3 of 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0
home violate their vital interests in liberty
and privacy protected by the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, should be
overruled?
Ruling:
The Court re-examined its ruling in Bowers,
pointing out how it misapprehended the history of
sodomy laws. Sodomy laws did not have ancient
roots as Bowers suggested, and it was not until the
1970s that any State singled out same – sex relations
for criminal prosecution, and only nine States had
done so.
Over the course of the last decades, States with the
same-sex prohibitions have moved toward
abolishing them. Lawrence also noted Bowers’
assertion that anti-sodomy laws reflected values
shared with a wider civilization, but the reasoning
and holding in Bowers have been rejected
elsewhere, said the Court. The Court was empathetic
about overturning Bowers: “Bowers was not correct
when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It
ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v.
Hardwick should be and now is overruled.”
Clearly, long established rulings can be
reversed. There is nothing so sacred about a
Supreme Court decision that it cannot be revisited
and reversed. In the Philippines, the Supreme Court
had an opportunity to re-examine a three-decade
old issue: whether school children who are members
of a religious sect known as Jehovah’s Witness may
be expelled from school (both public and private), for
refusing, on account of their religious beliefs, to take
13 Ebralinag v. Division of Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, G.R.
No. 95770, March 1, 1993.
14 Chong v. Secretary of labor, G.R. No. 47617, September 16, 1947.
For a study of Congressional overrides of Supreme Court decisions
in the U.S., see Matthew R. Christiansen & William N. Eskridge, Jr.,
PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN
part in the flag ceremony which includes playing (by
a band) or singing the Philippine national anthem,
saluting the Philippine flag, and reciting the patriotic
pledge.13
Sometimes, a doctrine may be abandoned
because Congress amended the pertinent law that
was the basis of a Supreme Court decision. A
doctrine, which has been followed for years, no
matter how sound it may be, if found to be contrary
to law, must be abandoned “because the principle of
stare decisis does not and should not apply when
there is conflict between the precedent and the
law.” 14 For example, prior to the amendment of
Presidential Decree No. 1866, when homicide or
murder was committed with the use of an unlicensed
firearm, such use of such firearm was considered as
an aggravating circumstance. After amendment of
the law, the Supreme Court had no choice but to
abandon its previous ruling in People v. Quijada. 15
The Court ruled that violation of Presidential Decree
No. 1866 is now an offense distinct from murder.16
De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola Products Philippines.
The Philippine Supreme Court applied the
doctrine of stare decisis in De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola
Products Philippines, 17 citing Article 8 of the Civil
Code as the express law in which the principle of
stare decisis is entrenched: Judicial decisions
applying or interpreting laws of the Constitution shall
form part of the legal system of the Philippines. The
case involved Pepsi Cola’s 1992 promotional
campaign called “Number fever”, a contest wherein
holders of soft drink bottle caps bearing the chosen
combinations are given prizes. In one of its draws, it
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 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0
announced the winning combination to be “349”.
However, Pepsi revoked such announcement citing
security code problems. Three sets of complaints for
specific performance were filed by wining crown
holders against Pepsi: the Mendoza group, the
Rodrigo group, and the De Mesa group. Both the
Mendoza and Rodrigo groups’ complaints were
dismissed with finality. The De Mesa group’s petition
was subsequently dismissed and the petition for
certiorari filed by the De Mesa group was denied by
the Supreme Court.
The Court ruled that while the parties
involved in the cases are different, the Court
observed that the legal rights and relations of the
parties, the facts, the applicable laws, the causes of
action, the issues, and the evidence are exactly the
same in all three cases when it dismissed the third
complaint on the basis of its previous dismissal of
two complaints involving the same issues. Since the
issue had already been settled in the earlier cases of
Mendoza and Rodrigo, the Court was already bound
by the finality of the said judgments.
RES JUDICATA
Literally means “a matter adjudged; a thing judicially
acted upon or decided, a thing or matter settled by
judgment.”
For res judicata to apply, the following requisites
must concur:
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
technical point. Strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to
decisions or orders adjudicating interlocutory motions. See
Macahilig v. Heirs of Magalit, G.R. No. 141423, November 15, 2000.
A judgment on the merits is one rendered after a determination of
which party is right, as distinguished from a 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 parties free to litigate the
PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN
1. The former judgment or order must be
final;
2. The judgment or order must be on the
merits;18
3. It must have been rendered by a court
having jurisdiction over the subject and the
parties; and
4. There must be, between the first and the
second actions, identity or parties, of
subject matter and of cause of action.19
The last requisite is sometimes called the
elements of res judicata and explained further in
this manner:
1. Identity of parties or at least such as
representing the same interest in both
actions;
2. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same
facts; and
3. The identity in the two particulars is such
that any judgment which may be rendered
in the other action will, regardless of which
party is successful, amount to res judicata in
the action under consideration.20
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
matter in a subsequent action as though the dismissed action had
not been commenced. See Presidential Commission on Good
Government v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152500, September 14,
2011.
19 Development bank of the Philippines v. La Campana
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 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0
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
Provides that whatever is once irrevocably
established as the controlling legal principle or
decision, continues to be the law of the case
between the same parties in the same case, whether
correct on general principles or not, so long as the
facts on which such decision was predicated
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.
23 Veloso v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116680, August 28, 1996.
PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN
continue to be the facts of the case before the
court.23
Note:
• A decision becomes the law of the case
once it attains finality.24
Law of the Case Different from Res Judicata
Law of the case applies only to the same
case, whereas res judicata forecloses parties or
privies in one case by what has been done in another
case.
In law of the case, the rule made by an
appellate court cannot be departed from in
subsequent proceedings in the same case.
Furthermore, law of the case relates entirely to
questions of law while res judicata is applicable to
the conclusive determination of issues of fact.
Although res judicata may include questions of law,
it is generally concerned with the effect of
adjudication in a wholly independent proceeding.25
PROBLEMS WITH PRECEDENT
INCONSISTENCIES
Supreme Court decisions do not always
clarify issues. In rape cases, for example, there is a
question as to whether a defendant may introduce
evidence that he and the complainant are
romantically involved. This defense – also known as
the “sweetheart defense” – poses certain problems
because it suggests that the existence of a romantic
relationship precludes the possibility of rape.
24
General Milling Corporation-Independent Labor Union v. General
Milling Corporation, G.R. No. 183122, June 15, 2011.
25 Spouses Sy v. Young, G.R. No. 169214, June 19, 2013
Page 6 of 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0
JUDICIAL FLIP – FLOPPING
Another form of inconsistency in Supreme
Court decisions is one involving a single case. In these
instances, the Supreme Court Justices cannot seem
to agree on what the correct interpretation of the
law should be.
The case of League of Cities of the
Philippines v. Commission on Elections is one
example. It is the first time that the Supreme Court
reversed itself three times and it did so in a span of
three years.
• November 18, 2008 En Banc Decision
The first decision came out on
26
November 18, 2009. The
majority opinion, penned by
Justice Carpio, struck down the
cityhood laws for being
unconstitutional by a vote of 6-5.
• March 31, 2009, April 28, 2009, and June 2,
2009 Resolutions
The motion for reconsideration
filed by respondent LGUs was
denied by the Supreme Court by a
majority vote of 7-5 on a resolution
27
dated March 31, 2009. The
second motion for reconsideration
was likewise denied on April 28,
2009, this time by a 6-6 vote.28
26 League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499, 178056, November 18, 2008.
27 Justice Velasco, Jr. wrote a Dissenting Opinion, joined by Justices
Ynares- Santiago, Corona, Chico – Nazario, and Leonardo – De
Castro. Chief Justice Puno and Justice Nachura took no part.
28 Justice Velasco, Jr. wrote a Dissenting Opinion, joined by Justices
Ynares – Santiago, Corona, Chico – Nazario, Leonardo – De Castro
and Bersamin. Chief Justice Puno and Justice Nachura took no part.
Justice Quisumbing was on leave.
PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN
• December 21, 2009 En Banc Decision29
In a decision penned by Justice
Velasco, Jr., the Supreme Court
reversed the November 18, 2008
en banc decision and declared the
cityhood laws constitutional.
Curiously, Justice Velasco was
among those who concurred with
J. Carpio’s original ponencia.
• August 24, 2010 Resolution30
The Supreme Court reversed itself
a second time in 2010 and
reinstated the November 18, 2008
decision declaring the sixteen
cityhood laws as unconstitutional.
The Resolution was penned by
Justice Carpio, the ponente of the
first decision. It was adopted by a
vote of 7-6.
• February 15, 2011 Resolution.31
The last reversal came in February
15, 2011 through a Resolution
penned by Justice Bersamin, with a
vote of 7-6. Although the
composition of the Court was the
same as the previous resolution,
Justice Mendoza shifted to the
majority opinion.
• April 12, 2011 Resolution.32
29 League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections,
G.R> Nos. 176951, 177499, 178056, December 21, 2009
30 Id.
31 League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 176951, February 15, 2011.
32 League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 176951, April 12, 2011.
Page 7 of 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0 PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN

