PHILIPPINE LEGAL DOCTRINES

As

complied

by

[Santos v. Sec. of Labor, L-21624, 27

Atty.

Alvin

Claridades

1968].
4. Doctrine

1. Doctrine

of

absolute

privilege. Doctrine

that protects

persons

from

adherence

jurisdiction. Rem.

Law.

principle

that

once

of

1. The

court

has

alleging

acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction

alleged

continues until the court has done all

defamatory statements were made

that it can do in the exercise of that

by members of legislative assemblies

jurisdiction. 2. The doctrine holding

while on the floor of the assembly or

that

communications made in the context

judgment does not totally deprive

of judicial proceedings, as part of

the court of jurisdiction over the

a trial.

case. What the court loses is the

defamation

claims

of

where

2. Doctrine

of

common

the

absorption

crimes. Also

Hernandez

doctrine.

[e]ven

the

finality

of

the

of

power to amend, modify or alter the

called

judgment. Even after the judgment

rule

has become final, the court retains

enunciated in People v. Hernandez

jurisdiction to enforce and execute it

[99 Phil. Rep 515 (1956)] that the

[Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, 301

ingredients of a crime form part and

SCRA 96]. Also called Doctrine of

parcel

continuity of jurisdiction.

thereof,

and

The

hence,

are

absorbed by the same and cannot be

5. Doctrine of adherence to judicial

punished either separately therefrom

precedents. Also called the Doctrine

or by the application of Art. 48 of the

of stare decisis. [The] doctrine [that]

Rev. Penal Code. [Enrile v. Amin, GR

enjoins

93335, Sept. 13, 1990]. It held that

precedents. It requires courts in a

the

country to follow the rule established

crime

the Penal

of
Code

rebellion
of

the

under

Phils.

is

adherence

to

judicial

in a decision of its Sup. Court. That

charged as a single offense, and that

decision

it cannot be made into a complex

precedent

crime.

subsequent cases by all courts in the

3. Doctrine
moritur
doctrine

of
cum
that]

actio

becomes
to

be

judicial

followed

in

personalis

land. [Phil. Guardians Brotherhood,

persona. Lat. [The

Inc. (PGBI) v. Comelec, GR 190529,

personal

action

terminates or dies with the person.

Apr. 29, 2010].

6. Doctrine

of

agency

by estoppel. Also known as the

Doctrine

of

holding

however,

is

doctrine where the principal will be

persons

who

estopped from denying the grant of

reasonably to believe by the conduct

authority if 3rd parties have changed

of the principal that such actual

their positions to their detriment in

authority exists, although none was

reliance

given.

on

the

out.

The

representations

made.

In

limited

only

have

other

to

3rd

been

words,

led

apparent

authority is determined only by the

7. Doctrine of alter ego. A doctrine

based

upon

acts of the agent.[Banate v. Phil.

for

Countryside Rural Bank, Inc., GR

purposes,

163825, July 13, 2010].Also called

and in such case the court merely

the Holding out theory; or Doctrine of

disregards the corporate entity and

ostensible

holds the individual responsible for

estoppel.

acts

doctrine.

corporation
wrongful

the
by

or

misuse

an

individual

inequitable

knowingly

of

acts of the principal and not by the

and

intentionally

done in the name of the corporation.

The

doctrine

9. Doctrine

Agency

Apparent

of

by

authority

assumption

of

risk. The precept that denotes that a

individual who uses a corporation

person who knows and comprehends

merely

to

the peril and voluntarily exposes

conduct his own business liability as

himself or herself to it, although not

a consequence of fraud or injustice

negligent in doing so, is regarded as

perpetuated not on the corporation,

engaging in an assumption of the

but on third persons dealing with the

risk and is precluded from a recovery

corporation. [Cited Sulo ng Bayan,

for an injury ensuing therefrom. Also

Inc. v. Araneta, Inc., GR L-31061 Aug.

called Doctrine of volenti non fit

17, 1976].

injuria.

an

8. Doctrine

upon

See

or

the

as

imposes

agency

instrumentality

of

authority. [T]he

apparent
doctrine

[under

10.

Doctrine

nuisance. A

of
legal

attractive
doctrine

which

which] acts and contracts of the

makes a person negligent for leaving

agent, as are within the apparent

scope of the authority conferred on

condition on property which would be

him, although no actual authority to

both attractive and dangerous to

do

curious

such

acts

or

to

make

such

piece

contracts has been conferred, bind

included

the principal. The principals liability,

swimming

of

equipment

children.

These

tractors,
pools,

or

open

other

have

unguarded
pits,

and

abandoned
could

placed

Doctrine

of

collateral

owning or controlling the premises

person from relitigating an issue.

even when the child was a trespasser

Once a court has decided an issue of

who sneaked on the property. See

fact

Attractive nuisance doctrine.

judgment, that decision preclude[s]

necessary

to

its

judgment. Rem. Law. [A concept of

different cause of actioninvolving a

res judicata holding that] When, as

party to the first case. Also called

between the first case where the

Doctrine of preclusion of issues.

rendered

by

law

relitigation of the issue in a suit on a

was

bar

or

prior

judgment

of

the

13.

estoppel. A doctrine that prevents a

Doctrine

on

Liability
people

11.

be

refrigerators.

and

the

14.

Doctrine

of

command

second case that is sought to be

responsibility. The doctrine under

barred, there is identity of parties,

which any government official or

subject matter, and causes of action.

supervisor, or officer of the PNP or

In this instance, the judgment in the

that of any other law enforcement

first case constitutes an absolute bar

agency shall be held accountable for

to the second action. [Antonio v.

Neglect

Sayman Vda. de Monje, GR 149624,

knowledge that a crime or offense

29 Sept. 2010, 631 SCRA 471, 480].

shall

12.

Doctrine

be

Duty

if

committed,

he
is

has
being

caveat

committed, or has been committed

emptor. Also called the Doctrine of

by his subordinates, or by others

let the buyer beware. A warning that

within his area of responsibility and,

notifies a buyer that the goods he or

despite such knowledge, he did not

she is buying are as is, or subject

take preventive or corrective action

to

The principleunder

either before, during, or immediately

which the buyer could not recover

after its commission. [Sec. 1, EO 226.

damages from the seller for defects

Feb. 17, 1995].

all

defects.

of

of

on the property that rendered the

15.

Doctrine

of

comparative

property unfit for ordinary purposes.

injury. A rule in equity which states

The only exception was if the seller

that although a person is entitled to

actively concealed latent defects or

injunctive relief, if the injury done to

otherwise

the respondent or the public would

made

misrepresentations
fraud.

material

amounting

to

be disproportionate, then injunctive

relief must be denied.

16.

Doctrine

of

comparative

negligence, [The

doctrine

that

is

conclusive

matters

only

actually

as

to

and

those
directly

allows] a recovery by a plaintiff

controverted and determined and

whose own act contributed to his

not as to matters merely involved

injury, provided his negligence was

therein. Stated differently, any right,

slight as compared with that of the

fact

defendant. [Rakes v. The Atlantic,

adjudicated or necessarily involved

Gulf and Pacific, Co., GR 1719, Jan.

in the determination of an action

23, 1907].

before a competent court in which

17.

Doctrine

of

compassionate

or

matter

in

issue

directly

judgment is rendered on the merits

justice. The doctrine that the harsh

is

provisions of law and the rigid rules

judgment therein and cannot again

of procedure may sometimes be

be litigated between the parties and

tempered and dispensed with to give

their privies, whether or not the

room for compassion.

claim, demand, purpose, or subject

18.

Doctrine of completeness. [The

doctrine

the

matter of the two actions is the

declaration to be admissible must be

Monje, GR 149624, 29 Sept. 2010,

complete in itself. To be complete in

631 SCRA 471, 480].

not

mean

by

same. [Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de

does

that]

settled

dying

itself

holding

conclusively

that

the

20.

