LEGAL RESEARCH by Rufus B. Rodriguez 02 I. INTRODUCTION 1.

Legal Research, Defined -It is the process of finding the la , rules and regulations that go!ern acti!ities of hu"an society. It is also defined as the investigation for information necessary to support legal decision "a#ing. 2. Legal Research, Importance -$o pro!ide co"petent representation% and uphold the standards of the legal profession %re&uires the legal #no ledge, s#ill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for representation. '. Legal Research, Sources -In!ol!es the use of a !ariety of printed% and electronic sources. %constitution, statutes, court decisions, ad"inistrati!e rules and scholarly co""entaries (. Legal Research and Bibliography, Distinguished -Legal Research is the "ethod or syste" of in&uiry and in!estigation in!ol!ing the actual use of the la boo#s, hile Legal Bibliography is concerned ith the study of the "aterials essential to the in&uiry of the researcher. Legal Bibliography, Defined -It is generally defined as the science or study of la boo#s, their history, e!olution and description, their characteristics and use, including such details as their authors, publishers, dates, editions and degree of authoritati!eness. ). Legal Bibliography, Importance -$he efficient use of la boo#s can only be learned by study and application. It is an aid in the process% of analyzing a legal &uestion. % here to find the la , in hat boo#, and ho

2ust and obligatory -i"poses a duty to obey -ro"ulgated by legiti"ate authority -by the legislature 5o""on obser!ance and benefit -obser!ed by all for the benefit of all '. ,ources of La s 5onstitution Legislation, 1d"inistrati!e or 97ecuti!e 1cts 2udicial 8ecisions or 2urisprudence 5usto"s (. 9ffecti!ity of La s 1rt. 2, 5i!il 5ode. La s shall ta#e effect after 15 days upon co"pletion of their publication in the :fficial ;azette, unless other ise pro!ided. %9: 200 < in ne spaper of general circulation $a=ada !s $u!era 1'* ,5R1 2+ 415$,> In!o#ing the right of the people to be infor"ed on "atters of public concern as ell as the principle that la s to be !alid and enforceable "ust be published in the :fficial ;azette, petitioners filed for rit of "anda"us to co"pel respondent public officials to publish and?or cause to publish !arious presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, procla"ations, e7ecuti!e orders, letters of i"ple"entations and ad"inistrati!e orders. $he ,olicitor ;eneral, representing the respondents, "o!ed for the dis"issal of the case, contending that petitioners ha!e no legal personality to bring the instant petition. I,,@9> A.:.B. publication in the :fficial ;azette is re&uired before any la or statute beco"es !alid and enforceable. C9L8> 1rt. 2 of the 5i!il 5ode does not preclude the re&uire"ent of publication in the :fficial ;azette, e!en if the la itself pro!ides for the date of its effecti!ity. $he clear ob.ect of this pro!ision is to gi!e the general public ade&uate notice of the !arious la s hich are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Aithout such notice and publication, there ould be no basis for the application of the "a7i" ignoratia legis nominem excusat. It ould be the height of in.usti!e to punish or other ise burden a citizen for the transgression of a la hich he had no notice hatsoe!er, not e!en a constructi!e one. $he !ery first clause of ,ection 1 of 51 *'D reads> there shall be published in the :fficial ;azetteE. $he ord FshallG therein i"poses upon respondent officials an i"perati!e duty. $hat duty "ust be enforced if the constitutional right of the people to L9;1L R9,91R5C

*. Legal Research and Bibliography, Aim -In order to pro!ide legal basis for a clai", one "ust present for consideration the authority hich "ust be applied, and hich the court is bound to apply. +. ,ources of La -ri"ary ,ources -recorded la s and rules be enforced by state hich ill

%legislati!e actions, codes, statutes, .udicial decisions, ad"inistrati!e la s /IRR0 ,econdary ,ources -publications that discuss or analyze legal doctrine %treatises, co""entaries, encyclopedias, legal ritings /1cade"ic 2ournals, IB- 2ournal 3 La yers Re!ie 0 4inding $ools %,5R1 6uic#-Inde7 8igest, -hil 2uris 3 Le7 Libris II. LAWS 1. La , Defined -1 rule of conduct, .ust and obligatory, pro"ulgated by legiti"ate authority for the co""on obser!ance and benefit 2. 5haracteristics of La Rule of conduct -guidelines of hat to do or not to do

1 | -L1$:B

be infor"ed on "atter of public concern is to be gi!en substance and !alidity. $he publication of presidential issuances of public nature or of general applicability is a re&uire"ent of due process. It is a rule of la that before a person "ay be bound by la , he "ust first be officially and specifically infor"ed of its contents. $he 5ourt declared that presidential issuances of general application hich ha!e not been published ha!e no force and effect. $a=ada !s $u!era 1(* ,5R1 ((* 415$,> $his is a "otion for reconsideration of the decision pro"ulgated on 1pril 2(, 1HD). Respondent argued that hile publication as necessary as a rule, it as not so hen it as Fother iseG as hen the decrees the"sel!es declared that they ere to beco"e effecti!e i""ediately upon their appro!al. I,,@9,> A.:.B. a distinction be "ade bet een la s of general applicability and la s hich are not as to their publicationI and A.:.B. a publication shall be "ade in publications of general circulation. C9L8> $he clause Funless it is other ise pro!idedG refers to the date of effecti!ity and not to the re&uire"ent of publication itself, hich cannot in any e!ent be o"itted. $his clause does not "ean that the legislature "ay "a#e the la effecti!e i""ediately upon appro!al, or in any other date, ithout its pre!ious publication. FLa sG should refer to all la s and not only to those of general application, for strictly spea#ing, all la s relate to the people in general albeit there are so"e that do not apply to the" directly. 1 la ithout any bearing on the public ould be in!alid as an intrusion of pri!acy or as class legislation or as an ultra vires act of the legislature. $o be !alid, the la "ust in!ariably affect the public interest e!e if it "ight be directly applicable only to one indi!idual, or so"e of the people only, and not to the public as a hole. 1ll statutes, including those of local application and pri!ate la s, shall be published as a condition for their effecti!ity, hich shall begin 1) days after publication unless a different effecti!ity date is fi7ed by the legislature. -ublication "ust be in full or it is no publication at all, since its purpose is to infor" the public of the content of the la . 1rticle 2 of the 5i!il 5ode pro!ides that publication of la s "ust be "ade in the :fficial ;azette, and not else here, as a re&uire"ent for their effecti!ity. $he ,upre"e 5ourt is not called upon to rule upon the isdo" of a la or to repeal or "odify it if it finds it i"practical. $he publication "ust be "ade forth ith, or at least as soon as possible.1 @"ali !s 9stanislao 20H ,5R1 ((* 415$,> R1 +1*+, pro!iding additional e7e"ptions to ta7payers, as signed and appro!ed on 8ece"ber 1HH1 ith the clause Fshall ta#e effect upon its appro!alG and as published on 2anuary 1(, 1HH2 in Malaya, a ne spaper of general circulation.

