The requisites for res judicata are: (1) court of
competent jurisdiction; (2) final judgment or order on
the merits; and (3) identities of parties, subject
matter, and cause of action (San Diego v. Calderon,
70 Phil. 281, 283).
Res judicata refers to 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.
The elements of res judicata are as follows: (1) the
former judgment or order must be final; (2) the
judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it must
have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties; (4) there
must be, between the first and the second action,
identity of parties, of subject matter and cause of
action.6
For res judicata to apply, all the above essential
requisites must exist.
The elements of res judicata are (1) the judgment
bring sought to bar the new action must be final; (2)
the decision must have been rendered by a court
having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be based
on a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there
must be identity of parties, subject matter and
causes of action as between the prior and the
subsequent actions.
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 re-litigate 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. It is an
established rule to abide by former precedents
where the same points come again in litigation.” As
the rule evolved, early limits to its application were
recognized: (1) it would not be followed if it were
“plainly unreasonable”; (2) where courts of equal
authority developed conflicting decisions; and, (3)
the binding force of the decision was the “actual
principle or principles necessary for the decision; not
the words or reasoning used to reach the decision.”
Under the doctrine, when this Court has once laid
down a principle of law as applicable to a certain
state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and
apply it to all future cases, where facts are
0substantially the same; regardless of whether the
parties and property are the same.[71] The doctrine
of stare decisis is based upon the legal principle or
rule involved and not upon the judgment, which
results therefrom. In this particular sense, stare
decisis differs from res judicata, which is based upon
the judgment.[72]
Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts
A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it
unless the redress cannot be obtained in the
appropriate courts.
This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts
vested with concurrent jurisdiction, beginning from
the lowest, on to the next highest, and ultimately to
the highest. This hierarchy is determinative of the
venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of
the proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs.
This is an established policy necessary to avoid
inordinate demands upon the Court‘s time and
attention which are better devoted to those matters
within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the
further clogging of the Court‘s docket.
The SC is a court of last resort. It cannot and should
not be burdened with the task of deciding cases in
the first instances. Its jurisdiction to issue
extraordinary writs should be exercised only where
absolutely necessary or where serious and important
reasons exist.
Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs
against first level courts should be filed with the RTC
and those against the latter with the CA. A direct
invocation of the SC‘s original jurisdiction to issue
these writs should be allowed only where there are
special and important reasons therefore, clearly and
specifically set out in the petition.
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be
disregarded if warranted by the nature and
importance of the issues raised in the interest of
speedy justice and to avoid future litigations, or in
cases of national interest and of serious implications.
Sec. 9[1], BP 129; Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII, Constitution of
the Philippines, By “hierarchy of courts” is meant that
while the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and
the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent original
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus, such
occurrence does not accord litigants unrestrained
freedom of choice of the court to which application
therefore maybe directed. The application should be
filed with the court of lower level unless the
importance of the issue involved deserves the action
of the court of higher level.
Difference between Res judicata and Stare
decisis
Res judicata means "a thing adjudicated"; "a case
already decided"; or "a matter settled by a decision
or judgment".
Stare decisis means "to stand by decided cases", "to
uphold precedents", "to maintain former
adjudications", or "not to disturb settled law". Those
things which have been so often adjudged ought to
rest in peace.
Res judicata and Stare decisis are members of the
same family. Both relate to adjudication of matters.
Both deal with final determination of contested
questions and have the binding effect in future
litigation. Both the doctrines are the result of
decisions of a competent court of law and based on
public policy.
The Constitution says: “No treaty or international
agreement shall be valid and effective unless
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members
of the Senate.” However, the Supreme Court has
explained that “executive agreements” are not
subject to that requirement. “Treaties are formal
documents which require ratification by the Senate,
while executive agreements become binding through
executive action without the need of a vote by the
Senate or by Congress.”
A full-fledged treaty is required only when an
agreement involves changes in Philippine national
policy, and the agreement must therefore be
submitted to the Senate for ratification. On the other
hand, when an agreement merely implements
already existing treaty obligations, laws or policy, an
executive agreement will suffice.

There is, however, distinction between the two.

Whereas res judicata is based upon conclusiveness
of judgment and adjudication of prior findings, stare
decisis rests on legal principles.

Res judicata binds parties and privies, while stare

decisis operates between strangers also and binds
courts from taking a contrary view on the point of law
already decided.

Res judicata relates to a specific controversy, stare

decisis touches legal principles.

Res judicata presupposes judicial finding upon the

same facts as involved in subsequent litigation
between the same parties. Stare decisis applies to
same principle of law to all parties.

The Supreme Court has long held that under

international law, executive agreements and treaties
are practically the same in their ability to bind the
Philippine government to an agreement with another
government. “[T]here is no difference between
treaties and executive agreements in their binding
effect upon states concerned,” the court said.

Treaty v. Executive Agreement

A treaty needs the concurrence of the Senate in

order to be valid while an executive agreement
needs only the signature of the President or his
representative without need of Senate concurrence.
The Edca was signed by Defense Secretary Voltaire
Gazmin and wasn’t submitted for Senate ratification.