Doctrine

of

declarant must recite everything that

condonation. Admin.

constituted the res gestae of the

doctrine that a] public official cannot

subject of his statement, but that his

be

statement of any given fact should

misconduct committed during a prior

be a full expression of all that he

term, since his re-election to office

intended to say as conveying his

operates as a condonation of the

meaning in respect of such fact.

officers previous misconduct to the

[People v. De Joya, GR 75028, Nov. 8,

extent of cutting off the right to

1991].

remove him therefor. The foregoing

19.

Doctrine of conclusiveness of

removed

for

Law.

[The

administrative

rule, however, finds no application to

judgment. Rem. Law. A concept of

criminal

res

where

petitioner. [Aguinaldo v. Santos, 212

there is identity of parties in the first

SCRA 768, 773 (1992)]. Also called

and second cases, but no identity of

Doctrine of forgiveness.

judicata

holding

that]

causes of action, the first judgment

cases

pending

against

21.

Doctrine

of

constitutional

equitably entitled to the property,

supremacy. [The doctrine that] if a

even though such beneficiary may

law or contract violates any norm of

never have any legal estate therein.

the constitution, that law or contract,

[Magallon v. Montejo, GR 73733, Dec.

whether

16, 1986].

promulgated

by

the

legislative or by the executive branch

24.

Doctrine

of

continuity

of

or entered into by private persons for

jurisdiction. Rem. Law. The general

private purposes, is null and void and

principle

without any force and effect. Thus,

acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction

since

the

continues until the court has done all

and

that it can do to exercise that

the

Constitution

fundamental,

is

paramount

that

once

supreme law of the nation, it is

jurisdiction.

deemed written in every statute and

adherence of jurisdiction.

contract.

[Manila

Prince

Hotel

v.

GSIS, 335 Phil. 101 (1997].

22.

Doctrine

of

compliance. Succ.

25.

See

Doctrine

court

has

Doctrine

of

of

corporate

negligence. [T]he judicial answer to

constructive
which

liability for the negligent acts of

states that if, without the fault of the

health practitioners, absent facts to

heir, the modal institution cannot

support the application of respondeat

take effect in the exact manner

superior or apparent authority. Its

stated by the testator, it shall be

formulation

complied with in a manner most

judiciarys acknowledgment that in

analogous to and in conformity with

these modern times, the duty of

his wishes. [Art. 883, CC].

providing quality medical service is

23.

Doctrine

the problem of allocating hospitals

Doctrine of constructive trust. A

general

principle

that

one

who

proceeds

from

the

no longer the sole prerogative and

responsibility of the physician. The

acquires land or other property by

modern

fraud, misrepresentation, imposition,

structure.

Hospitals

or concealment, or under any such

organize

other circumstances as to render it

medical staff whose competence and

inequitable for him to retain the

performance need to be monitored

property, is in equity to be regarded

by the hospitals commensurate with

as a trustee ex maleficio thereof for a

their

person who suffers by reason of the

provide

fraud

or

other

wrong,

and

is

hospitals

have
now

highly

inherent
quality

changed
tend

to

professional

responsibility
medical

to
care.

[Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana,

GR 126297, Jan. 31, 2007].
26.

Doctrine

of

29.

Doctrine of discovered peril. The

doctrine [holding] that where both

corporate

parties

are

negligent,

but

the

responsibility. The doctrine following

negligent act of one is appreciably

which it was held that] a hospital x x

later in time than that of the other,

x has the duty to see that it meets

or when it is impossible to determine

the standards of responsibilities for

whose fault or negligence should be

the

duty

attributed to the incident, the one

includes the proper supervision of

who had the last clear opportunity to

the members of its medical staff.

avoid the impending harm and failed

[Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana,

to do so is chargeable with the

GR 126297, Jan. 31, 2007].

consequences thereof. [See Picart v.

27.

care

of

patients. Such

Doctrine of deference and non-

disturbance on appeal. [The doctrine

that the Sup.] Court on appeal would

Smith, 37 Phil. 809]. See Last clear

chance doctrine.
30.

Doctrine

of

disregarding

not disturb the findings of the trial

distinct

court on the credibility of witnesses

corporation. [The

in view of the latters advantage of

that] when the notion of legal entity

observing

is used to defeat public convenience,

at

first

hand

their

personality

the

doctrine

justify

[Tehankee, concurring op., Llamoso v

defend crime, x x x the law will

Sandiganbayan, GR L-63408 & 64026

regard

Aug. 7, 1985].

association of persons, or in the case

Doctrine

of

the

protect

stating

demeanor in giving their testimony.

28.

wrong,

of

the

corporation

fraud,
as

or
an

dependent

of two corporations, merge them into

Doctrine

one, the one being merely regarded

revocation

as part or instrumentality of the

does

not

other. [Yutivo & Sons Hardware Co. v.

revoke a will unless and until the

CTA, 1 SCRA 160]. The same is true

condition

where a corporation is a dummy and

testator revokes a will with the

serves no business purpose and is

proven

would

intended only as a blind, or an alter

execute another will, his failure to

ego or business conduit for the sole

validly make a latter will would

benefit

permit the allowance of the earlier

[McConnel v. CA, 1 SCRA 722].

relative revocation.Succ.
which

states

subject to

will.

that

condition

occurs.
intention

Thus,
that

where
he

of

the

stockholders.

31.

Doctrine of effective occupation. A

and,

although

with

some

doctrine in international law which

modification and change, performs

holds that in order for a nation to

substantially the same function in

occupy a coastal possession, it also

substantially

had

achieve

to

prove

that

it

controlled

the

same

substantially

way

the

to

same

sufficient authority there to protect

result. [Smith Kline and Beckman

existing rights such as freedom of

Corp. v. CA, 409 SCRA 33].

trade

and

transit. See Effective

occupation doctrine.
32.

to

equivalents

established

to

test. A

determine

infringement which recognizes that

minor modifications in a patented

plaintiff from a double recovery for a

invention are sufficient to put the

loss, making the person pursue only

item beyond the scope of literal

one remedy in an action. Although its

infringement. Thus, an infringement

application is not restricted to any

also

particular cause of action, it is most

appropriates a prior invention by

commonly

incorporating its innovative concept

employed

in

which

when

device

and, albeit with some modification

a misrepresentationof a material fact

and change, performs substantially

that is intended to deceive a person

the same function in substantially

who relies on it.

the

Doctrine

fraud,

contract

occurs

is

33.

involving

prevent

of

cases

developed

Doctrine

test

Doctrine of election of remedies. A

doctrine

35.

of

equitable

same

substantially

way
the

to
same

achieve
result.

recoupment. It provides that a claim

[Godinez v. CA, GR 97343. Sep. 13,

for refund barred by prescription may

1993].

be allowed to offset unsettled tax

infringement test.

liabilities should be pertinent only to

taxes

arising

transaction
overpayment

from

the

with

Literal

Doctrine of estoppel. Rem. Law. [A

same

doctrine]based on grounds of public

on

which

an

policy, fair dealing, good faith and

is

made

and

justice, [the] purpose [of which] is to

underpayment is due.
34.

36.

Compare

forbid one to speak against his own

Doctrine of equivalents. The rule

act,

representations,

or

stating that an infringement also

commitments to the injury of one to

takes

device

whom they were directed and who

appropriates a prior invention by

reasonably relied thereon. [PNB v.

incorporating its innovative concept

CA, 94 SCRA 357].

place

when

37.

Doctrine

of

by

are authorized to decide should not

equitable

be summarily taken from them and

doctrine by which some courts deny

submitted to a court without first

relief

has

giving such administrative agency

been

the opportunity to dispose of the

negligent in asserting a claim. A

same after due deliberation. [Rep. v.

person invoking laches should assert

Lacap, GR 158253, Mar. 2, 2007, 517

that an opposing party has slept on

SCRA 255].

laches. Rem.
to

estoppel

Law.