-etitioner filed a -etition for Janda"us to co"pel the ,ecretary of 4inance and the 5IR, herein respondents, to i"ple"ent R1 +1*+. I,,@9> A.:.B. R1 +1*+ too# effect upon its appro!al or after 1) days upon its publication and if it co!ers ta7able inco"e for year ended 1HH1. C9L8> R1 +1*+ too# effect on 2anuary '0, 1HH2, after 1) days upon publication and not upon its appro!al on 8ece"ber 1HH1 because the effecti!ity clause is defecti!e. In the second issue, loo#ing into the conte"poraneous legislati!e intent, the 1ct as intended to ad.ust the po!erty threshold le!el at the ti"e said 1ct as enacted and not in the future. 4ari=as !s 97ecuti!e ,ecretary (1+ ,5R1 )0' 415$,> R1 H00*, $he 4air 9lection 1ct, as signed into la by -resident 1rroyo. -etitioners, "e"bers of the Jinority of the Couse of Representati!es, filed a -etition to declare said 1ct unconstitutional because it !iolated ,ec. 2*, 1rticle * of the 5onstitution re&uiring e!ery la to ha!e only one sub.ect hich should be e7pressed in its title. Joreo!er, it is !iolati!e of the 8ue -rocess 5lause of the 5onstitution ith regards to ,ec. 1* hich states that F$his act shall ta#e effect i""ediately upon its appro!alG. C9L8> $he effecti!ity clause of R1 H00* is defecti!e, but it does not render the entire la defecti!e. @nder the case of $a=ada !s $u!era, the phrase Funless other ise pro!idedG refers to the date and not to publication, hich is indispensable. La Bugal-bKlaan $ribal 1ssociation, Inc. !s Ra"os (21 ,5R1 1(D 415$,> :n 2uly 2), 1HD+, t o days before the con!ening of the 4irst 5ongress, -resident 1&uino, in her e7ercise of legislati!e po er during the -ro!isional 5onstitution, issued 9: 2+H ith the clause Fshall ta#e effect i""ediatelyG. 9: 2+H as published on 1ugust ', 1HD+. I,,@9> A.:.B. 9: 2+H !iolated 9: 200 here a la shall ta#e effect after 1) days follo ing its publication and A.:.B. legislati!e po ers of the -resident ceased to e7ist upon the con!ening of the 4irst 5ongress t o days after 9: 2+HKs issuance, thereby "a#ing such issuance in!alid. C9L8> 9: 2+H is an effecti!e and !alidly enacted statute. $here is nothing in 9: 200 that pre!ent a la fro" ta#ing effect on a date other than, or before, the 1)-day period after its publication. $he 1)-day period only applies to those la s that do not pro!ide for its o n effecti!ity date. Ahen 9: 2+H as published, it beca"e i""ediately effecti!e upon its publication. :n 9: 2+HKs !alidity, it as issued before the con!ening of the 4irst 5ongress therefore the -resident as !alidly e7ercising her legislati!e po ers. ). 5lassification of La s Batural La -di!ine inspiration in "an, deri!es its force and authority fro" ;od. Binding to the whole world

1. -hysical La

-uni!ersal rule of action that go!erns the conduct and "o!e"ent of things i.e la of gra!itation LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
1

,ource> Internet

As to scope ;eneral -applies to persons, entities, things as a class o"itting no one ,pecial -particular persons, entities, things Local -specific, ithin territorial li"its "thers -rospecti!e Retrospecti!e Repealing 1"endatory -operates after it ta#es effect -affects acts already co""itted effecti!ity

B. Joral La 5. 8i!ine La

-establishes hat is right and hat is dictated by hu"an conscience

rong as

-di!ine positi!e la 10 co""and"entsI di!ine hu"an positi!e la , enacted by "an for their general elfare

before

-ositi!e La 1. -ublic La -Constitutional Law, the funda"ental la of the land hich defines the po ers of the go!ern"entI Administrative Law, fi7es organization and its functionsI International Law, regulates the co""unity of nations - Substantive, creates duties, rightsI and rocedural, "eans 3 "ethods in courts

-re!o#es or ter"inates another statute -addition to the original la for i"pro!e"ent /"odifies or &ualifies0

Reference -refers to other statutes and "a#e the" applicable to the sub.ect of the ne legislation 8eclaratory -establishes its "eaning 3 correct construction ,tatutes -roper, arts $itle -gi!es the general state"ent of the sub.ect "atter

B. -ri!ate La III. STATUTES

1. ,tatute, Defined -1 ritten ill of the legislature e7pressed according to the for" necessary to constitute it a la of the state and rendered authentic by certain prescribed for"s and sole"nities 2. 5lasses of ,tatute La 1. $he 1HD+ 5onstitution 5onstitution, Defined -$he funda"ental la or supre"e la of the land promulgated by the people. 1 la , to hich all other la s "ust confor" -$he ritten instru"ent by hich the funda"ental po ers of the go!ern"ent are established, li"ited and defined and by hich these po ers are distributed a"ong the se!eral depart"ents for their safe and useful e7ercise for the benefit of the people B. $reaties and International 1gree"ents $reaty, Defined -1n agree"ent bet een or a"ong states their "utual conduct ith one another 5. ,tatutes enacted by the Legislature ,tatute -roper, !inds As to nature -enal -i"poses punish"ent of an offense Re"edial -re"edy for"er la s, refor" or e7tend rights ,ubstanti!e -creates, defines, regulates the rights and duties of parties Labor - elfare of laborers, go!erns e"ployer-e"ployee relationship $a7 -e7action of "oney fro" the state to achie!e legislati!e or general ob.ecti!e As to application Jandatory -non-co"pliance renders act !oid or illegal 8irectory -non-co"pliance does not in!alidate act As to performance -er"anent $e"porary -continues in perfor"ance until altered or repealed -fi7ed for a specified period hich generally go!erns

-rea"ble -states the reason for, or the ob.ects of the enact"ent 9nacting 5lause Body -indicates the authority enact"ent hich pro"ulgates the

-contains the sub.ect "atter of the statute and shall e"brace only one sub.ect

-ro!isos -acting as a restraint upon or as &ualification of the generality of the language hich it follo s Interpretati!e 5lause Repealing 5lause ,a!ing 5lause -legislature defines its o n language or prescribes rules for its construction -announces the legislati!e intent to ter"inate or re!o#e another statute -restricts a repealing act and preser!es e7isting po ers, rights and pending proceedings fro" the effects of the repeal -if for any reason, any section or pro!ision is held to be unconstitutional or in!o#ed, the other section or pro!ision of the la shall not be affected thereby. - hen the la shall ta#e effect /1rticle 2
of the 5i!il 5ode0

,eparability 5lause

8ate of effecti!ity

Bote> %$I$L9 "ust ha!e only one sub.ect to pre!ent hodge#podge or log# rolling legislation, to pre!ent surprise or fraud, and to fairly apprise the people of the sub.ect of legislation Codge--odge, Defined -1 "ischie!ous legislati!e practice of e"bracing in one bill se!eral distinct "atters, none of hich, perhaps, could singly obtain the assent of the legislator, and then procuring its passage by a co"bination of the "inorities in fa!our of each of the "easure into a "a.ority that ill adopt the" all -:b.ecti!e> to unite the legislators ho fa!our any one of the sub.ects in support of the hole act. M:I8 $est of sufficiency of title> indicates in broad but 5L91R ter"s in nature, scope and conse&uences of the proposed la and its operation L9;1L R9,91R5C

3 | -L1$:B

In case of doubt as to the sufficiency of the title$ the presumption is in favour of the validity of the acts

Lidasan !s 5:J9L95 21 ,5R1 (H* 415$,> R1 (+H0 F1n 1ct 5reating the Junicipality of 8ianaton in the -ro!ince of Lanao del ,urG as signed into la consisting of 21 barrios, 12 of hich are fro" the "unicipalities of -arang and Buldon, pro!ince of 5otabato. $he :ffice of the -resident reco""ended the 5:J9L95 to suspend the operation of the statute until clarified. Bot ithstanding, the 5:J9L95 declared that the statute should be i"ple"ented unless declared unconstitutional by the ,5. Cence the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Bara Lidasan, a resident and ta7payer of the detached portion of -arang, 5otabato and a &ualified !oter. C9L8> R1 (+H0 is unconstitutional because it !iolates the pro!ision that Fno bill hich "ay be enacted into la shall e"brace "ore than one sub.ect hich shall be e7pressed in the title of the billG $ o-pronged purpose co"bined in one statute> It creates the "unicipality of 8ianaton purportedly fro" 21 barrios in the to ns of Butig and Balabagan, both in the pro!ince of Lanao del ,urI and It also dis"e"bers t o "unicipalities in 5otabato, a pro!ince different fro" Lanao del ,ur R1$I:B1L9> $itle to be couched in a language sufficient to notify the legislators and the public and those concerned of the i"port of the single sub.ect thereof. 1 title hich is so uncertain that the a!erage person reading it ould not be infor"ed of the purpose of the enact"ent or put on in&uiry as to its contents, or hich is "isleading, either in referring to or indicating one sub.ect here another or different one is really e"braced in the act, or in o"itting any e7pression or indication of the real sub.ect or scope of the act, is bad. %-R91JBL9 does not create right nor grant any right, not a source of go!ern"ent po er, not an essential part of a statute /%hereas0 -eople !s 9cha!es H) ,5R1 **' 415$,> 4iscal 9llo filed before the lo er court separate infor"ations against 1* persons charging the" ith s&uatting penalized by -8 ++2. $he infor"ations ere dis"issed on the grounds that /10 entry should be by force, inti"idation or threat and not through stealth and strategy as allegedI /20 -8 ++2 does not apply to the culti!ation of a grazing land. Jotion for consideration as li#e ise denied. $he phrase Fand for other purposesG in the decree does not include agricultural purposes because its prea"ble does not "ention the ,ecretary of 1griculture and "a#es reference to the affluent class. Cence, the appeal to this 5ourt. C9L8> Lo er courtKs decision affir"ed. $he decree does not apply to pasture lands because its prea"ble sho s that it as intended to apply to

