RODOLFO V. FRANCISCO vs. EMILIANA M. ROJAS, and the legitimate heirs of JOSE A. ROJAS, namely: JOSE FERDINAND M. ROJAS II, ROLANDO M. ROJAS, JOSE M. ROJAS, JR., CARMELITA ROJAS-JOSE, VICTOR M. ROJAS, and LOURDES M. ROJAS, all represented by JOSE FERDINAND M. ROJAS II, G.R. No. 167120, April 23, 2014
“x x x.
We do not agree. The principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle things which are established) is well entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code, which states that "[j]udicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines." The doctrine embodies the legal maxim that a principle or rule of law which has been established by the decision of a court of controlling jurisdiction will be followed in other cases involving a similar situation. It is founded on the necessity for securing certainty and stability in the law and does not require identity of or privity of parties.20 In a hierarchical judicial system like ours, the decisions of the higher courts bind the lower courts; the courts of co-ordinate authority do not bind each other; and the one highest court does not bind itself, it being invested with the innate authority to rule according to its best lights.21 The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence by lower courts to doctrinal rules established by the Supreme Court in its final decisions.22 Thus, a ruling of a particular division of the CA, while may be taken cognizance of in some cases, cannot bind or prejudice a ruling of another division thereof, the former being a co-ordinate authority and, relative to Us, is still considered as a lower court albeit empowered with an appellate jurisdiction.
X x x.”
