IX.

Dissenting Opinion

G.R. No. L-17938 April 30, 1963

ESPERIDION TOLENTINO, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
ADELA ONGSIAKO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

Overview of Topic:

Dissenting Opinion is an opinion of one or more judges or justices in a court expressing

disagreement with the majority opinion. By definition, a dissent is the minority of the
court.1

Facts:
1. On May 20, 1959, Esperidion Tolentino (the plaintiff-appellant) filed a complaint
with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (the lower court) in an attempt to
cause the enforcement of the dissenting opinion rendered in the case entitled
“Severino Domingo, et al. vs. Santos Ongsiako, et al., G.R. No. 32776 (the case).
2. The decision in the case (in favor of appellees’ predecessors, and adverse to those
of appellant) was promulgated by the Supreme Court (the Court) on December 4,
1930, and, together with the dissenting opinion, appears in Volume 55 of the
Phil. Reports, starting on page 361. The records of the case were lost or destroyed
during the war.
3. The plaintiff-appellant, who claims to be the successor-interest of the late
Severino Domingo, avers that the decision of the majority of the Court was
erroneous and unjust, that the dissenting opinion is the correct view of the case,
and should be enforced.
4. The lower court, on motion of the several defendants, dismissed the complaint of
the plaintiff-appellant for lack of cause of action.
5. Not satisfied, the plaintiff-appellant interposed the present appeal, and asserted
that the failure of service of copy of the decision upon the late Severino Domingo
was a denial of due process, which invalidates the decision, and asks that the
present case be heard as a proceeding coram nobis.

Issues:

WON the lower court erred in not allowing plaintiff-appellant’s cause as a

proceeding coram nobis.

1
Wikipedia.com
Ruling:

The order of dismissal (by the lower court) appealed from is affirmed. Costs
against the appellant.

Ratio:

1. Appellant’s position that the decision was erroneous and unjust is untenable,
because the issue sought to be reopened is res judicata, aside from its having
stood unchallenged for 30 years.
2. A dissenting opinion in a Court decision merely expresses the views of the
dissenter. It affirms or overrules no claim, right or obligation, and neither disposes
of, nor awards, anything. Thus, it cannot be enforced.
3. The appellant’s claim that “the lower court erred in not allowing plaintiff-
appellant’s cause as a proceeding coram nobis,” is devoid of merit. The common
law writ of error coram nobis does not lie after affirmance of a judgment on writ
of error on appeal (49 CJS 562); nor can it be grounded on facts already in issue
and adjudicated on the trial.

dissenting opinion A dissenting opinion cannot create binding precedent because the
holding in the opinion is not the holding of the court in the case.
Therefore the dissent's holding does not create case law. However,
dissenting opinions are sometimes cited as persuasive authority
when arguing that the holding should be limited or overturned. In
some cases, a dissent in an earlier case is used to spurn a change in
the law, and a later case will write a majority opinion for the same
rule of law cited by the dissent in the earlier case.

coram nobis A writ claiming previously unknown facts amounting to

extraordinary error. (An ancient common law writ of error that is
now substantially obsolete even in common law jurisdiction.)
res judicata Once a final judgment has been handed down in a lawsuit,
subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit that is identical to
or substantially the same as the earlier one will apply res judicata to
preserve the effect of the first judgment. This is to prevent injustice
to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to
avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res
judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from
contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents them from multiplying
judgments, so a prevailing plaintiff could not recover damages from
the defendant twice for the same injury.