s&uatting in urban co""unities or "ore particularly to illegal constructions in s&uatting areas "ade by ell-to-do indi!iduals. $he s&uatting co"plained of in!ol!es pasture lands in rural areas. :n the other hand, it is punished by R1 H(+ R1$I:B1L9> $he rule of e&usdem generis does not apply to -8 ++2 here the intent of decree is un"ista#able. 1glipay !s Ruiz *( ,5R1 201 415$,> Jons. 1glipay sought an issuance of prohibition fro" the court to pre!ent 8irector of -osts fro" issuing and selling postage sta"ps co""e"orati!e of the ''rd International 9ucharistic 5ongress hich !iolates the pro!ision that Fno public "oney or property shall e!er be appropriated, applied or used, directly or indirectly, for the benefit, or support of any sect, church, deno"inationEG or the principle of separation of church and state. C9L8> -etition denied. R1 (0)2 hich appropriates a su" of -*0,000 for the said sta"ps conte"plates no religious purpose in !ie . ,ta"ps ere not issued and sold for the benefit of the Ro"an 5atholic 5hurchI nor "oney deri!ed fro" the sale gi!en to that church. Joreo!er, hat is e"phasized is not the 9ucharistic 5ongress itself but Janila as the seat of that congress. R1$I:B1L9> Ahat is guaranteed by our 5onstitution is religious liberty and not "ere religious toleration. Religious freedo", as a 5onstitutional "andate, is not inhibition of profound re!erence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in hu"an affairs %B:8N consists of only one sub.ect, as long as the pro!isions are allied and ger"ane to the sub.ect %,9-1R1BILI$N 5L1@,9 if so "utually dependent and connected, or intended as a hole, nullity of one part !itiates the rest %81$9 :4 94495$IMI$N publication in the :fficial ;azette, condition for their effecti!ity1, e7cept those interpretati!e regulations and those internal in nature 8. 1d"inistrati!e Rules and Regulations 9. :rdinances enacted by the 1utono"ous Regions 4. :rdinances enacted by Local ;o!ern"ent @nits '. -hilippine Legislati!e ,yste" (. Ahen a Bill beco"es a La , rocess % -roposal to the co""ittee % 1st reading /in session, read title, author, synopsis0 % Referred to appropriate co""ittee % 2nd reading /debate, interpolation, a"end"ent, finalize0 % 9ndorse to plenary % 'rd reading /Mote !ia 'iva 'oce or Roll-call, Neas or Bays0 % ,econd 5o""ittee /Repeat steps 2-*0 Car"onization of the bill, if necessary> % -arallel reading bet een house and senate -Bica"eral 5onference 5o""ittee /'rd Couse of 5ongress0 % 9nrolled Bill %signed by ,enate -resident and ,pea#er of the Couse % ,ub"it to -resident for appro!al /appro!e? !eto? lapse into la 0

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
1

' ( )

$a=ada !s. $u!era, 1'* ,5R1 2+

-edro 2o!en Cill, 200) AestOs 9ncyclopedia of 1"erican La , edition 2

). 5i!il La and 5o""on La ,yste", Distinguished -Aith respect to la s, the for"er are ritten la s at the ti"e it as crafted hile the latter are la s handed do n by elders through "e"ory of "en, originally un ritten then codified. In the for"er, .udges only interpret the la s because the legislature has the e7clusi!e po er of pro"ulgating suchI hile in the latter .udges "ay legislate. IV. CASE LAW 1. 5ase La , Defined -the decisions, interpretations "ade by .udges hile deciding on the legal issues before the" hich are considered as the co""on la or as an aid for interpretation of a la in subse&uent cases ith si"ilar conditions. 5ase la s are used by ad!ocates to support their !ie s to fa!or their clients and also it influences the decision of the .udges.1 -it co"es fro" .udicial authorities of the state and is the 2 nd "a.or category of pri"ary sources of la 2. 5lasses of 5ase La % 8ecisions -roper -8ecisions by regular courts of 2ustice2 -8ecisions of the ,upre"e 5ourt -8ecisions of the 5ourt of 1ppeals -8ecisions of the ,andiganbayan -8ecisions of the 5ourt of $a7 1ppeals -8ecisions of the Regional $rial 5ourts -8ecisions of the Jetropolitan $rial 5ourts, the Junicipal $rial 5ourts and the Junicipal 5ircuit $rial 5ourts % ,ubordinate 8ecisions -Ruling of Boards, 5o""issions, and 1d"inistrati!e officers, and opinions of legal officers of the ;o!ern"ent' -8ecisions of the ,enate 9lectoral $ribunal and the Couse of Representati!es 9lectoral $ribunal -8ecisions of 1d"inistrati!e 1gencies 97ercising 6uasi2udicial -o ers, such as> -5:J9L95 -5,5 -5o""ission on 1udit -BLR5 -Insurance 5o""ission -Cousing 3 Land @se Regulatory Board -81R 1d.udication Board '. 8ecision, Defined -2udg"ent, decree, or deter"ination of findings of fact and?or of la by a .udge, arbitrator, court, go!ern"ental agency, or other official tribunal /court0 ( A conclusion reached after an evaluation of facts and law( %Ahen referring to .udicial "atters, a decision is not the sa"e as an opinion, although the ter"s are so"eti"es used interchangeably. 1 decision is the pronounce"ent of the solution of the court or .udg"ent in a case, hile an opinion is a state"ent of the reasons for its deter"ination "ade by the court) (. -arts of a 8ecision? -onencia> /10 $itle /indicating the na"es of the parties0 /20 ,yllabus /su""ary of i"portant points of decision0 /'0 -ortion of the report that carries authority LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
1 2

/(0 ,tate"ent of facts /)0 1bstracts of briefs of counsels /1rgu"ents0 /*0 :pinion of the court /+0 8ispositi!e portion /decision0 of the case /D0 ,eparate 8issenting or 5oncurring :pinion of 2ustices )"*+> -er curia" - Report agreed upon by all .ustices ). 9ffect of 8ecided 5ase /of the ,upre"e 5ourt0> /10 1n authoritati!e settle"ent of the particular contro!ersy before itI and /20 1s a precedent for future cases *. Res .udicata, Defined #a "atter ad.udged, .udicially acted upon or decided, or settled by .udg"ent. It pro!ides that a final .udg"ent on the "erits rendered by a court of co"petent .urisdiction is conclusi!e as to the rights of the parties and their pri!iesI and constitutes an absolute bar to subse&uent actions in!ol!ing the sa"e clai", de"and or cause of action +. Re&uisites of ,es &udicata> /10 $he for"er .udg"ent "ust be finalI /20 $he court that rendered it had .urisdiction o!er the sub.ect "atter and the partiesI /'0 It is a .udg"ent on the "erits /rendered after consideration of e!idence and stipulations0I and /(0 $here is P bet een the first and the second actions P an identity of parties, sub.ect "atter and cause of action /;.R. Bo. 1(*DD* Q200'R0 D. La of the 5ase, Defined -$he doctrine that F hen a court decides upon a rule of la , that decision should continue to go!ern the sa"e issue in subse&uent stages in the sa"e caseG* - $he doctrine of Sla of the caseS is one of policy only, ho e!er, and ill be disregarded hen co"pelling circu"stances re&uire a redeter"ination of the point of la decided on the prior appeal. ,uch circu"stances e7ist hen an inter!ening or conte"poraneous change in the la has transpired by the establish"ent of ne precedent by a controlling authority or the o!erruling of for"er decisions. + H. ,tare 8ecisis, Defined -$he principle that the decisions of a court are a binding authority on the court that issued the decisions and on the lo er courts for the disposition of factually si"ilar contro!ersies. Stand on what has been decided -F1dherence to precedentsG, states that once a case has been decided one ay, then another case, in!ol!ing e7actly the sa"e point at issue, should be decided in the sa"e "anner. D )"*+- ,upre"e 5ourt is not bound by this doctrine because it can o!erturn precedents. Tinds of ,tare 8ecisis> 1. Mertical ,tare 8ecisis -8uty of lo er courts to apply the decisions of the higher courts to cases in!ol!ing the sa"e facts. /:bligation0 LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
* +

