Landmark Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Every Practitioner Cites

Some Supreme Court decisions get cited once and forgotten. A few become the load-bearing walls of Philippine practice — the cases briefs return to, exams test, and courts keep applying. These are among the most-cited decisions in our corpus of Philippine Supreme Court rulings, grouped by the area of practice they anchor.

We are not ranking them, and the point isn't the tally. It is that each one states a rule you will meet again — and each traces back to a source you can open and read for yourself. Names and G.R. numbers are here so you can verify every one.

Civil law — obligations, interest, and quasi-delict

• Nacar v. Gallery Frames (G.R. No. 189871) — fixed the legal-interest rule at six percent per year, revising the earlier framework.
• Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA (G.R. No. 97412) — the interest framework that governed before Nacar and that Nacar refined.
• Insular Life Assurance Co. v. CA (G.R. No. 126850) — the plain-meaning rule of contract interpretation: courts read what the parties wrote; they do not rewrite it.
• Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. (G.R. No. L-22533) — an employer's defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees under Article 2180.

Intellectual property — trademarks

• Mirpuri v. CA (G.R. No. 114508) — protection of well-known marks under the Paris Convention.
• Societe des Produits Nestle v. CA (G.R. No. 112012) — the dominancy test for confusing similarity.
• McDonald's Corp. v. L.C. Big Mak Burger (G.R. No. 143993) — trademark infringement analysed through the dominancy test.
• Emerald Garment Mfg. v. CA (G.R. No. 100098) — the ordinary-purchaser test for likelihood of confusion.

Remedial law — procedure and jurisdiction

• Tijam v. Sibonghanoy (G.R. No. L-21450) — estoppel by laches can bar a belated challenge to jurisdiction.
• Crespo v. Mogul (G.R. No. L-53373) — once the information is filed, disposition of the case rests on the sound discretion of the court.
• St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC (G.R. No. 130866) — NLRC decisions are reviewed by Rule 65 certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
• Pascual v. Burgos (G.R. No. 171722) — the recognized exceptions to the "questions of law only" limit on a Rule 45 petition.
• First Philippine International Bank v. CA (G.R. No. 115849) — forum shopping and litis pendentia.

Administrative law and due process

• Ang Tibay v. CIR (G.R. No. 46496) — the seven cardinal primary rights of administrative due process.
• Miro v. Vda. de Erederos (G.R. No. 172532) — the substantial-evidence standard in administrative cases.
• Madera v. COA (G.R. No. 244128) — the rules on returning amounts disallowed by the Commission on Audit.

Labor law

• Agabon v. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693) — where a dismissal is for a valid cause but the process is defective, the dismissal stands and the employer owes nominal damages.
• Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services (G.R. No. 172933) — the 120/240-day rule for a seafarer's disability claim.

Tax law

• CIR v. Aichi Forging Company (G.R. No. 184823) — the 120-plus-30-day periods for a VAT refund are mandatory and jurisdictional.
• CIR v. S.C. Johnson & Son (G.R. No. 127105) — the most-favored-nation clause of a tax treaty as applied to royalties.

Criminal law and procedure

• People v. Jugueta (G.R. No. 202124) — standardized the civil damages (indemnity, moral, and exemplary) awarded in criminal cases.
• People v. Efren Mateo (G.R. Nos. 147678-87) — introduced intermediate appellate review, routing death and reclusion perpetua cases through the Court of Appeals.
• Mallillin v. People (G.R. No. 172953) — the chain-of-custody rule for seized evidence under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
• People v. Ramil Doria Dahil (G.R. No. 212196) — the requisites of the Section 21 saving clause.
• People v. Florencio Doria (G.R. No. 125299) — the "objective test" for a valid buy-bust, and the line between entrapment and instigation.

Family law

• Republic v. Molina (G.R. No. 108763) — the Molina guidelines for proving psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

How we surfaced these

We did not pick these by reputation. Intellegal maps how Philippine Supreme Court decisions cite one another, and these are among the decisions the rest of the corpus cites most — a signal of which rules the Court and the bar keep returning to. What we publish here is the reading, not the raw data: the names, the citations, and one line of doctrine, each traceable to the real decision.

Explore the case law →