The Supreme Court, by a vote of 7- The deductive form using a syllogism is the
6, denied the motion for dominant style of legal reasoning. A syllogism in legal
reconsideration filed by the League reasoning has an established structure, consisting of
of Cities and upheld the a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.
constitutionality of the cityhood
Syllogism in Legal Reasoning
laws in the April 12, 2011
Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion
Resolution. posits a characterizes a asserts that
statement that particular the statement
Justice Carpio wrote a dissenting opinion, is true of a object as is therefore
reiterating his view that the cityhood laws violated class of belonging to true of the
Section 10, Article X of the Constitution. He added objects. the class particular
that the “Court has made history with the repeated object.34
flip-flopping in this case.” Justices Carpio – Morales,
Brion, Peralta, Villarama, and Sereno once again Legal Reasoning
joined the dissent. Justices Nachura and Del Castillo Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion
once again abstained from voting. premise states characterizes a states whether
a rule of law particular the general
Indecision on the part of the Court creates applicable to a situation as rule applies to
class of either the particular
little confidence in the Judiciary.33It suggests that the
situations satisfying or situation
law is nothing more than the Justices’ whims, described in not satisfying
especially when the members of the Court shift sides the factual the elements
in the dispute. This particular case became one of the predicate of a factual
predicate
grounds for the impeachment case of Chief Justice
announces a describes the states whether
Renato Corona in December of 2011. rule of law facts of the the right or
client’s duty described
Chapter 6 situation in the rule of
law has been
ANALYTICAL REASONING demonstrated
to exist under
the facts of the
The application of law to facts involves two methods: client’s
deduction and analogy. situation.35
ANALOGY
DEDUCTION
The second form of reasoning by analogy. An
Reasoning in the deductive form is analogy is a from of logic by which one reasons that
associated with reasoning from enacted law –
because two items are alike in at least one respect,
statutes, regulations, executive orders. they are alike in at least one other respect. In analogy,
the lawyer identifies at least one prior case – one