Legal-e7planations.co" 2010 -edro 2o!en

-edro 2o!en AestOs 9ncyclopedia of 1"erican La , edition 2 D 5i!il 5ode, -aras /200D0

L9;1L R9,91R5C

5 | -L1$:B

2. Corizontal ,tare 8ecisis

-Cigher courts "ust follo its o n precedents /-olicy0 -5onstitutional ,tare 8ecisis are .udicial interpretations of the 5onstitutionI hile, ,tatutory ,tare 8ecisis are interpretations of statutes

,5 cases to buttress his argu"ents. $he ,5 re"inded counsel that decisions of the 51 are neither controlling nor conclusi!e on this 5ourt. Bepo"uceno !s 5ity of ,urigao )*0 ,5R1 (1 415$,> -etitioner filed a co"plaint before the R$5 for FReco!ery of Real -roperty and?or its Jar#et MalueG to reco!er a lot hich as occupied, de!eloped and used as a city road by the respondent ithout per"ission nor e7propriation proceedings for its ac&uisition. Bot ithstanding proposal for a"icable settle"ent, the 5ity Jayor refused to pay. R$5 granted petitioner -',2*0 as co"pensation for the land in dispute. Bot satisfied, the petitioner appealed to the 51. $he 51 entitled petitioner for "oral da"ages but affir"ed the co"pensation a arded. -etitioner sought for the !alue at the ti"e of actual pay"ent in!o#ing 51 decisions ith the substantial factual si"ilarity in this case, as ell as 1rticle 12)0 of the 5i!il 5ode. C9L8> -etition denied. In a long line of cases, it has been held that it is the !alue of the property at the ti"e of ta#ing that is controlling for purposes of co"pensation. Ae find no application for 1rticle 12)0 because it pertains to contractual obligations. Joreo!er, petitioner cannot properly insist on the application of the 51 decisions. 1 ruling of the 51 on any &uestion of la is not binding on this 5ourt. In fact, the 5ourt "ay re!ie , "odify or re!erse nu such ruling of the 51. R1$I:B1L9> $he o ner of the pri!ate property should be co"pensated only for hat he actually losesI it is not intended that his co"pensation shall e7tend beyond his loss or in.ury. 1yala 5orporation !s Rosa-8iana Realty and 8e!elop"ent 5orp '(* ,5R1 **' 415$,> -etitioner sold a parcel of land to Januel ,y and ,y Ta Tieng. $he 8eed of ,ale e7ecuted bet een the parties contained special conditions of sale> ,ub"ission of building plans for 1yalaKs appro!al, period of construction, and no resale of the said property. $he buyers failed to construct and the lot as then sold to herein respondent, ith 1yalaKs appro!al, pro"ising to abide by the said special conditions. Building plans of F$he -ea#G ere sent to 1yala and, a substantially different one, to the building official of Ja#ati. 1yala filed before the lo er court an action for specific perfor"ance of contractual obligation, in an alternati!e, rescission of the sale, hich as denied. @ndeterred, 1yala tried to cause the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the title but as denied by the Register of 8eeds of Ja#ati. $he Land Registration 1uthority re!ersed the ruling but as o!erturned by the 51. Rosa-8iana filed a 8e"urrer to 9!idence a!erring that 1yala failed to establish its right to the relief sought hich as sustained by the trial court. 1yala as guilty of abandon"ent and?or estoppel due to its failure to enforce the ter"s of the deed of restrictions and special conditions of sale. $he 51 affir"ed the ruling of the trial court saying that the appeal is sealed by the doctrine of the la of the case ith reference to a pre!ious case. $hus, 1yala is barred fro" enforcing the 8eed of Restrictions. Cence, the appeal to this 5ourt.

10. I"portance of -recedents -$he i"portance of precedent is su""ed up in the ords of Lord ;ardiner in London $ra" ays 5o. !s. London 5ity 5ouncil here he said, O...Q.usticesR regard the use of precedent as an indispensable foundation upon hich to decide hat is the la and its application to indi!idual cases. It pro!ides at least so"e degree of certainty upon hich indi!iduals can rely in the conduct of their affairs, as ell as a basis for an orderly de!elop"ent of legal rulesO. -5ertainty leads to stability, and it is of the fore"ost i"portance in creating order in society. 1 Res 2udicata and ,tare 8ecisis, +ffects -$he for"er to the settle"ent of the i""ediate contro!ersy and the latter to the i"pact of the decision as precedent Res 2udicata and La of the case, Distinguished -$he for"er forecloses parties in one case, hile the latter does not ha!e the finality of the for"er and applies only to a particular case. 11. ,ubordinate 5ase La s 12. 8ecision of the 5ourt of 1ppeals -$he 5ourt of 1ppeals ser!es as our inter"ediate appellate court. 1s to hether the decisions of this $ribunal shall constitute precedents, the ,upre"e 5ourt of the -hilippines, in the case of Miranda$ et al$ v( Imperial /++ -hil. 10**0 held> F:nly the decision of this Conorable 5ourt establish .urisprudence or doctrines in the .urisdiction. Co e!er, this does not pre!ent that a conclusion or pronounce"ent of the 5ourt of 1ppeals hich co!ers a point of la still undecided in our .urisprudence "ay ser!e as .uridical guide to the inferior courts, and that such conclusion or pronounce"ent be raised as a doctrine if, after it has been sub.ected to test in the crucible of analysis and re!ision, this ,upre"e 5ourt should find that it has "erits and &ualities sufficient for its consecration as a rule of .urisprudenceG ,il!a !s Jationg (HH ,5R1 +2( 415$,> 1#lan 9lectric 5ooperati!e, Inc /1T9L5:0 failed to pay its -2)J obligation hich resulted to a po er cut-off. B1-:5:R restored po er upon learning of the B91 ta#e-o!er. Co e!er, respondent re"ained as ;eneral Janager. Respondent as soon ter"inated finding hi" guilty of ilful breach of trust and confidence. Respondent filed a Janifestation and ,upple"ental "otion before the 51 nullifying his re"o!al on the ground that ,ec. 10 /e0 of -8 2*H hich pro!ides for Fsuspension or re"o!al and replace"entG is reser!ed solely to the B91-B:1I and prays for reinstate"ent. 51 granted the "otion. Cence, this petition. C9L8> -etition granted. RespondentKs ter"ination is !alid. 1T9L5:-B:8 sub"itted its Board Resolutions suspending and re"o!ing respondent to B91 for appro!al, therefore the for"er as acting pursuant to the authorization. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
1

,tudy orld.co", 2010

$he ,5 noted, ho e!er, that petitionerKs counsel relied on se!eral decisions of the 51 in addition to