An

claimant

who

unreasonably

delayed

or

his/her rights and that the party is no

40.

Doctrine

of

fair

comment.

longer entitled to his/her original

doctrine in the law of libel, which

claim.

means that while in general every

38.

Doctrine

of

executive

discreditable
made

a] x x x President and those who

every man is presumed innocent

assist him must be free to explore

until his guilt is judicially proved, and

alternatives in the process of shaping

every false imputation is directed

policies and making decisions and to

against a public person in his public

do so in a way many would be

capacity,

unwilling to express except privately.

actionable.

These

considerations

discreditable imputation to a public

justifying a presumptive privilege for

official may be actionable, it must

Presidential

The

either be a false allegation of fact or

the

and

supposition. If the comment is an

privilege

the

communications.

is

operation

fundamental
of

to

government

deemed

publicly

privilege. [The doctrine stating that

are

is

imputation

it

is
In

comment

false,

not

that

on

false

expression

of powers under the Constitution x x

established

x [Almonte v. Vasquez, 314 Phil.

immaterial that the opinion happens

150 (1995)].

to be mistaken, as long as it might

Doctrine

of

exhaustion

of

administrative remedies. The general

rule that before a party may seek the

reasonably

opinion,

such

inextricably rooted in the separation

39.

of

necessarily

order

based

because

facts,

be

based

then

inferred

on

it

from

is

the

facts. [Borjal v. CA, 361 Phil. 1999].

41.

Doctrine

of

finality

of

intervention of the court, he should

judgment. Rem. Law. [The doctrine

first avail of all the means afforded

that] once a judgment attains finality

him by administrative processes. The

it thereby becomes immutable and

issues which administrative agencies

unalterable. It may no longer be

modified in any respect, even if the

of global forum shopping, [Coquia

modification is meant to correct what

and Aguiling-Pangalangan, Conflicts

is perceived to be an erroneous

Of Laws, pp. 40-41, 2000 Ed.] that is

conclusion

and

to prevent non-resident litigants from

the

choosing the forum or place wherein

of

fact

regardless

of

modification

is

or

law,

whether
attempted

to

be

to

bring

their

suit

reasons,

the highest court of the land. Just as

procedural advantages, to annoy and

the losing party has the right to file

harass

an

overcrowded dockets, or to select a

within

the

prescribed

the

as

malicious

made by the court rendering it or by

appeal

such

for
to

defendant,

avoid

more

the correlative right to enjoy the

doctrine, a court, in conflicts of law

finality of the resolution of his case.

cases, may refuse impositions on its

The doctrine of finality of judgment is

jurisdiction where it is not the most

grounded

fundamental

convenient or available forum and

considerations of public policy and

the parties are not precluded from

sound practice, and that, at the risk

seeking remedies elsewhere. [First

of occasional errors, the judgments

Phil. Internatl. Bank v. CA, 252 SCRA

or orders of courts must become final

259, 281 (1996).].

at some definite time fixed by law;

44.

Doctrine

venue.

to

period, the winning party also has

on

friendly

secure

of

Under

this

governmental

otherwise, there would be no end to

immunity from suit. The doctrine that

litigations, thus setting to naught the

no governmental body can be sued

main role of courts of justice which is

unless it gives permission.

to assist in the enforcement of the

45.

Doctrine

of

hierarchy

rule of law and the maintenance of

courts. Rem.

peace

settling

policy that parties must observe the

justiciable controversies with finality.

hierarchy of courts before they can

[Gallardo-Corro v. Gallardo, 403 Phil.

seek relief directly from th[e Sup.]

498 (2001)].

Court. Therationale for this rule is

42.

and

Doctrine

order

of

by

forgiveness. See

Doctrine of condonation.
43.

Doctrine

of

conveniens. Lat.

established

twofold: (a) it would be an imposition

upon the limited time of th[e Sup.]

forum
The

Law. An

of

forum

nonis

Court; and (b) it would inevitably

result

in

delay,

intended

or

in

the adjudication

of

inconvenient. Priv. Internatl. Law. [A

otherwise,

rule designed] to deter the practice

cases, which in some instances, had

to be remanded or referred to the

transactions of the foreign sovereign,

lower court as the proper forum

its commercial activities or economic

under the rules of procedure, or as

affairs. Stated differently, a State

better equipped to resolve the issues

may be said to have descended to

because th[e Sup.] Court is not a

the level of an individual and thus

trier of facts. [Heirs of Hinog v.

can be deemed to have tacitly given

Melicor, GR 140954, 12 Apr. 2005,

its consent to be used only when it

455 SCRA 460].

enters into business contracts. It

46.

Doctrine

of

holding

out. Also

does not apply where the contract

known as the Doctrine of agency

relates

by estoppel. The doctrine where the

sovereign functions. [US v. Ruiz, GR

principal

L-35645, May 22, 1985, 136 SCRA

will

be

estopped

from

denying the grant of authority if 3rd

parties have changed their positions

to

the

exercise

of

its

487, 490].
49.

Doctrine

of

immutability

and

to their detriment in reliance on the

inalterability of a final judgment. The

representations made.

doctrine that has a two-fold purpose:

47.

Doctrine

of

hold-over. The

(1)

to

avoid

delay

in

the

doctrine under which a public officer

administration of justice and thus,

whose term has expired or services

procedurally, to make orderly the

have been terminated is allowed to

discharge of judicial business and (2)

continue holding his office until his

to

successor is appointed or chosen and

controversies,

had qualified.

occasional errors, which is precisely

48.

Doctrine of immunity from suit. 1.

[The
which]

doctrine
has

the

application

of

restricted

to

been

put

an

end
at

to
the

judicial
risk

of

why courts exist. [SSS v. Isip, GR

165417, Apr. 3, 2007].
50.

Doctrine

of

immutability

and

of

final

sovereign or governmental activities

inalterability

[jure imperii]. The mantle of state

judgment. Exceptions:

immunity cannot be extended to

correction of clerical errors; (2) the

commercial, private and proprietary

so-called nunc pro tunc entries that

acts

v.

cause no prejudice to any party; (3)

NLRC, GR 108813. Dec. 15, 1994]. 2.

void judgments; and (4) whenever

The restrictive application of State

circumstances

immunity

finality of the decision rendering its

[jure

gestionis]. [Jusmag

is

proper

when

the

proceedings arise out of commercial

execution

transpire

unjust

and

a
(1)

after

the

the

inequitable.

[Temic

Semiconductors,

Inc.

pay the reasonable value of the

v.

benefits accepted or appropriated by

Federation of Free Workers (FFW), GR

it as to which it has the general

160993, May 20, 2008, 554 SCRA

power to contract. [Province of Cebu

122, 134].

v. IAC, 147 SCRA 447].

Employees

51.

Union

Doctrine

of

judgment. A

(TSIEU)-FFW

immutability

fundamental

of

54.

Doctrine

of

implied

trust. [The

legal

doctrine] enunciated in Art. 1456 of

principle that a decision that has

the Civ. Code [which provides that] if

acquired finality becomes immutable

property is acquired through mistake

and unalterable, and may no longer

or fraud, the person obtaining it is,

be modified in any respect, even if

by force of law, considered a trustee

the modification is meant to correct

of an implied trust for the benefit of

erroneous conclusions of fact and

the person from whom the property

law, and whether it be made by the

comes. [Armamento v. Guerrero, GR

court that rendered it or by the

L-34228 Feb. 21, 1980].

highest court of the land. The only

55.

Doctrine

of

in

pari

exceptions to the general rule on

delicto. Legalprinciplethat

finality of judgments are the so-

two parties in

called nunc pro tunc entries which

equally at

cause no prejudice to any party, void

in possession of

judgments,

whenever

contested property gets to retain it

after

the

and the courts will not interfere with

finality of the decision which render

the status quo. It implies that if a

its execution unjust and inequitable.

party

[Sacdalan v. CA, GR 128967, May 20,

whose action or failure to act precipit

2004, 428 SCRA 586, 599].

ates breach of a contract, or who

and

circumstances

52.