33 Other cases where the Supreme Court demonstrated 34 KENNETH J. VENDEVELDE, THINKING LIKE A LAWYER: AN INTRODUCTION TO
inconsistency in its rulings are discussed in MARITES DANGUILAN LEGAL REASONING 67 (1998).
VITUG, SHADOW OF DOUBT: PROBING THE SUPREME COURT 123-144 35 Id.
(2010)

Page 8 of 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0 PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN

precedent – that seems to have facts in common with

the client’s situation. 36
Chapter 7
The DECISION
Three Steps of Analogy:

1st: the lawyer identifies a rule or holding announced DECISION VS. JUDGMENT
in a prior case. The rule serves the function of a major
Decision Judgment
premise in a syllogism. Is the adjudication or Is a determination by
settlement of a the court that the
2nd: the lawyer determines whether the facts are like
controversy by a court accused is guilty or not
those of a prior case. of law. guilty of the offense
charged, and the
3rd: the characterization of the facts as like or unlike imposition of the
those of the precedent yields the conclusion that the proper penalty and civil
client’s situation should or should not have the same liability provided for by
law on the accused.
legal consequence as the facts in the precedent.37
It goes into the roots of It is usually the
Analogy Deduction the controversy, makes dispositive portion of a
A lawyer uses one A lawyer uses a general a searching decision, but may be
specific case to decide rule to decide a specific examination of the facts used interchangeably
another specific case case.38 and the issues of the with the term decision
case, applies the law itself.41
Analogical reasoning is considered advantageous
and considers the
because: evidence presented,
and determines the
a. It produces a wealth of data for decision
rights of the parties.40
making;
b. It represents the collaborative effort of a
number of judges over time;
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
c. It tends to correct biases that might lead
judges to discount the force of prior To be valid, decisions should comply with the
decisions;
form, procedure, and substantive requirements laid
d. And it exerts a conservative force in law,
holding the development of law to a gradual out in the Constitution, the Rules of Court, and the
pace.39 circulars and orders of the Supreme Court.42

