Estimación de precio y experimento MVP

Another question that can be asked here is, how to explain and distinguish 3 concepts which appear to be similar. These 3 concepts are all anchored on the same thing: there is a final judgement. The concept of res adjudicata, law of the case and stare decisis. That was also asked in the bar.

We already know RES ADJUDICATA – finality of judgment, or the issues decided in a case, once the decision has become final and executory and cannot be litigated again by the same parties in a subsequent action involving the same subject matter. (Peñalosa vs. Tuazon, supra.)

Q: What about the LAW OF THE CASE?

A: LAW OF THE CASE means that legal conclusions announced on a first appeal, whether on the general law of the law as applied to the concrete facts, not only prescribe the duty and limit the power of the trial court to strict obedience and conformity thereto, but they become and remain the law of the case in all after steps, whether in the lower court or in the appellate court on a subsequent appeal. (Zarate vs. Dir. of Lands, 39 Phil. 747)

EXAMPLE of law of the case: There is a case between us and then an issue is raised before the CA and there is a ruling, right or wrong. That ruling will subsequently bind the parties in the same litigation. Once the case comes back, the future now of the case will be governed by that ruling. Right or wrong, that principle will now be the controlling principle affecting the parties. The principle will continue until the case is terminated.

TABACO vs. COURT OF APPEALS 239 SCRA 485 [1994]

ISSUE: Can a case be re-opened if the law of the case has been changed?

HELD: NO, because when the case was decided, it was the governing law at the time, even if it turns out to be wrong.

“Under the law of the case concept, 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 or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. Such stability and conclusiveness given to final judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction are said to be grounded on reasons of public policy, judicial orderliness and economy as well as protection of the time and interests of the litigants.”

A good EXAMPLE: File ako ng kaso – collection of an unpaid loan based on the provision of the Civil Code but the debtor said, “There is no cause of action because the provision of the civil code is unconstitutional.” After trial the court said,

“Yes, article so-so of the Civil Code is unconstitutional. The debtor is not obliged to pay.”

Tapos na. Final na ang decision because there was no appeal. What will happen?

We are bound. As far as this case is concerned, the Civil Code is unconstitutional.

That is the law of the case.

KILOSBAYAN vs. MORATO 246 SCRA 540 [1995]

HELD: The doctrine of the law of the case applies whenever the case before the court came for the second time after a ruling of the appellate court (???).

Q: What you mean by STARE DECISIS?

A: Stare Decisis means that the decision of a court should stand as precedents for future guidance (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd Ed., 1228) Example is the decisions of the SC which stands as precedents for future cases. The purpose of this is to attain stability and judicial order. That is why we are citing precedents.

ROSALES vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE 154 SCRA 153 [1987]

HELD: “Precedents are helpful in deciding cases when they are substantially identical with previous litigations. Argumentum a simili valet in lege. Earlier decisions are guideposts that can lead us in the right direction as we tread the 'highways and byways of the law in the search

for truth and justice. These pronouncements represent the wisdom of the past. They are the voice of vanished judges talking to the future.

Except where there is a need to reverse them because of an emergent viewpoint or an altered situation, they urge us strongly that, indeed, the trodden path is best.”

‘Trodden Path’ – example is when you go on hiking like in Mt. Apo. If there is already a path or trail, you will not have a hard time looking for your way up to the peak of Mt. Apo. There is already a way which will guide you to reach your destination.

But the doctrine of stare decisis admittedly does not mean that courts should be slave forever to precedents. A doctrine long standing has also been reversed.

The SC explained also why once in a while it abandons the doctrine of stare decisis:

PEOPLE vs. MUÑOZ 170 SCRA 107 [1989]

HELD: “If we have seen fit to take a second look at the doctrine on which we were all agreed before, it is not because of a change in the composition of this body. It is virtually the same Court that is changing its mind after reflecting on the question again in the light of new perspectives. The decisions of this Court are not petrified rules grown rigid once pronounced but vital, growing things subject to change as all life is. While we are told that the trodden path is best, this should not prevent us from opening a fresh trial or exploring the other side or testing a new idea in a spirit of continuing inquiry.”

Q: Distinguish Res Adjudicata and Stare Decisis.

A: RES ADJUDICATA operates between two actions involving the same parties and the same cause(of action); while STARE DECISIS refers to cases with different parties.

STARE DECISIS refers only to decisions of the SC (decisions of the CA are not a basis of stare decisis); while the doctrine of RES ADJUDICATA refers to all courts: SC, CA, RTC and MTC.

Q: Distinguish Law Of The Case and Stare Decisis.

A: LAW OF THE CASE refers only to one case which may or may not be invoked in subsequent cases, while STARE DECISIS may refer to various cases which are usually invoked in subsequent cases.

Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. - The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal or a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:

(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing; and

(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.

In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. (50a)

Sec. 48 is actually a law on conflict of laws - effect of foreign judgment. If a judgment is rendered in U.S. and is being invoked in the Philippines, should we honor it? Yes. So, is it conclusive? Yes. The law says, in case of judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive effectively.

PROBLEM: Mortverine and Mistiqla were both in the U.S. and they quarreled about the ownership of a ring. They went to an American court. After trial, the court ruled that Mortverine is the legitimate owner of the ring. The judgment became final. Subsequently both of them came to the Philippines and Mistiqla filed a case against Mortverine to recover the same ring. Sabi ni Mortverine, “Res adjudicata na ito eh, tapos na yan. Here is the decision in America. Therefore it is settled.”

Q: Is A correct?

A: YES. Under paragraph [a]. In case of a foreign judgment upon a SPECIFIC THING, the judgment is conclusive upon the parties. Hindi puwedeng buksan.

That’s already litigated abroad, merong nang decision. We will respect it.

Suppose the judgment is against a person. The law says it is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties.

EXAMPLE: A and B were both Americans. They were married in the U.S. and obtained a divorce in the states. They came to the Philippines. The issue is whether the marriage was validly terminated. According to one party, “Yes, meron man tayong divorce ba.” Is the decree of divorce abroad involving these American couple allowed in the Philippines considering we have no divorce

EXAMPLE: H and W are Philippine citizens. They went abroad and somehow able to get a divorce in an American court which became final. They came back here. Will the Philippine court honor the divorce? Here, the judgment may be repelled by want of jurisdiction of the American court, etc. The judgment is presumed to be valid unless you can attack by showing lack of jurisdiction.

What is the principle in private international law? A judgment of divorce rendered by an American court between 2 Filipinos is null and void. Why? The American court never acquired jurisdiction over the status of the parties (because they are not U.S. citizens). But judgment in personam is honored here except when there is want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

Q: How do you enforce a foreign judgment?

A: The usual procedure, you file a case against the same defendant here and the cause of action is enforcement of a foreign judgment. And then the Philippine court will render a judgment enforcing it and then you can execute.

The SC commented on the enforcement of a foreign judgment in the Philippines in the case of

PHILSEC vs. COURT OF APPEALS June 19, 1997

HELD: “While this court has given the effect of res judicata to foreign judgments in several cases, it was after the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to repel them on grounds allowed under the law. It is not necessary for this purpose to initiate a separate action or proceeding for enforcement of the foreign judgment.

What is essential is that there is opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the court to properly determine its efficacy. This is because in this jurisdiction, with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary.”

-oOo-