Doctrine

transpire

a dispute are

fault,

then

the

party
the

implications. Stat.

fails to take appropriate action or

Con. That which is plainly implied in

takes inappropriate action to limit

the language of a statute is as much

or recoup a loss,

not claim nor be awarded damages.

part

of

of

if

it

as

that

which

is

expressed. [In Re: McCulloch Dick, 35

Phil. 41, 45, 50].
53.

Doctrine

of

56.

Doctrine

provision. [It
implied

municipal

such
of

party

may

inappropriate

deals

with]item

provisions [in a budget bill] that are

liability. A municipality may become

to

be

treated

as

items

for

the

obligated upon an implied contract to

Presidents veto power. [Dean Tupaz,

24 Hours Before the Bar (1st 2005), p.

renounced or forfeited it under the

133].

laws

57.

Doctrine

of

incompatibility

of

public offices. Pol. Law. It concerns a

of

the

2nd

state

whose

nationality he has acquired.

61.

Doctrine of informed consent.A

potential clash of two incompatible

duty imposed on a doctor to explain

public offices held by a single official.

the

In other words, the doctrine concerns

procedures to a patient before a

a conflict between an individuals

patient determines whether or not he

performance

or she should go forward with the

of

potentially

overlapping public duties.

58.

Doctrine

of

risks

procedure.

incorporation. Intl.

Law. The doctrine that states that the

of

See

recommended

Informed

consent

doctrine.
62.

Doctrine

of

interlocking

rules of Intl. Law form part of the law

confessions. Evid.

of the land and no legislative action

under

is required to make them applicable

confessions

to a country. The Phils. follows this

without collusion which are identical

doctrine, because Sec. 2. Art. II of

with each other in their essential

the Consti. states that the Phils.

details and are corroborated by other

adopts

accepted

evidence on record are admissible,

principles of international law as part

as circumstantial evidence, against

of the law of the land.

the person implicated to show the

59.

the

generally

Doctrine of

indefeasibility

of

[The

which]

probability

doctrine

extra-judicial

independently

of

the

latters

made

actual

torrens titles. A certificate of title,

participation in the commission of

once

the crime. [People v. Molleda, 86

registered,

thereafter

be

changed,

modified,

diminished

should

impugned,

except

not

altered,

enlarged
in

or

direct

SCRA 667, 701 (1978)].

63.

Doctrine

of

condemnation. [It

inverse

involves]

[t]he

proceeding permitted by law. [De

action to recover just compensation

Pedro v. Romasan, GR 158002, Feb.

from the State or its expropriating

28, 2005].

agency.

60.

Doctrine

of

allegiance. The

indelible

the

objective

to

recover the value of property taken

in

to

defendant, even though no formal

nationality

exercise of the power of eminent

notwithstanding that he has already

domain has been attempted by the

retain

may

his

be

that

has

an

individual

doctrine

It

compelled

original

fact

by

the

governmental

taking agency. [Napocor v. Heirs of

Sangkay,

GR

165828,

Aug.

24,

2011].
64.

67.

Doctrine of judicial supremacy. 1.

[The doctrine recognizing that] the

judiciary is vested with the power to

Doctrine

of

admissions. [The]

judicial
well-settled

annul

the

acts

of

either

the

legislative or the executive or of both

[doctrine] that judicial admissions

when

cannot

fundamental law. [Assoc. of Small

be

contradicted

by

the

not

conformable

Landowners

binds the person who makes the

Reform, GR 78742. July 14, 1989]. 2.

same, and absent any showing that

The power of judicial review under

this was made thru palpable mistake,

the Constitution. [Angara v. Electoral

no amount of rationalization can

Commission, 63 Phil. 139].

68.

of

Agrarian

Doctrine of jus sanguinis.Right of

Inc., GR 154430, June 16, 2006, 491

blood.

SCRA 49, 54].

law by

65.

Sec.

the

admitter who is the party himself and

offset it. [Binarao v. Plus Builders,

v.

to

principle

of nationality

which citizenship is

not

Doctrine of judicial stability. [The

determined by place of birth but by

doctrine that] no court can interfere

having instead one or both parents

by injunction with the judgments or

who are citizens of the state or more

orders of another court of concurrent

generally by having state citizenship

jurisdiction having the power to grant

or

the relief sought by the injunction.

determined or conferred by ethnic,

[Cabili v. Balindong, AM RTJ-10-2225,

cultural or other descent or origin.

Sept. 6, 2011].
66.

69.

Doctrine of judicial stability. An

elementary

principle

in

the

membership

to

Doctrine of jus soli.Right of the

soil.

The

the right of

doctrine
anyone

born

territory

court can interfere by injunction with

to nationality or citizenship.

court

of

in

the
state

Doctrine of laches. Also Doctrine

jurisdiction

of stale demands. 1. [A doctrine]

having the power to grant the relief

based upon grounds of public policy

sought by the injunction. [Go v.

which requires, for the peace of

Villanueva, Jr., GR 154623, Mar. 13,

society, the discouragement of stale

2009,

claims and x x x is principally a

581

concurrent

70.

of

recognizing

administration of justice [where] no

the judgments or orders of another

nation

SCRA

126,

131-132].

See Doctrine of non-interference.

question of the inequity or unfairness

of permitting a right or claim to be

enforced

or

asserted.

v.

is shown that the defendant might,

Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 (1968)]. 2.

by the exercise of reasonable care

The time-honored rule anchored on

and prudence, have avoided the

public policy that relief will be denied

consequences of the negligence of

to a litigant whose claim or demand

the injured party. In such cases, the

has become stale, or who has

person who had the last clear chance

acquiesced

to avoid the mishap is considered in

for

an

[Tijam

unreasonable

length of time, or who has not been

law

vigilant or who has slept on his rights

consequences

either

or

Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil.

inattention. [Arradaza v. CA, 170

405 (1958)]. See Last clear chance

SCRA 12, 20 (1989)].

doctrine.

71.

by

negligence,

folly

Doctrine of lack of capacity to

73.

solely

responsible
thereof.

for

the

[Ong

v.

Doctrine of legal entity of the

sue. The doctrine of lack of capacity

separate

to sue based on failure to first

corporation.[The

acquire a local license is based on

corporation may not be made to

considerations of public policy. It was

answer for acts and liabilities of its

never intended to favor nor insulate

stockholders or those of legal entities

from

unscrupulous

to which it may be connected or vice

establishments or nationals in case

versa. [Panay, Inc. v. Clave, GR L-

of breach of valid obligations or

56076, Sept. 21, 1983, 124 SCRA

violations

638].

suit

of

legal

rights

of

unsuspecting foreign firms or entities

74.

personality

Doctrine

of

doctrine]

of

let

the

that

the

buyer

simply because they are not licensed

beware. Also called the Doctrine of

to

caveat

do

business

in

the

country.

emptor.

warning

that

[Facilities Mngt. Corp. v. De la Osa,

notifies a buyer that the goods he or

GR L-38649, Mar. 26, 1979, 89 SCRA

she is buying are as is, or subject

131].

to

72.

all

defects.

The principleunder

Doctrine of last clear chance. Also

which the buyer could not recover

known as the Doctrine of discovered

damages from the seller for defects

peril or the Humanitarian doctrine. A

on the property that rendered the

doctrine in the law of torts which

property unfit for ordinary purposes.

states

contributory

The only exception was if the seller

negligence of the party injured will

actively concealed latent defects or

not defeat the claim for damages if it

otherwise

that

the

made

material

misrepresentations

amounting

to

fraud.
75.

confidence should not be simulated;

(2) it should not be used as a

Doctrine of liberal construction of

retirement

Con.

for

causes

which

are

[The

improper, illegal, or unjustified; (3) it

doctrine] that retirement laws are

may not be arbitrarily asserted in the

liberally construed and administered

face of overwhelming evidence to

in favor of the persons intended to

the contrary; (4) it must be genuine,

be benefited. All doubts as to the

not a mere afterthought to justify an

intent of the law should be resolved

earlier action taken in bad faith; and

in favor of the retiree to achieve its

(5) the employee involved holds a

humanitarian purposes. [Borromeo v.

position of trust and confidence.

