“lower courts from the CA down to the lowest level must take judicial
notice of decisions of the SC as they are duty bound to know the rulings of the
high tribunal and to apply them in the adjudication of cases, they being part
of the legal system.”
Facts:
Brigida Segundo is the widow
of a veteran of the 2nd World War, the late Feliciano Segundo who
applied for a pension benefit from the Phil. Veterans Affairs. Her application
was approved in April 1947 and was entitled in receiving a monthly pension for
life on the condition that she will remain unmarried and no similar benefits
from the US Government has been granted to her. In November 1951, the respondent cancelled and
terminated the monthly pension benefits because she became a recipient of a similar
benefit from the US Veterans Administration which is in violation of the Phil
Veterans Affairs standing policy. However in June 1973, the Supreme Court declared the other policy Segundo was
receiving as null and void in the case of Del
Mar vs Phil. Veterans Administration. Despite this ruling by the SC,
Philippine Veterans Affairs refused to restore the monthly pension of Segundo.
The trial court, in a decision promulgated in March 1975, ordered the Phil.
Veterans to pay Segundo her monthly life pension effective November 1951.
Phil. Veterans Affair now
assailed the decision of the court contending that it erred in deciding that
the right of Segundo to compel them to restore her pension had not prescribed;
that the ruling in Del Mar vs Phil. Veterans Administration is not applicable
in the case and that the court should have dismissed the petition for mandamus
for lack of cause of action for her failure to demand the restoration of her
pension and there was no refusal on their part.