C9L8> $he decision of the 51 is re!ersed and set aside. $he la of the case or stare decisis cannot be held applicable in the case at bench. $he sole issue raised before the appellate court as the propriety of the lis pendens annotation. R1$I:B1L9> $he ruling co!ered by the doctrine of the la of the case is adhered to in the single case here it arises, but is not carried into other cases as precedent. ,illi"an @ni!ersity !s 4ontelo--aalan )2) ,5R1 +)H 415$,> Respondent as e"ployed by the petitioner and as assigned to the Jedical Records ,ection of the ,illi"an @ni!ersity Jedical 5enter. ,he as later pro"oted as the Cead, the position she held until her retire"ent at the age of )+ pursuant to the pro!isions of the petitionerKs retire"ent plan. 1ccordingly, respondent recei!ed her retire"ent benefits. $hree years after, respondent filed ith the BLR5 a co"plaint for illegal dis"issal against petitioner on the ground that said pro!ision !iolates her constitutional right of security of tenure and is contrary to the co"pulsory retire"ent age of *). -etitioner as found guilty of illegal dis"issal by the Labor 1rbiter. :n appeal, BLR5 re!ersed the ruling of the L1 and upheld the !alidity of the retire"ent plan. Respondent filed a Jotion for Reconsideration but as denied but "odified its decision by ad.udging the petitioner liable for additional retire"ent benefits. Respondent then appealed before the 51, hich affir"ed the "odified decision of the BLR5. Respondent opted to accept the ad!erse .udg"ent. -etitioner, on the other hand, filed a -etition for Re!ie on 5ertiorari in reference to its liability. C9L8> -etition denied. $his 5ourt is already ithout .urisdiction to ta#e cognizance of the present -etition. By the petitioner and respondentKs inaction and presu"ed ac&uiescence, respecti!ely, the findings of the BLR5 and the 51, attained finality and thus, beca"e final and e7ecutory not ha!ing been ti"ely appealed. La"bino !s 5:J9L95 )0) ,5R1 1*0 @, !s Ruiz 1'* ,5R1 (D+ 415$,> @,1 had a na!al base in ,ubic Ua"bales. $he base as one of those pro!ided in the Jilitary Bases 1gree"ent bet een the -hilippines and the @,. ,o"eti"e in Jay 1H+2, the @, in!ited the sub"ission of bids for the repair of its na!al e&uip"ent. 9ligio de ;uz"an and 5o. sub"itted their bids. ,ubse&uently, it recei!ed 2 telegra"s re&uesting it to confir" its price proposals. :n 2une 1H+2, the co"pany recei!ed a letter hich as signed by Aillia" I. 5ollins of the @, Ba!y stating that it did not &ualify to recei!e an a ard because of its unsatisfactory perfor"ance ratings. $he co"pany then filed a petition in the trial court to issue a rit of preli"inary in.uction, hich the R$5 affir"ed. Cence this petition. I,,@9> A.:.B. our courts ha!e .urisdiction o!er the present caseI A.:.B. the respondent .udge erred in applying the case of Lyons !s @,1

C9L8> -etition granted. $he traditional rule of ,tate i""unity e7e"pts a state fro" being sued in courts of another state ithout its consent. $he reliance placed on Lyons by the respondent .udge is "isplaced. In the case, it can be seen that the state"ent in respect of the ai!er of ,tate I""unity fro" suit as purely gratuitous and therefore obiter, thus, it has no !alue as an i"perati!e authority. R1$I:B1L9> $he restricti!e application of ,tate I""unity is proper only hen the proceedings arise out of co""ercial transactions of the foreign so!ereign. It does not apply here the contract relates to the e7ercise of its so!ereign functions. in the case at bar, the pro.ects are an integral part of the na!al base de!oted to the defense of both the @, and the -hilippines, indisputably a function of the go!ern"ent. IV. BOOKS OF SECONDAR AUTHORIT V. LEGAL RESEARCH Legal 1uthority, Defined -1uthority that ill aid in finding a solution to a legal proble" 1. -ri"ary and ,econdary Legal 1uthority, Distinguished --ri"ary Legal 1uthorities are authorized state"ents of la issued by go!ern"ental bodiesI hile ,econdary Legal 1uthorities are descriptions of, or co""entary on, the la -$he for"er is the la itself /Jandatory or -ersuasi!e0I hile the latter interprets, analyzes, or co"piles the la /-ersuasi!e0 -ri"ary Legal 1uthorities /the court must rely on0 % 5onstitution and ,tatutes /Legislati!e Branch0 % 5ases /2udicial Branch0 % $reaties, 97ecuti!e :rders, 1d"inistrati!e Rules 3 Regulations, :rdinances /97ecuti!e Branch0 ,econdary Legal 1uthorities /the court may consider0 % La re!ie 1rticles, $reatises % Restate"ents of the La % Legal 9ncyclopedias 2. Jandatory and -ersuasi!e Legal 1uthority, Distinguished - Jandatory "ust be follo ed because it is the legal authority for a particular .urisdictionI hile -ersuasi!e "ay be follo ed optionally because they are legal authorities /court decisions0 of other .urisdictions '. ,ources of 1uthorities %Legislature % ,upre"e 5ourt % 1d"inistrati!e Bodies % Local ;o!ern"ent @nits % -resident (. Legal Research -rocess VI. FUNDA!ENTAL RESEARCH SKILL" CASE BRIEFING AND S NTHESIS OF CASES 1. 5ase Briefing, Defined -1 digest or condensation of a case. It is a ritten su""ary identifying the essential co"ponents of a court opinion. 5ase Briefing, +lements 5itation -L9;1L R9,91R5C

7 | -L1$:B

-arties 4acts -rior -roceedings Issue Ruling? Colding

-9!ents bet een the parties leading to the litigation Ahat happened in the lo er courts 6uestions including the rule of la applied to the facts Resolution of the issue or the courtKs decision on the &uestion that is actually before it Rule of La applied -:pinion

2. ,ynthesizing 5ases 5hi Jing $soi !s. 51 2** ,5R1 '2( 415$,> :n Jay 22, 1HDD, ;ina Lao "arried 5hi Jing $soi. ,ince their "arriage until their separation on Jarch 1), 1HDH, there as no se7ual contact bet een the". ;ina filed a case of annul"ent of "arriage on the ground of psychological incapacity ith the R$5 of 6uezon 5ity. $he R$5 granted annul"ent hich as affir"ed by the 51. I,,@9> Is the failure of the husband to ha!e se7ual intercourse ith his ife fro" the ti"e of the "arriage until their separation on Jarch 1), 1HDH a ground for psychological incapacity C9L8> :ne of the essential "arital obligations under the 4a"ily 5ode is Fto procreate children based on the uni!ersal principle that procreation of children through se7ual cooperation is the basic end of "arriage.G In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the abo!e "arital obligation is e&ui!alent to psychological incapacity. 2udg"ent 144IRJ98. Republic !s. 51 2*D ,5R1 1HD 415$,> :n 1pril 1(, 1HD), plaintiff Roridel :. Jolina "arried Reynaldo Jolina hich union bore a son. 1fter a year of "arriage, Reynaldo sho ed signs of i""aturity and irresponsibility as a husband and father as he preferred to spend "ore ti"e ith his friends, depended on his parents for assistance, and as ne!er honest ith his ife in regard to their finances resulting in fre&uent &uarrels bet een the". $he R$5 granted RoridelKs petition for declaration of nullity of her "arriage hich as affir"ed by the 51. I,,@9> 8o irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities constitute psychological incapacityV C9L8> $here is no clear sho ing that the psychological defect spo#en of is an incapacity. It appears to "ore of a FdifficultyG, if not outright FrefusalG or FneglectG in the perfor"ance of so"e "arital obligations. Jere sho ing of Firreconcilable differencesG and Fconflicting personalities in no ise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to pro!e that the parties failed to "eet their responsibilities and duties as "arried personsI it is essential that they "ust be sho n to be incapable of doing so, due to so"e psychological /not physical0 illness. $he e!idence "erely adduced that Roridel and her husband could not get along ith each other. $here had been no sho ing of the gra!ity of the proble", neither its .uridical antecedence nor its incurability. $he follo ing guidelines in interpretation and application of 1rticle '* of the 4a"ily 5ode are hereby handed do n for the guidance of the bench and the bar>