CSC, 199 SCRA 924 (1991)].

[Midas Touch Food Corp. v. NLRC, GR

76.

laws. Stat.

subterfuge

Doctrine

of

111639, July 29, 1996, 259 SCRA

limited liability.The ship agent shall

652]. See

also

doctrine.

be

civilly

liable

for

the

indemnities in favor of 3rd persons

79.

Loss

of

Doctrine

confidence

of

malicious

which may arise from the conduct of

prosecution. [The

the captain in the care of the goods

pertains to] persecution through the

which he loaded on the vessel; but

misuse

he may exempt himself therefrom by

processes; or the institution and

abandoning the vessel with all the

pursuit of legal proceedings for the

equipments and the freight it may

purpose

have earned during the voyage. [Art.

vexing

or

587, Code of Commerce; Yangco v.

person.

[Villanueva

Lasema,

138291, Mar. 7, 2000].

73

Phil.

330

(1941)].

See Limited liability doctrine.

77.

80.

Doctrine of lis pendens. Lat. A

or

doctrine

abuse

of

of

harassing,
injuring

Doctrine

prerogative. [The

annoying,

v.

innocent
UCPB,

GR

management
doctrine

which]

or control which a court acquires

inherent right to regulate, according

over the property involved in a suit

to his own discretion and judgment,

pending

all

action

and

continuance
until

final

of

the

judgment

thereunder.
78.

Doctrine

aspects

loss

of

confidence. Requisites: (1) Loss of

has

employment,

the

incl.

hiring, work assignments, working

methods,

of

of

employer

under

pending suit. The jurisdiction, power

the

every

judicial

an

of

that

the

time,

place

and

manner of work, work supervision,

transfer

of

employees,

lay-off

of

workers, and discipline, dismissal,

duty

and recall of employees. [Rural Bank

delegate through the instrumentality

of Cantilan, Inc. vs Julve, 517 SCRA

of his own judgment and not through

17].

the intervening mind of another. 2.

81.

Doctrine of mortgagee in good

faith. The

rule

that

all

persons

to

be

performed

by

the

The recognized exceptions to this

principle

are

as

follows:

(1)

dealing with property covered by a

Delegation of tariff powers to the

Torrens Certificate of Title, as buyers

Pres. under Sec. 28 (2) of Art. VI of

or mortgagees, are not required to

the

go beyond what appears on the face

emergency powers to the Pres. under

of the title. The public interest in

Sec. 23(2) of Art. VI of the Consti.;

upholding the indefeasibility of a

(3) Delegation to the people at large;

certificate of title, as evidence of the

(4) Delegation to local governments;

lawful ownership of the land or of

and (5) Delegation to administrative

any encumbrance thereon, protects

bodies. [Abakada Guro Party List v.

a buyer or mortgagee who, in good

Ermita, GR 168056, Sept. 1, 2005,

faith, relied upon what appears on

469 SCRA 1, 115-116].

the face of the certificate of title.

85.

Consti.;

Delegation

of

Doctrine of non-interference. Rem.

[Cavite Devt. Bank v. Sps. Lim, GR

Law.

131679, 1 Feb. 2000].

higher

82.

(2)

An

elementary

principle

importance

in

of
the

Doctrine of mutuality of remedy. A

administration of justice that the

civil law doctrine founded on the idea

judgment of a court of competent

that one party should not obtain from

jurisdiction

equity that which the other party

modified, or vacated by any court of

could not obtain.

concurrent

83.

Doctrine

of

necessary

implication. Stat. Con. The doctrine

which states that what is implied in a

may

not

be

jurisdiction.

opened,
[Rep.

v.

Reyes, 155 SCRA 313 (1987)]. Also

Doctrine of judicial stability.
86.

Doctrine

of

statute is as much a part thereof as

basic

that which is expressed. [Natl. Assoc.

constitution that (t)he State may not

of Trade Unions (NATU) v. Torres, GR

be sued without its consent, [which]

93468. Dec. 29, 1994].

reflects

84.

Doctrine

of

non-delegation. 1.

postulate

non-suability. The
enshrined

nothing

recognition

of
of

the

less
the
State

in

than

the

sovereign

[The principle that] delegated power

character

and

an

constitutes not only a right but a

express affirmation of the unwritten

rule effectively insulating it from the

89.

Doctrine

of

ostensible

jurisdiction of courts. It is based on

authority. Also known as Doctrine of

the very essence of sovereignty. [DA

apparent

v. NLRC, GR 104269, Nov. 11, 1993,

holding

227 SCRA 693].

knowingly permits one of its officers,

87.

authority.
that]

if

[The
a

doctrine

corporation

Doctrine of operative fact. [The

or any other agent, to do acts within

doctrine that] nullifies the effects of

the scope of an apparent authority,

an

by

and thus holds him out to the public

recognizing that the existence of a

as possessing power to do those

statute prior to a determination of

acts, the corporation will, as against

unconstitutionality is an operative

any one who has in good faith dealt

fact and may have consequences

with the corporation through such

which cannot always be ignored. The

agent, be estopped from denying his

past cannot always be erased by a

authority [Prudential Bank v. CA, GR

new

103957, June 14, 1993].

unconstitutional

judicial

law

declaration.

[It]

is

applicable when a declaration of

unconstitutionality

will

impose

an

90.

Doctrine

of

outside

appearance. The

doctrine which

undue burden on those who have

states that a corporation is bound by

relied on the invalid law. [Planters

a contract entered into by an officer

Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corp., GR

who acts without, or in excess of his

166006, 14 Mar. 2008]. See also

actual authority, in favor of a person

Operative fact doctrine.

who deals with him in good faith

88.

Doctrine

agency. [The

of

ostensible

doctrine

which]

relying on such apparent authority.

91.

Doctrine of overbreadth. Consti.

imposes liability, not as the result of

Law. [A]n exception to the prohibition

the

against

reality

of

contractual

third-party

doctrine]

the actions of a principal or an

challenge a statute on the ground

employer in somehow misleading the

that it violates the [free speech]

public

rights of third parties not before the

believing

that

the

even

[the

relationship, but rather because of

into

permits

standing,

though

person

relationship or the authority exists.

court,

[Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana,

constitutional

GR 126297, 126467 and 127590, Jan.

defendant.

31, 2007, 513 SCRA 478, 500-501].

overbreadth doctrine provides that:

See Doctrine of ostensible authority.

Given a case or controversy, a

In

as

the

to

applied

other

law

is

to

that

words,

the

litigant whose
unprotected

own activities
may

are

nevertheless

establish the existence of a contract

despite

the

lack

of

any

written

challenge a statute by showing that

evidence. Generally, without written

it substantially abridges the [free

evidence, a contract does not satisfy

speech] rights of other parties not

the formal requirements set by the

before

legislature

the

court.

[Chemerinsky,

under

the

statute

of

2nd (2002)].

frauds. The doctrine is an exception

Compare with Doctrine of void for

to this as it allows failure to comply

vagueness.

with the statute of frauds to be

Consti.

92.

Law,

p.

