Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    Res Judicata & Act of State Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Mark
    The doctrine of res judicata establishes that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive and prevents the same parties from relitigating the same claim or issues in subsequent lawsuits. There are two key aspects: (1) claim preclusion bars a subsequent lawsuit involving the same claim or cause of action. (2) Issue preclusion or collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues already decided in a prior case, even if the claims are different, as long as the parties are the same. The act of state doctrine requires courts to exercise restraint in adjudicating disputes relating to the internal affairs or governmental acts of foreign states performed within their own territory.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Res Judicata & Act of State Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Mark
    65 views3 pages
    The doctrine of res judicata establishes that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive and prevents the same parties from relitigating the same claim or issues in subsequent lawsuits. There are two key aspects: (1) claim preclusion bars a subsequent lawsuit involving the same claim or cause of action. (2) Issue preclusion or collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues already decided in a prior case, even if the claims are different, as long as the parties are the same. The act of state doctrine requires courts to exercise restraint in adjudicating disputes relating to the internal affairs or governmental acts of foreign states performed within their own territory.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The doctrine of res judicata establishes that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive and prevents the same parties from relitigating the same claim or issues in subsequent lawsuits. There are two key aspects: (1) claim preclusion bars a subsequent lawsuit involving the same claim or cause of action. (2) Issue preclusion or collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues already decided in a prior case, even if the claims are different, as long as the parties are the same. The act of state doctrine requires courts to exercise restraint in adjudicating disputes relating to the internal affairs or governmental acts of foreign states performed within their own territory.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    65 views3 pages

    Res Judicata & Act of State Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Mark
    The doctrine of res judicata establishes that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive and prevents the same parties from relitigating the same claim or issues in subsequent lawsuits. There are two key aspects: (1) claim preclusion bars a subsequent lawsuit involving the same claim or cause of action. (2) Issue preclusion or collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues already decided in a prior case, even if the claims are different, as long as the parties are the same. The act of state doctrine requires courts to exercise restraint in adjudicating disputes relating to the internal affairs or governmental acts of foreign states performed within their own territory.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Res Judicata

    The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is
    conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving
    the same claim, demand or cause of action.

    Res judicata means a matter adjudged, a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment.

    Requisites for the Preclusive Effect of Res Judicata to be Enforced.—


    For the preclusive effect of res judicata to be enforced, the following requisites must obtain:
    (1) The former judgment or order must be final;
    (2) It must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after a consideration of the evidence or
    stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the case;
    (3) It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and
    (4) There must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action.
    Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action be shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as
    a "bar by prior judgment" would apply. If as between the two cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but not
    identical causes of action, then res judicata as "conclusiveness of judgment" applies.
    Parties
    Absolute identity of parties is not a condition sine qua non for res judicata to apply, a shared identity of interest
    being sufficient to invoke the coverage of the principle.

    Subject Matter
    A subject matter is the item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or concerning which the wrong
    has been done, and it is ordinarily the right, the thing or the contract under dispute.

    Cause of Action

    A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. (i.e. Breach of
    contract, fraud, torts, unjust enrichment)

    Causes of action are identical when there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two
    actions, or where the same evidence will sustain both actions. The test often used in determining whether causes
    of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same facts or evidence would support and establish the former
    and present causes of action.

    The doctrine of res judicata is set forth in Section 47 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court:

    Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. — The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the
    Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:

    xxxx

    (b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other
    matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in
    interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing
    and under the same title and in the same capacity; and
    (c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been
    adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was
    actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.

    This provision comprehends two distinct concepts of res judicata:

    (1) Bar by former judgment (Claim Preclusion)

    The first aspect is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or
    cause of action. In traditional terminology, this aspect is known as merger or bar; in modern terminology, it is called
    claim preclusion.

    Example of claim preclusion

    Nathaniel was injured when he was rear-ended while waiting at a stoplight. After seeking medical treatment,
    Nathaniel files a civil lawsuit seeking reimbursement for his medical expenses, as well as for his time off work
    while he recuperated. The judge decides in Nathaniel’s favor, and orders the other driver to pay Nathaniel’s
    medical bills, missed work, and pain and suffering.

    A couple of months later, Nathaniel realizes that he cannot afford to repair the damages his car sustained in the
    accident. He files a second lawsuit, asking that the other driver be ordered to pay for the $4,000 repairs. In many
    jurisdictions, Nathaniel’s second claim (for car repairs) would be dismissed, as he could have, and should have,
    brought the claim up during the original lawsuit. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to ensure all claims resulting
    from the same incident are brought up and tried together.

    (2) Conclusiveness of judgment (Issue Preclusion / Collateral estoppel)

    The second aspect precludes the relitigation of a particular fact of issue in another action between the same parties on a
    different claim or cause of action. This is traditionally known as collateral estoppel; in modern terminology, it is called
    issue preclusion.

    Conclusiveness of judgment finds application when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed
    upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The fact or question settled by final judgment
    or order binds the parties to that action (and persons in privity with them or their successors-in-interest), and
    continues to bind them while the judgment or order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely
    motion or petition; the conclusively settled fact or question furthermore cannot again be litigated in any future or other
    action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent
    jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action. Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are
    required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.

    While conclusiveness of judgment does not have the same barring effect as that of a bar by former judgment that
    proscribes subsequent actions, the conclusiveness of judgment nonetheless estops the parties from raising in a later
    case the issues or points that were raised and controverted, and were determinative of the ruling in the earlier
    case. In other words, the dictum laid down in the earlier final judgment or order becomes conclusive and continues to be
    binding between the same parties, their privies and successors-in-interest, as long as the facts on which that judgment was
    predicated continue to be the facts of the case or incident before the court in a later case; the binding effect and
    enforceability of that earlier dictum can no longer be re-litigated in a later case since the issue has already been resolved
    and finally laid to rest in the earlier case.

    Example of issue preclusion in collateral estoppel:

    Jane sued Matthew, her supervisor at work, for sexually harassing her, causing her to quit her job. During the
    trial, Jane provided copies of email communications from Matthew, as evidence. Matthew argued that the emails
    were not real, but after considering his argument, the judge decided the emails were real, and could be submitted
    as evidence.
    A few months after the trial, Jane filed a lawsuit against her employer for failing to take action when she
    complained about Matthew’s sexual harassment. If the employer attempted to claim that the emails Jane wants to
    submit as evidence are not genuine, the issue would fall under collateral estoppel. The issue of the authenticity of
    the emails was already decided in Jane’s previous lawsuit against Matthew, and so the court cannot re-decide the
    issue.

    The Act of State Doctrine


    The act of state doctrine is one of the methods by which States prevent their national courts from deciding disputes
    which relate to the internal affairs of another State, the other two being state immunity from suit and non-justiciability.

    It is an avoidance technique that is directly related to a State’s obligation to respect the independence and equality of
    other States by not requiring them to submit to adjudication in a national court or to settlement of their disputes without
    their consent.

    It requires the forum court to exercise restraint in the adjudication of disputes relating to legislative or other
    governmental acts which a foreign State has performed within its territorial limits.

    You might also like