The Constitution and the Rules of Court

identify two essential parts of a judgment: the body
and the decretal portion.

36 VENDEVELDE, supra note, 3 at 86. 40 PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY, FUNDAMENTAL OF DECISION WRITING FOR
37 Id. At 87. JUDGES 16 (2009).
38 Id. 41 Id. At 21.
39 Emily Sherwin, A Defense of Analogical Reasoning in Law, 66 U. 42 Velarde v. Social Justice Society, G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004.

CHI. L. EV. 1179 (1999). Sherwin discusses the objections to the use
of analogous reasoning. See Id. At 1184-1185.

Page 9 of 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0
• The body is important because it is where
the court clearly and distinctly states its
finding of fact and of law on which the
decision is based. 43
• The decretal portion is the controlling part.
REPOSITORIES OF DECISION
The official repository of Supreme Court
44
decisions is the Philippine Reports. Unofficial
reports include Supreme Court Reports Annotated
(SCRA), which is published by Central Books 45 and
46
which is also available online. Supreme Court
decisions available from SCRA begin from 1901 ti the
present. Another unofficial repository, CD
Technologies Asia, makes the complete text of
Supreme Court decisions available on DVD and
online.47
Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Internal Rules of
the Supreme Court, the Court resolved that the
following resolution be uploaded to the Supreme
Court Website:
(a) Unsigned Extended Resolution which
disposes a case after the filing of the
comment; and
43 University of the Philippines v. Dizon, G.R> No. 171182, August
23, 2012.
44 China Airlines v. Chiok, G.R> No. 152122, July 30, 2003.
45 See http://central.com.ph/centralbooks/.
46 See http://central.com.ph/escra/.
47 See http://www.cgasiaonline.com/.
48 In re Decisions/Resolution for Uploading to SC Website, A.M. No.
12-7-1-SC (Notice), July 22, 2014.
49 For an excellent piece on opinion writing see GERALD
Lebovitz, et al., Ethical Judicial Opinion Writing, 21 GEO. J. L EG.
ETHICS 237 – 3-9 (2008). See also Ruth C. Vance, Judicial Opinion
Writing; An Annotated Bibliography 17 J. L EG. WRITING INST. 197-231
(2011).
50 G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004.
51 There are other non-essential parts of a decision such
as an introduction or prologue, and epilogue, which
may be used especially in cases where controversial or
PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN
(b) Unsigned Resolution, whether Extended or
Minute, with separate, concurring, or
dissenting opinions.48
PERSONAL OPINIONS OF JUDGES
The Supreme Court frowns upon the
inclusions of personal views in court decisions. The
decision of a court should contain only opinion that is
relevant to the question before the court for decision.
FORM OF DECISIONS
The Constitution does not prescribe a form
for decisions, although certain guidelines should be
observed by judges.49
The Supreme Court in Velarde v. Social
Justice Society50 suggested the following as essential
parts of a good decision:
1. Statement of the case;
2. Statement of facts;
3. Issues or assignment of errors;
4. Court ruling, in which each issue is, as a rule,
separately considered and resolved; and,
finally,
5. A dispositive portion.51
Students of law should read the Velarde decision
for guidelines on various parts of a well-written
decision. 52 Vandevelde 53 lists the following
novel issues are involved. According to the Court, an
introduction may consist of a concise but
comprehensive statement of the principal factual or
legal issues of the case. In some cases – particularly
those concerning public interest or involving
complicated commercial, scientific, technical or
otherwise rare subject matters – a longer introduction
may inform readers with the specific nature of controversy
and the issues involved. An epilogue may be a summation of the
important principles applied to the resolution of the issues of
paramount public interest or significance. It may also lay down aa
enduring philosophy of law or guiding principle. Velarde v. Social
Justice Society, G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004.
52 See also Reynato S. Puno, Decision Writing, 4:14 PHILJA
JURIDICAL JOURNAL 1-28 (2002).
53 KENNETH J. VANDEVELDE , THINKING LIKE A LAWYER: AN
INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL REASONING 27-32 (1998).
Page 10 of 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0 PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN

components of a decision which have been The following is a short example that shows
reduced to the barest outline here: parts of a Supreme Court Decision.