86,

Doctrine of parens patriae (father

of

his

country). The

doctrine

overcome by a partys execution, in

reliance on an opposing partys oral

[referring] to the inherent power and

promise,

authority of the state to provide

requirements.

protection of the person and property

95.

of

an

oral

contracts

Doctrine of piercing the veil of

of a person non sui juries. Under that

corporate entity. The doctrine used

doctrine, the state has the sovereign

whenever a court finds that the

power of guardianship over persons

corporate fiction is being used to

under disability. Thus, the state is

defeat public convenience, justify

considered the parens patriae of

wrong,

protect

minors. [Govt. of the P. I. v. Monte de

crime,

or

Piedad, 35 Phil. 728].

issues, or that a corporation is the

93.

pari

confuse

defend

legitimate

mere alter ego or business conduit of

doctrine under which] no recovery

a person or where the corporation is

can be made in favor of the plaintiffs

so organized and controlled and its

for

of

affairs are so conducted as to make

violating the law. [Ponce v. CA, GR L-

it merely an instrumentality, agency,

49494 May 31, 1979].

conduit

being

of

or

delicto. [The

94.

Doctrine

to

fraud,

themselves

guilty

Doctrine of part performance. An

equitable

principle

that

allows

court to recognize and enforce an

oral

contract

deficiencies

despite

and

its

provides

legal
a

or

corporation.

adjunct

of

another

[Indophil

Textile

Mill

Workers Union v. Calica, 205 SCRA

697 (1992)].
96.

Doctrine

of

political

way

question. [The] well-settled doctrine

around the statutory bar to the

that political questions are not within

enforcement of an oral contract. By

the province of the judiciary, except

applying the doctrine, a party can

to the extent that power to deal with

such questions has been conferred

presumption is that foreign law is the

upon

same

the

courts

by

express

as

ours.

[EDI-Staffbuilders

constitutional or statutory provisions.

Internatl., v. NLRC, GR 145587, Oct.

[Taada v. Cuenco, GR L-10520, Feb.

26, 2007, 537 SCRA 409, 430].

28, 1957].
97.

100. Doctrine

Doctrine

of

preclusion

of

regularity

of
in

presumption

the

performance

official

actually and directly resolved in a

that every public official, absent any

former suit cannot again be raised in

showing of bad faith and malice, is

any future case between the same

entitled

to

parties involving a different cause of

regularity

in

action. [Borlongan v. Buenaventura,

official duties.

called Doctrine of collateral estoppel.

98.

Doctrine

of

doctrine

of

issues. The doctrine un which issues

GR 167234, Feb. 27, 2006]. Also

duty. The

of

the
the

101. Doctrine

holding

presumption

performance
of

of

primary

jurisdiction. Rem. Law. [The doctrine

prejudicial

that holds that] if the case is such

question. The doctrine [that] comes

that its determination requires the

into play generally in a situation

expertise,

where civil and criminal actions are

knowledge

pending and the issues involved in

administrative

both cases are similar or so closely

technical

related that an issue must be pre-

questions of facts are involved, then

emptively resolved in the civil case

relief must first be obtained in an

before

can

administrative proceeding before a

proceed. Thus, the existence of a

remedy will be supplied by the courts

prejudicial question in a civil case is

even though the matter is within the

alleged in the criminal case to cause

proper

the suspension of the latter pending

[Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, GR

final determination of the former.

88550. Apr. 18, 1990].

the

criminal

action

[Quiambao v. Osorio, GR L-48157

Mar. 16, 1988].
99.

Doctrine

of

approach. Also
processual

presumed-identity
called

Doctrine

presumption.

of

Where

is

not

proved,

the

of

skills

the

jurisdiction

and

proper

bodies

matters

because

or

intricate

of

court.

102. Doctrine of prior restraint. [The

doctrine

foreign law is not pleaded or, even if

pleaded,

specialized

concerning]

governmental

official

restrictions

on

the

press or other forms of expression in

advance

of

actual

dissemination.

publication

[Bernas,

The

or

1987

Consti. of the Rep. of the Phils., A

enforce their rights or claim damages

Commentary, 2003 ed., p. 225].

as such.

103. Doctrine
principle

of

that

prior
prior

use. The
use

of

106. Doctrine of pro reo. Rem. Law.

[The

doctrine

that]

where

the

trademark by a person, even in the

evidence on an issue of fact is in

absence of a prior registration, will

question or there is doubt on which

convert a claim of legal appropriation

side the evidence weighs, the doubt

by subsequent users.

should be resolved in favor of the

104. Doctrine

of

communication. 1.

[The

privileged

accused. [People v. Abarquez, GR

doctrine]

150762, 20 Jan. 2006, 479 SCRA 225,

that utterances made in the course

of judicial proceedings, incl. all kinds

239]. See Pro reo doctrine.

107. Doctrine

of

processual

of pleadings, petitions and motions,

presumption. [The doctrine holding

belong

of

that] if the foreign law involved is not

communications that are absolutely

properly pleaded and proved, our

privileged. [US v. Salera, 32 Phil.

courts will presume that the foreign

365].

that]

law is the same as our local or

statements made in the course of

domestic or internal law. [Lim v.

judicial proceedings are absolutely

Collector, 36 Phil. 472].

to

2.

privileged

the

[The

class

doctrine

that

is,

privileged

108. Doctrine

of

promissory

regardless of defamatory tenor and

estoppel. [The doctrine under which]

of the presence of malice if the

an estoppel may arise from the

same

making of a promise, even though

are

relevant,

pertinent,

or

material to the cause in hand or

without

subject

intended that the promise should be

of

inquiry.

[Tolentino

v.

Baylosis, 1 SCRA 396].

consideration,

if

it

was

relied upon and in fact it was relied

105. Doctrine

upon, and if a refusal to enforce it

of privityof contract. Doctrine

that

would be virtually to sanction the

a contract cannot

perpetration of fraud or would result

confer rights or impose obligations

in other injustice. In this respect, the

arising under it on any person or

reliance by the promisee is generally

agent except the parties to it. The

evidenced by action or forbearance

basic premise is that only parties to

on his part, and the Idea has been

contracts should be able to sue to

expressed

provides

that

that

such

action

or

forbearance would reasonably have

been expected by the promisor. Mere

compelled to testify against himself

omission by the promisee to do

or to answer any question which

whatever the promisor promised to

would

do

has

been

have

had

tendency

to

held

insufficient

expose his property to a forfeiture or

give

rise

to form a link in a chain of evidence

v.

for that purpose, as well as to

Central Bank of the Phils., GR L-

incriminate him. [Cabal v. Kapunan,

29352, Oct. 4, 1971; 41 SCRA 565 at

Jr., GR L-19052, Dec. 29, 1962].

forbearance
promissory

to

estoppel.

to

[Ramos

p. 588].

111. Doctrine of proximate cause. The

109. Doctrine

of

proper

[doctrine

stating

that]

proximate

submission. Consti. Law. 1. All the

legal cause is that acting first and

proposed amendments to the Consti.

producing

shall be presented to the people for

immediately or

the ratification or rejection at the

events in motion, all constituting a

same

natural

time,

not

piecemeal.

2.

the

and

injury,

either

by settling

other

continuous

chain

of

Plebiscite may be held on the same

events, each having a close causal

day as regular election provided the

connection

people are sufficiently informed of

predecessor, the final event in the

the amendments to be voted upon,

chain

to

deliberate

injury as a natural and probable

thereon, to express their will in a

result of the cause which first acted,

genuine

of

under such circumstances that the

is

person responsible for the first event

constitutional. All the amendments

should, as an ordinarily prudent and

must be submitted for ratification at

intelligent person, have reasonable

one plebiscite only. The people have

ground to expect at the moment of

to

of

his act or default that an injury to

reference in arriving at their decision.

some person might probably result

They have no idea yet of what the

therefrom.

rest of the amended constitution

Medina, GR L-10126, Oct. 22, 1957].

conscientiously
manner.

piece-meal

be

Submission

amendments

given

proper

frame

would be. [Tolentino v. Comelec, 41

SCRA 702].
110. Doctrine
compulsory

with

its

immediately

[Vda.