Reasoning 8isposition 5o""ents

,antos !s. 51 2(0 ,5R1 20 415$,> -laintiff Leouel ,antos "arried defendant 2ulia Bedia on ,epte"ber 20, 1HD*. :n Jay 1D, 1HDD, 2ulia left for the @.,. ,he did not co""unicate ith Leouel and did not return to the country. In 1HH1, Leouel filed ith the R$5 of Begros :riental, a co"plaint for !oiding of the "arriage under 1rticle '* of the 4a"ily 5ode. $he R$5 dis"issed the co"plaint and the 51 affir"ed the dis"issal. I,,@9> 8oes the failure of 2ulia to return ho"e, or at the !ery least to co""unicate ith hi", for "ore than fi!e years constitute psychological incapacityV C9L8> Bo, the failure of 2ulia to return ho"e or to co""unicate ith her husband Leouel for "ore than fi!e years does not constitute psychological incapacity. -sychological incapacity "ust be characterized by a0 gra!ity, b0 .uridical antecedence, and c0 incurability -sychological incapacity should refer to no less than a "ental /not physical0 incapacity that causes a party to be truly incogniti!e of the basic "arital co!enants that conco"itantly "ust be assu"ed and discharged by the parties to the "arriage hich, as so e7pressed by 1rticle *D of the 4a"ily 5ode, include their "utual obligations to li!e together, obser!e lo!e, respect and fidelity and render help and support. $he intend"ent of the la has been to confine the "eaning of Fpsychological incapacityG to the "ost serious cases of personality disorders clearly de"onstrati!e of an utter insensiti!ity or inability to gi!e "eaning and significance to the "arriage. $his psychologic condition "ust e7ist at the ti"e the "arriage is celebrated. @ndeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrie!ed, e!en desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, neither la nor society itself can al ays pro!ide all the specific ans ers to e!ery indi!idual proble" -etition is denied.

/10 Burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff /20 Root causes of -I "ust be> "edically or clinically identifiedI alleged in the co"plaintI sufficiently pro!en by e7pertsI and clearly e7plained in the decision /'0 -I "ust be pro!en to be e7isting at the ti"e of the celebration of the "arriage, although "anifestation need not be percei!able at such ti"e /(0 ,ho n to be "edically or clinically per"anent /)0 Just be gra!e enough to bring about the disability of the party to assu"e the essential obligations of "arriage /*0 $he essential "arital obligations "ust be those e"braced by 1rts. *D-+1 of the 4a"ily 5ode /+0 Interpretations gi!en by the Bational 1ppellate Jatri"onial $ribunal of the 5atholic 5hurch in the -hilippines, hile not controlling, should be gi!en great respect by our courts /D0 $he trial court "ust order the fiscal and the ,olicitor-;eneral to appear as counsel for the ,tate. Bo decision shall be handed do n unless the ,olicitor ;eneral issues a certification, hich ill be &uoted in the decision, briefly stating his reasons for his agree"ent or opposition to the petition 2udg"ent re!ersed and set aside. Cernandez !s. 51 '20 ,5R1 +* 415$,> Lucita 9strella "arried Jario Cernandez on 2anuray 1, 1HD1 and they begot three children. :n 2uly 10, 1HH2, Lucita filed before the R$5 of $agaytay 5ity, a petition for annul"ent of "arriage under 1rticle '* alleging that fro" the ti"e of their "arriage, Jario failed to perfor" his obligation to support the fa"ily, de!oting "ost of his ti"e drin#ing, had affairs ith "any o"en and cohabiting ith another o"en ith ho" he had an illegiti"ate child, and finally abandoning her and the fa"ily. $he R$5 dis"issed the petition by the 51. I,,@9> Ahether there under 1rticle '*. hich as affir"ed

ithin the conte"plation of the 4a"ily 5ode. It "ust be sho n that these acts are "anifestations of a disordered personality hich "a#e pri!ate respondent co"pletely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the "arital state, and not "erely due to pri!ate respondentKs youth and selfconscious feeling of being handso"e, as the appellate court held. 2udg"ent affir"ed. Jarcos !s. Jarcos ;.R. Bo. 1'*(H0, :ctober 1H, 2000 415$,> -laintiff Brenda B. Jarcos "arried Ailson Jarcos in 1HD2 and they had fi!e children. 1lleging that the husband failed to pro!ide "aterial support to the fa"ily and ha!e resorted to physical abuse and abandon"ent, Brenda filed a case for the nullity of the "arriage for psychological incapacity. $he R$5 declared the "arriage null and !oid under 1rticle '* hich as ho e!er re!ersed by the 51. I,,@9,> 10 Ahether personal "edical or psychological e7a"ination of the respondent by a physician is a re&uire"ent for a declaration of psychological incapacity 20 Ahether the totality of e!idence presented in this case sho psychological incapacity. C9L8> -sychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of a "arriage, "ay be established by the totality of the e!idence presented. $here is no re&uire"ent, ho e!er that the respondent should be e7a"ined by a physician or a psychologist as a conditio sine .ua non for such declaration. 1lthough this 5ourt is sufficiently con!inced that respondent failed to pro!ide "aterial support to the fa"ily and "ay ha!e resorted to physical abuse and abandon"ent, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. $here is absolutely no sho ing that his FdefectsG ere already present at the inception of the "arriage or that they are incurable. Merily, the beha!ior of respondent can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his .ob and as not gainfully e"ployed for a period of "ore than si7 years. It as during this period that he beca"e inter"ittently drun#, failed to gi!e "aterial and "oral support, and e!en left the fa"ily ho"e. $hus, his alleged psychological illness as traced only to said period and not to the inception of the "arriage. 9&ually i"portant, there is no e!idence sho ing that his condition is incurable, especially no that he is gainfully e"ployed as a ta7i dri!er. In su", this 5ourt cannot declare the dissolution of the "arriage for failure of petitioner to sho that the alleged psychological incapacity is characterized by gra!ity, .uridical antecedence and incurability /Santos v( CA, /01 SC,A /10I and for her failure to obser!e the guidelines as outlined in ,epublic v( CA and Molina, /23 SC,A 453 Republic !s. 8agdag ;.R. Bo. 10HH+), 4ebruary H, 2001 L9;1L R9,91R5C

as psychological incapacity

C9L8> -etitioner failed to establish the fact that at the ti"e they ere "arried, pri!ate respondent as suffering fro" psychological defect hich in fact depri!ed hi" of the ability to assu"e the essential duties of "arriage and its conco"itant responsibilities. 1s the 5ourt of 1ppeals pointed out, no e!idence as presented to sho that pri!ate respondent as not cognizant of the basic "arital obligations. It as not sufficiently pro!ed that pri!ate respondent as really incapable of fulfilling his duties due to so"e incapacity of a psychological nature, and not "erely physical. -ri!ate respondentKs alleged habitual alcoholis", se7ual infidelity or per!ersion, and abandon"ent do not by the"sel!es constitute grounds for finding that he is suffering fro" a psychological incapacity