1. Facts
An opinion usually begins with a description
of facts. It is a narration of events that gave
rise to the dispute submitted for the court’s Each case is
resolution. assigned a
docket
number
2. Procedural History
when filed.
This portion describes the events that
occurred in the trial or lower appellate court
during the course of the litigation beginning
with the filing of a complaint.
This is the date
3. Question Presented the decision was
These are the questions that appellant is promulgated

asking the court to decide.

The surname of
. the Justice who
4. Rule of Law wrote the
To receive the issues raised, courts decision.
announce rules of law. These are the
principles that apply to the case before the
court.

Statement Facts of the

5. Application of Law to the Fact
of the case. case.
This is the part of the decision that
determines whether each element of each
rule apply to the facts before it.

6. Holding
This is the decision of the court with respect
to a question presented.

7. Disposition
This is essentially a procedural directive of
some kind that gives effect to the court’s
decision. 54

54 Id.

Page 11 of 16
 LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0 PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN

RTC decision

Note:

• If there is a conflict between the dispositive

Issues or
assignment
of errors
In a civil case, the
dispositive portion
should state whether the
complaint or petition is
granted or denied.
portion or the fallo and the body of the
decision, the fallo controls.
• This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is
the final order while the opinion in the body
is merely a statement ordering nothing.
• However, where the inevitable conclusion
from the body of the decision is so clear as
The court makes to show that there was a mistake in the
a ruling and then dispositive protion, the body of the decision
proceeds to will prevails.56
explain it in the
“ratio” of the The general rule applies when the dispositive
case. part of a final decision or order is definite, clear, and
unequivocal, and can be given effect wholly without
need of interpretation or construction.57 The
exceptions where the dispositive part of the
judgment does not always prevail over the body of
the opinion are as follows:

(a) Where there is ambiguity or uncertainty,

THE DISPOSITION OR DISPOSITIVE the body of the opinion may be referred
PORTION to for purposes of construing the
judgement because the dsipositive part
To get the true intent and meaning of a of a decision must find support from the
decision, the same must be considered in its entirely. decision’s ration decidendi;58
(b) Where extensive and explicit discussion
The fallo embodies the court’s decisive and settlement of the issue is found in
action on the issues posed, and is the part of the the body of the decision.59
decision that must be enforced during execution. (c) Where the inevitable conclusion from the
body of the decision is so clear as to show
The other parts of the decision only contain the ratio
that there was a mistake in the dispositive
decidendi (or reason for the decisions) and, in this
portion, the body of the decision will
sense, assume a lesser role in carrying into effect the previal.60
tribunal’s disposition of the case. 55

55 So v. Food Fest Land, Inc., G.R. No. 183628, February 09, 2011. In
another case, the Court explained that while the body of the
decision, order or resolution might create some ambiguity in the
manner the court’s reasoning preponderates, it is the exercise of
those rights, and imposes the corresponding duties or obligations.
See Florentino v. Rivera, G.R. No. 167968, January 23, 2006.
56 Gonzales v. Solid Cement Corporation, G.R. No. 198423, October
23, 2012.
57 Obra v. Spouses Badua, G.R. No. 149125, August 9, 2007.
58 UPSI Property Holdings, Inc. v. Diesel Construction CO., Inc., G.R.
No. 200250, August 2014. In this case, the Court held that on case
of ambiguity or uncertainty in the dispositive portion of a decision,
the body of the decision may be scanned for guidance in construing
the judgment.
59
Wilson Ong Ching Kian Chung v. Director of the National Library,
June 8, 2000.
60 People v. Lacbayan, G.R. No. 125006, August 31, 2000. In one
case, the Court held that the body of a decision prevails over the

