a. Judicial Decisions

Decisions in General

No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 14.)

• It is a requirement of due process that the parties to a litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. (NICOS Industrial Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88709, Feb. 11, 1992)
• The purpose [of this Constitutional requirement is] to inform the person reading the decision, and especially the parties, of how it was reached by the court after consideration of the pertinent facts and examination of the applicable laws. (Francisco v. Permskul, G.R. No. 81006, May 12, 1989)
• The [provision] does not apply to interlocutory orders, such as one granting a motion for postponement or quashing a subpoena, because it refers only to decisions on the merits and not to orders of the trial court resolving incidental matters. (NICOS Industrial Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88709, Feb. 11, 1992)
• So long as the decision contains the necessary facts to warrant its conclusions, it is no error for [the court] to withhold any specific finding of facts with respect to the evidence for the defense. The mere failure to specify (in the decision) the contentions of the appellant and the reasons for refusing to believe them is not sufficient to hold the same contrary to the requirements of the provisions of law and the Constitution. (Air France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. L-21438, Sept. 28, 1966)
• The significance of factual findings lies in the value of the decision as a precedent. How will the ruling be applied in the future, if there is no point of factual comparison? (Velarde v. Social Justice Society, G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004)

No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 14).)

Decisions by The Supreme Court (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 13.)

• The conclusions of the Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court.
• A certification to this effect must be signed by the Chief Justice and attached to the record of the case, and served upon the parties.
• Absence of a certification does not mean that there was no consultation prior to assignment of the case to a member. The presumption of regularity prevails but the erring officer will be liable administratively (Consing v. CA, G.R. No. 78272, Aug. 29, 1989).
• Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.

All lower collegiate courts shall observe the same procedure (e.g., CA, CTA, and Sandiganbayan).

Minute Resolutions

The adjudication of a case by minute resolution is an exercise of judicial discretion and constitutes sound and valid judicial practice. (Agoy v. Araneta Center, Inc., G.R. No. 196358 (Resolution), March 21, 2012)

Minute resolutions are issued for the prompt dispatch of the actions of the Court. While they are the results of the deliberations by the Justices of the Court, they are promulgated by the Clerk of Court or his assistants whose duty is to inform the parties of the action taken on their cases by quoting verbatim the resolutions adopted by the Court. Neither the Clerk of Court nor his assistants take part in the deliberations of the case. They merely transmit the Court's action in the form prescribed by its Internal Rules. (Id.)

When a minute resolution denies or dismisses a petition for failure to comply with formal and substantive requirements, the challenged decision, together with its findings of fact and legal conclusions, are deemed sustained. (Philippine Health Care Providers v. CIR, G.R. No. 167330, June 12, 2009)

With respect to the same subject matter and the same issues concerning the same parties, it constitutes res judicata. However, if other parties or another subject matter (even with the same parties and issues) is involved, the minute resolution is not binding precedent. (Id.)

There are substantial, not simply formal, distinctions between a minute resolution and a decision. The constitutional requirement that the facts and the law on which the judgment is based must be expressed clearly and distinctly applies only to decisions, not to minute resolutions. A minute resolution is signed only by the clerk of court by authority of the justices, unlike a decision. It does not require the certification of the Chief Justice. Moreover, unlike decisions, minute resolutions are not published in the Philippine Reports. Finally, the proviso of Section 4(3) of Article VIII speaks of a decision. Indeed, as a rule, this Court lays down doctrines or principles of law which constitute binding precedent in a decision duly signed by the members of the Court and certified by the Chief Justice. (Id.)

Memorandum Decisions

Memorandum decisions, where the appellate court adopts the findings of fact and law of the lower court, are allowed as long as the decision adopted by reference is attached to the Memorandum for easy reference. They should be used sparingly in suitable cases without factual or doctrinal complications, and the appellate court must exercise its own judgment (Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CA, G.R. No. 114323, July 23, 1998).

What are judicial decisions?

A subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law that are acceptable so long as they correctly interpret and apply international law.

Decisions of national courts, when applying international law, are acceptable.

Does stare decisis apply?

The ICJ Statute directs the Court to apply judicial decisions as subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law, but this is made subject to Article 59 of the same statute, which states that “the decisions of the court have no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.” (Bernas, Public International Law, 2009).

e. Teachings of the Most Highly Qualified Publicists