9 | -L1$:B

415$,> -laintiff 9rlinda Jatias "arried 1!elino 8agdag in 1H+) and they begot children. 1 ee# after the edding, 1!elino ould disappear for "onths. 8uring the ti"es he as ith the fa"ily, he indulged in drin#ing sprees ith friends and ould return ho"e drun#. Ce ould li#e ise inflict physical in.uries on her. In 1HD', 1!elino left the fa"ily again and that as the last they heard fro" hi". 9rlinda later learned that 1!elino as i"prisoned but escaped fro" .ail. In 1HH0, 9rlinda filed ith the R$5 of :longapo 5ity a petition for nullity of "arriage for psychological incapacity. :n 8ece"ber 1+, 1HH0, the date set for presentation of e!idence, only 9rlinda and her counsel appeared. 9rlinda testified and presented her sister-in-la , Mirginia 8agdag, as her only itness. Mirginia testified that she is "arried to the brother of 1!elino. ,he testified that 9rlinda and 1!elino al ays &uarreled, and that 1!elino ne!er stayed for long at the coupleKs house. $hereafter, 9rlinda rested her case. $he R$5 declared the "arriage null and !oid under 1rticle '* of the 4a"ily 5ode hich as affir"ed by the 51. I,,@9> Ahether the husband suffers fro" psychological incapacity as he is e"otionally i""ature and irresponsible, a habitual alcoholic and a fugiti!e fro" .ustice. C9L8> $a#ing into consideration these guidelins laid do n in the Molina case, it is e!ident that 9rlinda failed to co"ply ith the re&uired e!identiary re&uire"ents. 9rlinda failed to co"ply ith guideline Bo. 2 hich re&uires that the root cause of psychological incapacity "ust be "edically or clinically identified and sufficiently pro!en by e7perts, since no psychiatrist or "edical doctor testified as to the alleged psychological incapacity of her husband. 4urther, the allegation that the husband is a fugiti!e fro" .ustice as not sufficiently pro!en. In fact, the cri"e for hich he as arrested as not e!en alleged. $he in!estigating prosecutor as li#e ise not gi!en an opportunity to present contro!erting e!idence since the trial courtKs decision as pre"aturely rendered. 2udg"ent re!ersed and set aside. VII. BASIC LEGAL CITATION 1. -urpose of Legal 5itation -ReferenceI -ro!ides the infor"ation necessary for the reader to locate the reference /specific statute, court opinion, la re!ie , encyclopedia0 allo ing the reader to chec# its content %;uide? ,ource> Blueboo# /Car!ard La Re!ie 1ssociation0I and 1LA8 Supra Id, Idem Fsa"e as abo!eG Fsa"e page cited in the caseG

construed, and to statutes in rene ed or repealed

hich prior acts ha!e been a"ended,

-1 citator is a finding tool that pro!ides the subse&uent history of reported cases and lists of cases and legislati!e enact"ents construing, applying or affecting statutes -S#e$ard%s C&tat&'(s published by ,hepardKs Jc;ra -Cill, lists !irtually e!ery published case by citation, in both official and unofficial reporters, and then list under its citation e!ery subse&uent case that has cited the case in &uestion. $he process of updating a case through this "ethod is referred to as S#e$ard&)&(*. 2. Inde7es -$he ord Finde7G usually "eans a sub.ect-inde7 hich is li#e the inde7 found in te7tboo#s, statutes, etc. 1 sub.ect inde7 is an alphabetically arranged topical ords in hich, by "eans of references under each topic, "aterial relating to these topics e7pressed in appropriate ords is digested '. Bibliographies -1 bibliography is a list of descriptions of published "aterials either relating to a gi!en sub.ect, or by a gi!en author. 1 bibliography of la boo#s "ay refer to a list of an authorKs legal ords, or of the literature bearing on a particular sub.ect or field of la VIII. ELECTRONIC RESEARCH hilippine Laws remium +dition 5ontents> 1. ,ub.ect Inde7 2. ,elected La s ith 1nnotations '. -hilippine 5onstitutions (. ,tatutes ). -residential Issuances *. ,upre"e 5ourt Issuances +. ,panish 9ra 5ode D. $reaties H. I"ple"enting Rules and Regulations 10. Rules and -rocedures 2urisprudence 1. ;.R. Bos. 2. 5ases fro" 1H01-200H /2010, 2nd 6uarter0 Des+r&$t&'( 5onnected ords -ro7i"ity, in order -ro7i"ity, unordered 5haracter replacer ,ynony"s Related root ord e7tender I,. LEGAL BIBLIOGRA-H ,. S-ECIAL TO-ICS Legal Research - applying the la in the gi!en set of facts 415$, 9MI89B59 L1A here C'de F777G F777G?10 F777GW10 o"Vn X Y

,earch Jaterials and 4inding $ools> 1. 5itators -$hey supply references to decisions in hich other cases ha!e been cited, re!ie ed, affir"ed, re!ersed, o!erruled, criticized or co""ented upon, and to cases in hich statutes ha!e been

$he duty of the legal researcher arises on the third instance you ha!e both the facts and the e!idences but not the la

5ases --ublished reports of dispute hich ha!e co"e before the court including the reason for the decision and the decision itself

- ublished reports found in the :fficial ;azette, -hilippine Reports, ,5R1, ,51B$, etc 5ase Brief -Aritten su""ary of the abstract of the case, in your own words 5ase Brief, +lements 1. 4acts -5ontains the parties in!ol!ed, date of the case, contro!ersies, cause of action /arises fro" the act of another !iolating the right of so"eone, the latter ha!ing the cause of action0 2. Issues --roble", sub-issues '. 1rgu"ents --arties, court, discussion of pros and cons -4or"ulation through general proposition fro" considering facts /inducti!e reasoning0 (. 8ecision -1pplication of the la :biter 8icta /not binding0 --roposition or state"ent not pertinent in deciding the issues in the case Colding --ropositions actually relied on the decision 5itation, +lements 1. Ba"e of the case 2. Molu"e Z '. -age Z (. 8ate decided 97a"ple> -eople !s. Boncayao, 2'( ,5R1 )*+ /20100 Jethods 1. Li!ing La 1pproach 1. La 4inder -Inde7, dictionaries, etc 2. ;o to the la -If not the la you are loo#ing for, cross#reference to get the la applies appropriately '. ,upple"ent or e!aluate it B. $opic Jethod Read also> Janual of ,upre"e 5ourt on Legal Ariting, 2udicial Ariting by 8r. Bg /page 1)*-1**0 re> 5iting 5onstitutions, ,tatutes, 1d"inistrati!e :rders, and 4oreign Jaterials that

deter"ining ho the la applies to the facts of the case, hich in turn re&uires #no ledge of hat the la is, ho to find it, and the general principles that go!ern its application /-ut"an, 200(0 Legal citation is the style of crediting and referencing other docu"ents or sources of authority in legal riting /Ai#ipedia0 Janual of 2udicial Ariting> F,ubstance and for" are the basic ele"ents of all hu"an creation. :ne ithout the other ould be useless. $he purpose of the Manual is to pro!ide a standardized for" for the substance of ,upre"e 5ourt decisions and resolutions. $he ai" is to pro!ide tools for clarity hile lea!ing plenty of roo" for indi!idual style and preferenceG II. -urpose of Legal 5itation 1ccording to for"er 5hief 2ustice Cilario 8a!ide /200)0, F ords are the lifeblood of .udicial decision or of any other for" of riting. Ahen the right ords are used, they ser!e as ge"s that gi!e luster to a "essage or idea. :n the other hand, gobbledygoo#, legal .argon, or archaic language is li#ely to ta#e a ay the !igor of a "essageG A language without idiom is li6e a man who cannot smile Legal citation is a standard language that allo s one riter to refer to legal authorities ith sufficient precision and generality that other can follo the references Legal citation stri!es to> 1. Identify the docu"ent and docu"ent part to referring, hich the riter is

2. -ro!ide the reader ith sufficient infor"ation to find the docu"ent or docu"ent part in the sources the reader has a!ailable / hich "ay or "ay not be the sa"e sources as those used by the riter0, and '. 4urnish i"portant additional infor"ation about the referenced "aterial and its connection to the riterKs argu"ent to assist readers in deciding hether or not to pursue the reference $he tas# of Flegal citationG in short is to pro!ide sufficient infor"ation to the reader of a brief or "e"orandu" to aid a decision about hich authorities to chec# as ell as in hat order to consult the" and to per"it efficient and precise retrie!al -- all of that, ithout consu"ing any "ore space or creating any "ore distraction than is absolutely necessary /1dapted fro" 5ornell Library 200), ith per"ission0 III. $ypes of 5itation -rinciples 1. 4ull 1ddress -rinciples> -rinciples that specify co"pleteness of the address or identification of a cited docu"ent or docu"ent portion in ter"s that ill allo the reader to retrie!e it 2. :ther Jini"u" 5ontent -rinciples> -rinciples that call for the inclusion of additional infor"ation ite"s beyond a retrie!al address -- the full na"e of the author of a .ournal article, the year a decision as rendered or a statutory codification last updated '. 5o"pacting -rinciples> -rinciples that reduce the space ta#en up by the infor"ation ite"s included in a citation. $hese include standard abbre!iations /F,upre"e 5ourtG beco"es F,.5.G0 and principles that eli"inate redundancy

