DRAPER, Erika May I.

LEGAL RESEARCH
December 14, 2020

CPUJD-1B Atty. Dephra Jane Articulo-Villoso Activity No. 7

1. Doctrine of Precedent

In the case of Phil. Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v. Comelec, doctrine of

precedent  is a doctrine where a judicial decision that creates a rule that other courts
must follow when deciding later cases that are similar or identical to the case that
created the rule. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a
decision of its Supreme Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be
followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land.

2. Stare Decisis and Res Judicata

In the case of Phil. Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v. Comelec, the doctrine
of stare decisis is also called the doctrine of adherence to judicial precedents.  The
doctrine that enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to
follow the rule established in a decision of its Sup. Court. That decision becomes a
judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land.

While Doctrine of res judicata, the case of Lopez v. Reyes defines that it is the
rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and
matters determined in the former suit. It is the doctrine that has 2 aspects. The first is
the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same
claim, demand or cause of action. The second aspect is that it precludes the
relitigation of a particular fact or issues in another action between the same parties on
a different claim or cause of action.

3. Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum

In the case of People v. Sandiganbayan, ratio decidendi which is defined as:“1.

the principle or rule of law on which a court’s decision is founded; 2. The rule of law on
which a later court thinks that a previous court founded its decision xx”

On the other hand, the same case defines obiter dictum as a “judicial comment
made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in
the case and therefore not precedential although it may be considered persuasive.

4. Binding Authority and Persuasive Authority

The book of Berring and Edinger entitled Finding the Law reveals that primary
sources can be either persuasive or mandatory.

Mandatory authority refers to  cases, statutes, or regulations that the court must

follow  because  it is binding  on the  court. Thus, lower courts are required  to
follow decisions from higher courts in the same  jurisdiction.

Example  1:  You are  in federal District Court  for the  Northern District of North
Carolina.  The same district court ruled that all dogs get two free bites, but the Fourth
Circuit held that all dogs only get one free bite. The  Fourth Circuit ruling is mandatory
authority; therefore, you are out of luck  if your client’s dog bit more than once.

Persuasive authority refers to cases, statutes, regulations, or secondary sources

that the  court may follow but does not have to follow. Thus, the holding from a court in
another  jurisdiction or a lower court in the same jurisdiction is persuasive authority.

Example  2:  You are  in federal District Court  for the  Northern District of North
Carolina.  The same district has not ruled on the dog issue and  neither has the Fourth
Circuit. The Ninth Circuit, however, has ruled that  hungry dogs can bite as many times
as they want, and  the  Fifth Circuit has held  that owners must euthanize all dogs that
DRAPER, Erika May I.
LEGAL RESEARCH
December 14, 2020

CPUJD-1B Atty. Dephra Jane Articulo-Villoso Activity No. 7

bite even once. You will  want to argue that your court should adopt the Ninth Circuit’s
rule;  however, the district court may adopt either rule or make up its own rule.

When writing a memo or a brief, you must cite to relevant mandatory authority.

However, consider  citing  persuasive  authority if no  mandatory authority exists or
adding support to the mandatory authority that you cited.

5. Dispositive or Fallo

In the case of Florentino v. Rivera, it bears stressing that a decision that has
acquired finality, as in this case, becomes immutable and unalterable. A final judgment
may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
erroneous conclusions of fact  or  law. In short, once a judgment becomes final and
executory, it can no longer be disturbed no matter how erroneous it may be and
nothing further can be done therewith except to execute it. It is settled rule that "the
operative part in every decision is the dispositive portion or the fallo, and where there is
conflict between 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."

The Supreme Court expounded on the underlying reason behind this rule
in Republic v. Nolasco where, reiterating the earlier pronouncements made in Contreras
v. Felix. Succinctly stated, "where there is a conflict between the dispositive portion of
the decision and the body thereof, the dispositive portion controls irrespective of what
appears in the body of the decision." While the body of the decision,
order  or  resolution might create some ambiguity in the manner the court's reasoning
preponderates, it is the  dispositive  portion thereof that finally invests rights upon the
parties, sets conditions for the exercise of those rights, and imposes the corresponding
duties or obligations.