112. Doctrine

of

immediate

affecting

de

Bataclan

public

the

v.

policy. [The

doctrine under which], as applied to

of

protection

against

disclosures. [The

doctrine that] no person could be

the law of contracts, courts of justice

will

not

recognize

transaction

when

or
its

uphold

object,

operation, or tendency is calculated

members, who in turn and by his

to

public

authority, control the bureaus and

welfare, to sound morality or to civic

other offices under their respective

honesty. [Cui v. Arellano University,

jurisdictions

GR L-15127, 30 May 1961, 2 SCRA

department. [Carpio v. Exec. Sec., GR

205, 209].

96409. Feb. 14, 1992].

be

prejudicial

113. Doctrine

to

the

of

hesitation. [The

purposeful
doctrine

that

in

the

executive

116. Doctrine of quantum meruit. Lat.

As much as one deserves. [Doctrine

charges every court, including ths

that]

Sup. Court,] with the duty of a

based on the equitable postulate

purposeful

before

that it is unjust for a person to retain

declaring a law unconstitutional, on

benefit without paying for it. [See

the theory that the measure was first

Soler v. CA, 410 Phil. 264, 273

carefully studied by the executive

(2001)].

and

hesitation

legislative

determined

by

departments
them

to

and

be

in

prevents

117. Doctrine
superior.

before it was finally approved. [Drilon

118. Doctrine

The

per

of

ratification

in

the adoption or confirmation by one

person of an act performed on his

whether or not the facts relate to the

behalf by another without authority.

kind

The substance of the doctrine is

conflicts

question
rule.

of

facit

deciding

of

process

qui

agency. [The doctrine pertaining to]

114. Doctrine of qualification. Conf. of

Laws.

of

enrichment

alium. See Doctrine of respondeat

accordance with the fundamental law

v. Lim, 235 SCRA 135 (1994)].

undue

specified

The

in

purpose

a
of

confirmation

after

conduct,

characterization is to enable the

amounting to a substitute for a prior

court of the forum to select the

authority.

[Manila

Memorial

proper law. [Agpalo, Conflict of Laws,

Cemetery,

Inc.

Linsangan,

p. 18]. See Characterization.

151319, Nov. 22, 2004, 443 SCRA

115. Doctrine

of

qualified

political

agency. Pol. Law. The doctrine which

v.

Park
GR

394-395].
119. Doctrine

of

rational

holds that, as the Pres. cannot be

equivalence. [The]

expected

control

necessity of the means employed [to

powers all at the same time and in

repel the unlawful aggression] does

person, he will have to delegate

not imply material commensurability

some

between the means of attack and

of

to

exercise

them

to

his

his

Cabinet

reasonable

defense [but] [w]hat the law requires

the rules of a foreign jurisdiction with

is

the

respect to any conflict of laws that

consideration of which will enter the

arises. In some instances, the rules

principal factors of the emergency,

of the foreign state might refer the

the imminent danger to which the

court back to the law of the forum

person attacked is exposed, and the

where the case is being heard.

rational

equivalence,

in

instinct, more than the reason, that

122. Doctrine of res gestae. Lat. Things

moves or impels the defense, and

done. Doctrine that is a recognized

the proportionateness thereof does

exception

not depend upon the harm done, but

against hearsayevidence

rests upon the imminent danger of

the

such injury. [People v. Gutual, 324

statements

Phil. 244, 259-260 (1996)].

spontaneously,

belief

to
that,
are

the

rule

based

because
made
and

on

certain

naturally,
without

120. Doctrine of relations back. That

deliberation during the course of an

principle of law by which an act done

event, they leave little room for

at one time is considered by a fiction

misunderstanding

of law to have been done at some

misinterpretation upon hearing by

antecedent period. It is a doctrine

someone else, i.e., by the witness,

which, although of equitable origin,

who will later repeat the statement

has a well recognized application to

to the court, and thus the courts

proceedings at law; a legal fiction

believe that such statements carry a

invented to promote the ends of

high degree of credibility.

justice or to prevent injustice end the

occurrence

The thing itself speaks. A doctrine of

otherwise there would be no remedy.

law that one is presumed to be

The doctrine, when invoked, must

negligent if he had exclusive control

have connection with actual fact,

of whatever caused the injury even

must be based on some antecedent

though there is no specific evidence

lawful

of an act of negligence, and without

rights.
to

as

injuries

123. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Lat.

where

referred

of

or

It

has
the

also

been

doctrine

of

relation back. [Allied Banking Corp.

v. CA, GR 85868. Oct. 13, 1989]. Also
called Doctrine of relation back.

negligence the accident would not

have happened.
124. Doctrine

of

res

judicata. The

doctrine [that] has 2 aspects. The

121. Doctrine of renvoi. Fr. Refer back.

first is the effect of a judgment as a

The process by which a court adopts

bar to the prosecution of a second

action upon the same claim, demand

real and present or imminent and

or

should

cause

aspect

of

is

action.

that

it

The

second

precludes

the

not

be

squandered

problems which are future, imaginary

relitigation of a particular fact or

or

issues in another action between the

165109, Dec. 14, 2009].

same parties on a different claim or

on

remote.

[Mamba

129. Doctrine

v.

of

Lara,

GR

secondary

cause of action. [Lopez v. Reyes, GR

meaning. The doctrine [under which]

L-29498, Mar. 31, 1977, 76 SCRA

a word or phrase originally incapable

179].

of

exclusive

appropriation

with

125. Doctrine of res perit domino. Lat.

reference to an article in the market,

The thing is lost to the owner. The

because geographical or otherwise

doctrine that states that when a

descriptive might nevertheless have

thing is lost or destroyed, it is lost to

been used so long and so exclusively

the person who was the owner of it

by one producer with reference to

at the time.

this article that, in that trade and to

126. Doctrine

of

administrative

respect
or

construction. See
administrative

for

that group of the purchasing public,

practical

the word or phrase has come to

Respect
or

for

practical

construction doctrine.

mean

that

the

article

was

his

produce. [Ang v. Teodoro, 74 Phil.

56].

127. Doctrine

of

130. Doctrine of self-help. The doctrine

master

enunciated in Art. 429 of the Civ.

answer. A legal doctrine which states

Code which provides: The owner or

that,

circumstances,

lawful possessor of a thing has the

an employer is responsible for the

right to exclude any person from the

actions

of

performed

enjoyment and disposal thereof. For

within

the

of

this purpose, he may use such force

respondeat superior.Let the

in

many

employees
course

their

employment.

as may be reasonably necessary to

128. Doctrine of ripeness for judicial

review. This

[doctrine]

determines

repel

or

threatened

the point at which courts may review

invasion

administrative

property.

action.

The

basic

principle of ripeness is that the

judicial

machinery

should

prevent
or

131. Doctrine

an

actual

or

unlawful

physical

usurpation

of

of

his

separability. [The

be

doctrine that] enunciates that an

conserved for problems which are

arbitration agreement is independent

of the main contract. The arbitration

agreement is to be treated as a
separate

agreement

134. Doctrine

of

severability. See

Doctrine of separability.

and

the

135. Doctrine of shifting majority. For

does

not

each House of Congress to pass a

automatically terminate when the

bill, only the votes of the majority of

contract of which it is part comes to

those present in the session, there

an end. [Gonzales v. Climax Mining

being a quorum, is required.

arbitration

agreement

Ltd., GR 161957, Jan. 22, 2007].

136. Doctrine of sole and exclusive

132. Doctrine of separation of church

competence

of

and state. The doctrine enshrined in

tribunal. Labor.