BASIC LEGAL CITATION .y Dr. N* -' I. Introduction Legal research is the search for authority that can be applied to a gi!en set of facts and issues. Legal research and analysis in!ol!e

(. 4or"at -rinciples> -rinciples that punctuation, typography, order of ite"s ithin a citation, and the li#e. IM. Co to cite 5onstitutions 1. 5onstitutional $e7t L9;1L R9,91R5C

11 | -L1$:B

CONSTITUTION/ Art. VI/ Se+. 0 CONSTITUTION/ 112354/ Art. III/ Se+. 1/ $ar. 134

1. 5ase $itle> surna"e of the opposing parties first "entioned B. 97ceptions -cite Isla"ic and 5hinese na"es in full
Lim Sian Tek v. Ladislao 1N't Lim v. Ladislao4

%%hen the Constitution is no longer in force$ enclose the year when it too6 effect in parentheses 2. 5onstitutional -roceedings> cite the !olu"e in ro"an nu"eral, follo ed by the ord R95:R8?2:@RB1L, 5:B,$I$@$I:B1L 5:JJI,,I:B, the page nu"ber, and the date of deliberation in parentheses
II RECORD/ CONSTITUTIONAL CO!!ISSION 05 167(e 05/ 12894

-cite co"pound na"es in full

People v. De Guzman 1N't People v. Guzman4

M. Co to cite ,tatutes, and ,i"ilar Jaterials 1. ,ession La s> cite the la , follo ed by the year of effecti!ity in parentheses, and the specific article or section
Re$7.:&+ A+t N'. 5;03 112994/ Se+. 0

-cite na"es of corporations, associations, business fir"s and partnerships in full. Aords for"ing part of such na"es "ay be abbre!iated, e7cept the first ord
Mata v. Rita Legarda, Inc.

-cite cases in!ol!ing the ;o!ern"ent of the -hilippines and cri"inal cases as follo s>
U.S. v. aranilla Government v. !"adinas Repu"lic v. #arpin People v. Santos

2. 5odes> cite the na"e of the particular code and specific article or section /if nu"bered continuouslyI or the headings, fro" general to specific, follo ed by the article or section /if not nu"bered continuously0
CIVIL CODE/ Art. 02; CIVIL CODE 118824/ Art. 9; AD!INISTRATIVE CODE/ B''< IV/ T&t:e 1/ C#a$ter 2/ Se+. 02

-cite cases in!ol!ing public officers as follo s>

Gonzales v. $ec%anova 1N't Gonzales v. &'ecutive Secretar(4

%%hen the code is no longer in force$ enclose the year of effectivity in parentheses after the name of the code '. Legislati!e -roceedings> cite the !olu"e in ro"an nu"eral, follo ed by the ord R95:R8?2:@RB1L, C:@,9? ,9B1$9, the specific 5ongress, the session nu"ber, the page nu"ber, and the date of deliberation in parentheses
II RECORD/ HOUSE 9TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION 05 167(e 05/ 12994

-cite local go!ern"ent units by their le!el, follo ed by their official na"e
Province o) Rizal v. RT#

-cite case na"es beginning ith procedural ter"s li#e In re( as they appear in the decisions. @se In re instead of In the matter of
In re &lpidio *. Magsa(sa(

MI. Co to cite 1d"inistrati!e Jaterials and Regulations 1. $reaties> na"e of the treaty or agree"ent, the date of signing, the parties, the subdi!isions referred to /if applicable0, and the source
Treaty 'f Fr&e(ds#&$ =&t# I(d&a/ 67:y 11/ 1250 112534/ II>0

-in consolidated cases, cite only the first case

In Ma"u%a( Te'tile Mills #orp v. Minister +ngpin, 1 the court held that 777 LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 1 005 -#&:. 383 112894

2. 97ecuti!e and 1d"inistrati!e Issuances> 1. issuance follo ed by the year of effecti!ity in parentheses, and the specific article or section
E?e+7t&@e Order N'. 302 112;04

5. 5ase Reports
#oncepcion v. Paredes/ 50 -#&:. 522/ 9B; 112014 People v. Suzuki/ G.R. N'. 10B9;B/ O+t'.er 03/ 0BB3/ 515 SCRA 53

7In multiple cases$ start with the latest to the earliest 2. Rules of 5ourt
RULES OF COURT/ R7:e 13B/ Se+. 0/ $ar. 1.4

B. -residential 1cts under Jartial La

Ge(era: Order N'. 32 112;04

5. :ther 97ecuti!e Issuances

Se+retary 'f 67st&+e O$&(&'( N'. 0;1/ s. 1280

'. R:LL: 3 :ther 5ourt Records 1. Rollo( Capitali8e the citation or a sentence
Rollo/ $. 01 CA rollo/ $$. 1B2>100 Sa(d&*a(.aya( rollo/ $. 2 CTA rollo/ $. 1B

ord FrolloG only at the beginning of a

8. 5ite Rules and Regulations> abbre!iated na"e of the agency together ith the designation e"ployed in the rules, serial nu"ber, year of pro"ulgation in parentheses, and the section or paragraph
La.'r EA$:'yAe(t Ser@&+e Re*7:at&'( N'. 3 112994

-If there are t o or "ore !olu"es>

Rollo/ V':. 3/ $. 01

9. 5ite pro!incial, city, and "unicipal ordinances> na"e of the local go!ern"ent unit, serial nu"ber of ordinance, and date of adoption
!a(&:a Ord&(a(+e 910B/ 6a(7ary 09/ 129;

-In consolidated cases>

Rollo 1G.R. N'. 1035594/ $. 01

MII. Co to cite 5ourt 8ecisions 1. 8ecisions and Resolutions

-In consolidated cases> B. Records>

Re+'rds/ $$. 01B>015 !TC re+'rds/ $. 103

5. References to $,B /transcript of stenographic notes0

TSN/ 6a(7ary 3B/ 0BB3/ $$. 01>00

8. 97hibits> &uotation "ar#s, follo ed by the source /e.g, rollo or records0

E?#&.&t .A/. $. 01

MIII. Co to cite 4oreign Jaterials I[. Repeating 5itations 1. ,upra - to identify a "aterial pre!iously cited on the sa"e or preceding page. It should not be used to refer to statutes or constitutions
#oncepcion v. Paredes/ 50 -#&:. 522/ 9B; 112014 #oncepcion v. Paredes/ s7$ra #oncepcion v. Paredes/ s7$ra at 9B1 #oncepcion v. Paredes/ s7$ra ('te 1/ at 9B1

2. Id - hen citing the i""ediately preceding footnote that has only one authority
1 2 '

#oncepcion v. Paredes/ 50 -#&:. 522/ 9B; 112014 Id. Id. at 9B1

'. Introductory ,ignals 1. ,ignals that indicate support See See also Cf( 5ited authority directly states or clearly supports the proposition 5ited authority constitutes additional source "aterial that supports the proposition Jeans compareI cited authority supports a proposition different fro" the "ain proposition but sufficiently analogous to lend support

B. ,ignal that suggests a useful co"parison Compare x x x 9and: x x x with x x x 9and: x x x 5. ,ignals that indicate contradiction But see 5ited authority directly states or clearly supports a proposition contray to the "ain proposition But cf( cited authority supports a proposition analogous to the contrary of the "ain proposition But should be o"itted fro" But cf( hene!er it follo s But see

8. ,ignal that indicates bac#ground "aterial See generally 5ited authority presents helpful bac#ground "aterial related to the proposition

9. :rder of ,ignals L9;1L R9,91R5C

13 | -L1$:B