Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 166562 2009-03-31	BENJAMIN G. TING v. CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING NACHURA, J.
The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence by lower courts to doctrinal rules established by this Court in its final decisions. It is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.[49] Basically, it is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issues,[50] necessary for two simple reasons: economy and stability. In our jurisdiction, the principle is entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code.[51]
	GR NO. 150394 2007-06-26	PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS v. EFREN ESPIRITU GARCIA, J.
On the basis of the two aforecited decisions, the Court, when again confronted recently by a similar case in De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola Products, Phils., Inc.,[7] came out with a Resolution partly reading as follows:The principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere[8] is entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code, to wit:
	GR NO. 167866 2006-10-16	PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES v. PEPE B. PAGDANGANAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS MAY SEEK AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF WITHOUT HAVING APPEALED. In essence, the present petition raises as fundamental issue for resolution by the Court the question of whether or not the instant case is already barred by our rulings in the cases of Rodrigo,[17] Mendoza,[18] Patan[19] and, the most recent, De Mesa.[20]