Page 12 of 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0
THE PRINCIPLE OF IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL
JUDGMENTS
A final judgment may no longer be altered,
amended or modified, even if the alteration,
amendment, or modification is menat to correct what
is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or
law. Any attempt to insert, change, or add matters
not clearly contemplated in the dispositive portion
violates the rule on immutability of judgments.61
This doctrine has two purposes:
1. To avoid delay in the administration of
justice and thus, procedurally, to make
orderly the discharge of judicial business;
2. To put an end to judicial controversies, at the
risk of occasional errors, which is precisely
why courts exist. 62
Exceptions to the rule on the immutability of
final judgments;
1. The correction of clerical errors,63
2. The so-called nunc pro tunc entries which
cause no prejudice to any party, and
3. Void judgments.64
THE SYLLABUS
• The syllabus of cases is official or unofficial
reports of Supreme Court decisions or
resolutions is not the work of the Court, nor
does it state the Court’s decision.
fallo when “the inevitable conclusion from the former is that there
was a glaring error in the latter, in which case the body of the
decision will prevail.” See PH Credit Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 10964, November 22, 2001.
61 Lim v. HMR Phils., Inc., G.R.No. 201483, August 4, 2014.
62 Sangguniang Barangay v. Exploration Permit Application of
PNOC, G.R. No. 162226 (Resolution), September 2, 2013.
63 The Supreme Court is not precluded from rectifying
errors of judgment if blind and stubborn adherence to
the doctrine of immutability of final judgments would
PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN
• The syllabus is the work of the reporter who
gives his understanding of the decision.
• It is not a part of the Court’s decision.
• Never cite a syllabus in place of a carefully
considered text in the decision of the Court.
THE CERTIFICATION
The certification requirement is a new
provision introduced by the 1987 Constitution.
Purpose:
• To ensure the implementation of the
constitutional requirement that the
decisions of the Supreme Court and lower
collegiate courts are reached after
consultation with members of the court
sitting en banc or in a division before the
case is assigned to a member thereof for
decision – writing.
Note:
• Absence of certification does not have the
effect of invalidating the decision. 65
• The certification requirement refers to
decisions in a judiciary not administrative
cases.
• A per curium decision – one where there is
no ponente – does not require formal
certification.66
involve the sacrifice of justice for technicality.” See FGU
Insurance Corp. v. Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
G.R. No. 161282, February 23, 2011.
64 SM Land, Inc., v. Bases Conversion and Development
Authority, G.R. No. 203655 (Resolution), September 7,
2015.
65 Id.
66 Id.
Page 13 of 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Memorandum decisions are those which
adopt by reference the findings of fact and coclusions
of lasw of inferior tribunals. The statutory basis for
this type of decision is found in section 40 of the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1982.67
The memorandum decision, to be valid,
cannot incorporate the findings of fact and the
conclusions of law of the lower court only by remote
reference, which is to say that the challenged decision
is not easily and immediately availble to the person
reading the memorandum decision.
PER CURIAM OPINIONS
Defined as “an opinion of the Court in which the
judges are all of one mind and the question involved
is so clear that it is not necessary to elborate on it by
68
an extended discussion.
Note:
• Per curiam opinions are unsigned and
decided by “the court.”
• Trueper curiam opinions are more
authoritative than signed opinions when
they contain no reservations or exceptions.
• On the other hand, per curiam opinions are
less authoritative than signed opinions,
when the court uses them to decide
mundane questions.
• Per curian opinions are the most
authoritative opinions of all when the court
wants to make a politically important
decision issued by a unanimous court, not
67 See Poe v. Macapagal – Arroyo, P.E.T. Case No. 002,
March 29, 2005, and Legarda v. De Castro, P.E.T. Case
No. 003, march 31, 2005.
68 Ramos v. Central bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-
29352, February 19, 1986.
PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN
from an individual judge appointed by a
particular appointing authority.
MINUTE RESOLUTIONS
Supreme Court has discretion to formulate
decisions or minute resolutions, it disposes of the bulk
of its cases by minute resolutions and decrees as final
and executory, where:
1. A case is patently without merit;
2. The issues raised are factual in nature;
3. The decision appealed from is supported by
substantial evidence and is in accord with
the facts of the case and the applicable laws;
or
4. It is clear from the records that the petition
is filed merely to forestall the early execution
of judgment and for non-compliance with
the rules. 69
MINUTE RESOLUTION VS. DECISION
• Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution,
requiring that the facts and the law on which
the judgment is based must be expressed
clearly and distinctly, applies only to
decisions, not to minute resolution.
• A minute resolution is signed only by the
Clerk of Court by authority of the Justices.
• A minute resolution does not require the
certification of the Chief Justice.
• Minute resolutions are not published in the
Philippine Reports.
• Finally, as a rule, the Supreme Court lays
down doctrines or principles of law which
constitute binding precedent in a decision
duly signed by the members of the Court and
certified by the Chief Justice.70
69 Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82273, June 1,
1990.
70 Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Valderama, G.R.
No. 186614, February 23, 2011.
Page 14 of 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0 PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN

CONCURRING OPINIONS

Chapter 8 Concurrences are appropriate where they

are intended to define with greater precision the
THE DISSENTING OPINION
scope of an opinion or otherwise inform the parties
and other audiences of what the writer believes are
VALUE AND FUNCTIONS OF DISSENT
important points.

• Collegial bodies cannot always be expected A justice may issue dissenting opinion, a
to make unanimous decisions all the time. concurring opinion, or both.
• The members of an administrative body or
court can disagree on the interpretation of
laws. Chapter 9
• Those who do not concur with the majority’s RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER
opinion express their disagreement by
writihng dissenting opinions. DICTUM
REASONS WHY THERE MUST BE A SEPARATE
CONCURRING OR DISSENTING OPINIONS:
RATIO DECIDENDI OBITER DICTUM
1. Both parties deserve to know all the views of
It is the ratio of a It is not binding but it
the collegiate court who voted for the
decision that can be helpful in
majority and minority opinions and the
constitutes the binding establishing the legal
reasons why they voted in such manner,
precedent. principle in the case
especially the losing party deciding to appeal
under consideration.72
to a higher court.
2. If the separate opinions are not appended to
the main opinion, the parties will have
difficulty understanding the dissertation in
RATIO DECIDENDI
the ponencia of the majority that addressed
Is the ultimate issue directly before the Court,
the points raised and reasons presented in
the separate opinions, more particularly in expressly decided in the course of the consideration
the dissenting opinion.71 of the case, so that any resolution thereon must be
considered as authoritative precedent.73
ADOPTING THE DISSENT OBITER DICTUM
The Supreme Court or its members may take
Is a matter that was not raised expressly and
a different position on a legal issue when given the
therefore, it was not a prerequisite in the disposition
opportunity to re-examine them.
of the case.74
The Court may also, in a subsequent case,
adopt a dissenting opinion.

71Id. 73Dario v. Mison, G.R. No. 81954, August 8, 1989.

72PENNY DARBYSHIRE, DARBYSHIRE ON THE ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM 45 74Delta Motors Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121075, July 24,
(8th ed. 2005). 1997.

Page 15 of 16
LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0 PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN

Obiter Dicta are opinions “entirely

unnecessary for the decision of the case” and thus
“are not binding as precedent”.75

RULINGS PRO HAC VICE

It is a Latin term meaning “for this one

particular occasion.” A ruling expressly qualified as
pro hac vice cannot be relied upon as a precedent to
govern other cases.76 Decisions qualified as pro hac
vice are made only when there are “extremely
peculiar circumstances” in a case.”77

75Equatorial Realty Dev., Inc., v. Mayfair Theater, Inc., G.R. No.

16063, November 21, 1996. See also Morales v. Paredes, G.R. No. 76 Partido ng Manggagawa (PM) and Butil Farmers Party (BUTIL) v.
L-34428, December 29, 1930; Reagan v. Commissioner on Internal Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 164702, March 17, 2006 and
Revenue, G.R. No. L-26379, December 27, 1969; and American Tadeja v. People of the Philippines, G.R. 145336, February 20, 2013.
Home Assurance Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 77 Spouses Leonardo and Milagros Chua v. Ang et al., G.R. No.

G.R. No. 120043, July 24, 1996. 165164, September 4, 2009.

Page 16 of 16