Stare Decisis

The rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to re-litigate the same issue where the same
questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a
previous case litigated and decided by a competent court. (Tala Realty Services Corp. v Banco
Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank GR No. 181369, June 22, 2016)

The principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle
things which are established) is well entrenched in Article 8 of the New Civil Code which states that
judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal
system of the Philippines. (Purisimo M. Cabaobas, et. al., v Pepsi Cola, GR No. 176908, March 25,
2015)

Stare decisis ct non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled. Stare
decisis simply means 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 though the parties may be different. It
proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases
ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put
forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court,
the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue. (UP v Segundina Rosario, GR
No. 186635, January 27, 2016) alawlawlib rary

Conclusiveness of Judgment
Conclusiveness of judgment is a species of res judicata and it applies where there is identity of
parties in the first and second cases, but there is no identity of causes of action.
Otherwise known as "preclusion of issues" or "collateral estoppel," (Tala Realty Services Corp. v
Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank GR No. 181369, June 22, 2016)

Conclusiveness of judgment finds application when a fact or question has been squarely put in
issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The
fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action (and persons in
privity with them or their successors-ininterest), and continues to bind them while the judgment or
order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or petition; the
conclusively settled fact or question furthermore cannot again be litigated in any future or other
action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any
other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action. Thus, only
the identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of
judgment. (Philtranco Service Enterprises v Cual, GR No. 207684, July 17, 2017)

This is the concept of res judicata known as "conclusiveness of judgment." Stated differently, any right, fact
or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a
competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein
and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or not the claim, demand,
purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same. (Monico Ligtas v People, GR No 200751, August
17, 2015)

Law of the Case

nce a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is
erroneous or not and no court - not even the Supreme Court - has the power to revise, review,
change or alter the same. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental
principle of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of
courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law.
(Mitsubishi v Bureau of Customs, GR No. 209830, June 17, 2015)

A decision that has attained finality becomes the law of the case regardless of any claim that it is
erroneous (Vargas v Cajucom GR No 171095, June 22, 2015)

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 to effect
the ruling; the question settled by the appellate court becomes the law of the case at the
lower court and in any subsequent appeal. (Yap v Siao, GR No. 212493, June 1, 2016)