This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-03-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of the Supreme Court thereof. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis 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.[25] (Emphasis supplied) Unfortunately, the Beltran decision attained finality at the level of the CA. Thus, if the CA seemingly made a new pronouncement regarding the criminal liability of a publisher under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, that ruling cannot bind this Court unless we | |||||
|
2007-06-26 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| It enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires our courts to follow a rule already established in a final decision of the Supreme Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis 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.[9] | |||||
|
2005-08-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| According to petitioner, respondents Regala and Concepcion should not be excluded as respondents because they are being charged for illegal acts committed in their official capacity as members of the Board of Directors of UNICOM and UCPB, in conspiracy with the other private respondents.[15] Such argument, however, has already been overruled by the Court in both the Regala[16] and Castillo[17] cases, wherein the Court ordered the exclusion of petitioners therein from the acts complained of in connection with the legal services they rendered to the other respondents. Thus, the Court held in the Castillo case that:It is true that unlike in Regala, petitioner in the present case is not being required to name his clients. However, the case of Regala is still applicable to the present case because the two cases are the same in more important aspects. | |||||
|
2005-08-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires our courts to follow a rule already established in a final decision of the Supreme Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis 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.[23] | |||||
|
2004-08-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| According to petitioner, respondents Regala and Concepcion should not be excluded as respondents because they are being charged for illegal acts committed in their official capacity as members of the Board of Directors of UNICOM and UCPB, in conspiracy with the other private respondents.[16] Such argument, however, has already been resolved by the Court in both the Regala[17] and Castillo[18] cases, wherein the Court found that the acts complained of were done by the respondents in connection with the legal services they rendered to the other respondents. Thus, the Court held in the Castillo case that:This was the same argument raised by the Republic in the case of Regala. In overruling the Republic's position, this Court ruled: | |||||
|
2002-09-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Lastly, we find that indeed, private respondents Regala and Concepcion should be dropped as parties-defendants in OMB-0-90-2811. In Castillo vs. Sandiganbayan and the Republic of the Philippines,[28] we ordered the exclusion of lawyer Gregorio | |||||