The

Sec. 6, Art. II of the 1987 Phil. which

recognizes

provides that: The separation of

exclusive jurisdiction to hear and

Church

be

decide the following cases involving

inviolable. The idea advocated by

all workers, whether agricultural or

this principle is to delineate the

non-agricultural:

boundaries

practice

and

State

shall

between

institutions

two

doctrine

Labor

(1)

cases;

Arbiters

Unfair

(2)

that

labor

Termination

disputes; (3) If accompanied with a

encroachments by one against the

claim for reinstatement, those cases

other because of a misunderstanding

that

of

wages, rate of pay, hours of work

limits

exclusive

of

thus

labor

avoid

the

and

the

the

the

their

jurisdictions.

respective
[Austria

v.

NLRC, GR 124382, 16 August 1999].

133. Doctrine

separation

may

file

involving

and other terms and conditions of

employment; (4) Claims for actual,

of

moral, exemplary and other forms of

that

damages arising from the employer-

forbids one branch of government to

employee relations; (5) Cases arising

exercise powers belonging to another

from any violation of Art. 264 of the

co-equal branch; or for one branch to

Labor

interfere

others

involving the legality of strikes and

performance of its constitutionally-

lockouts; and (6) Except claims for

assigned

employees

powers. A

of

workers

basic

postulate

with

the

functions.

concurring

op.,

Committee

on

[Velasco,

Neri

v.

Jr.,

Senate

Accountability

of

Code,

security,

including

questions

compensation,

medicare

and

social

maternity

benefits, all other claims arising from

Public Officers and Investigations, GR

employer-employee

180643, Mar. 25, 2007].

including

those

domestic

or

relations,
of

persons

household

in

service,

involving

an

P5,000.00,

amount
whether

accompanied

with

exceeding

inattention. [Arradaza v. CA, 170

or

SCRA 12, 20 (1989)].

not

claim

for

139. Doctrine

of

stare

decisis. Also

reinstatement. [From Art. 217, LC].

called the Doctrine of adherence

137. Doctrine of sovereign immunity. 1.

tojudicial precedents. [The] doctrine

[Doctrine] expressly provided in Art.

[that] enjoins adherence to judicial

XVI of the 1987 Consti., viz: Sec. 3.

precedents. It requires courts in a

The State may not be sued without

country to follow the rule established

its consent. 2. [The doctrine which

in a decision of its Sup. Court. That

holds that] a sovereign is exempt

decision

from suit, not because of any formal

precedent

conception or obsolete theory, but on

subsequent cases by all courts in the

the logical and practical ground that

land. [Phil. Guardians Brotherhood,

there can be no legal right as against

Inc. (PGBI) v. Comelec, GR 190529,

the authority that makes the law on

Apr. 29, 2010].

which the right depends. Also called

Doctrine of non-suability.

becomes
to

be

judicial

followed

in

140. Doctrine of stare decisis et non

quieta movere. Lat. To adhere to

138. Doctrine of stale demands. Also

precedents and not to unsettle things

Doctrine of laches. 1. [A doctrine]

which are established. The doctrine

based upon grounds of public policy

[that] enjoins adherence to judicial

which requires, for the peace of

precedents. It requires courts in a

society, the discouragement of stale

country to follow the rule established

claims and x x x is principally a

in a decision of the Supreme Court

question of the inequity or unfairness

thereof. That decision becomes a

of permitting a right or claim to be

judicial precedent to be followed in

enforced

v.

subsequent cases by all courts in the

Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 (1968)]. 2.

land. The doctrine of stare decisis is

The time-honored rule anchored on

based on the principle that once a

public policy that relief will be denied

question of law has been examined

to a litigant whose claim or demand

and decided, it should be deemed

has become stale, or who has

settled

acquiesced

unreasonable

argument. [Fermin v. People, GR

length of time, or who has not been

157643, Mar. 28, 2008, 550 SCRA

vigilant or who has slept on his rights

132].

either

by

or

asserted.

for

an

negligence,

[Tijam

folly

or

and

closed

to

further

141. Doctrine of State immunity. [The

bet.

the

parties,

or

where

the

doctrine under which] a State cannot

relationship bet. the employer and

be sued in the courts of another

employee has been unduly strained

State, without its consent or waiver.

by

[Jusmag Phils. v. NLRC, GR 108813

differences, particularly where the

Dec. 15, 1994].

illegally dismissed employee held a

reason

of

their

irreconcilable

142. Doctrine of state responsibility to

managerial or key position in the

aliens. Intl. Law. The doctrine under

company, it would be more prudent

which astate is under obligation to

to order payment of separation pay

make reparation to another state for

instead of reinstatement. [Quijano v.

the

Mercury Drug Corp., GR 126561. July

failure

to

fulfill

its

primary

obligation to afford; in accordance

8, 1998].

with international law, the proper

145. Doctrine

of

subrogation. The

protection due to an alien who is a

principle [that] covers a situation

national of the latter state. See also

wherein an insurer [who] has paid a

State responsibility doctrine.

loss under an insurance policy is

143. Doctrine

of

improbability. Also

statistical

to

all

the

rights

and

as

remedies belonging to the insured

Lagumbay doctrine. [Lagumbay v.

against a 3rd party with respect to

Comelec, 16 SCRA 175 (1966)]. Elec.

any loss covered by the policy. It

Law. The doctrine [that] is applied

contemplates full substitution such

only where the unique uniformity of

that it places the party subrogated in

tally of all the votes cast in favor of

the shoes of the creditor, and he may

all the candidates belonging to one

use all means that the creditor could

party and the systematic blanking of

employ to enforce payment. [Keppel

all the candidates of all the opposing

Cebu Shipyard, Inc. v. Pioneer Ins.

parties appear in the election return.

and Surety Corp., GR 180880-81 &

[Sinsuat v. Pendatun, GR L-31501,

180896-97,

June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 630].

SCRA 96, 141-142].

144. Doctrine

known

entitled

of

strained

146. Doctrine

Sept.

25,

of

601

supervening

relations. Labor. [The rule]that where

event. The

reinstatement

facts and events transpiring after the

expedient

or

is

not

practical,

feasible,
as

doctrine

2009,

under

which

where

judgment or order had become final

reinstatement would only exacerbate

and executory [which circumstances]

the tension and strained relations

affect or change the substance of the

judgment and render its execution

where

inequitable

the

already been made on a prior appeal

suspension or nullification of such

to a court of last resort. It is merely

final

a rule of procedure and does not go

and

would

justify

executory

judgment

or

order.

such

determination

has

to the power of the court, and will

147. Doctrine

of

negligence. Also

supervening
Doctrine

of

not

be

adhered

to

where

its

application will result in an unjust

discovered peril. The doctrine x x x

decision.

to the effect that where both parties

questions of law, and is confined in

are negligent, but the negligent act

its

of one is appreciably later in time

proceedings in the same case. [Villa

than that of the other, or when it is

v. Sandiganbayan, GR 87186, Apr.

impossible to determine whose fault

24, 1992, 208 SCRA 283, 295-296].

or negligence should be attributed to

149. Doctrine of the proper law. Conf.

the incident, the one who had the

of Laws. The doctrine applied in

last clear opportunity to avoid the

the choice

impending harm and failed to do so

a lawsuit involving

is chargeable with the consequences

laws. In a conflicts lawsuit, one or

thereof. [Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil.

morestatelaws will be relevant to the

809]. [A]n antecedent negligence of

decision-making process. If the laws

a person does not preclude the

are the same, this will cause no

recovery of damages for supervening

problems,

negligence of, or bar a defense

substantive differences, the choice of

against

which law to apply will produce a

the

liability

sought

by,

It

relates

operation

to

of

but

entirely

to

subsequent

lawstage

of

the conflict

of

if

there

another if the latter, who had the last

different judgment.

fair chance, could have avoided the

therefore produces a set of rules to

impending harm by the exercise of

guide the choice of law, and one of

due

North

the most significant rules is that the

Express, Inc. v. Baesa, 179 SCRA

law to be applied in any given

384].

situation will be the proper law. This

diligence.

148. Doctrine

the

is the law which seems to have the

which

closest and most real connection to

determination of questions of law will

the facts of the case, and so has the

generally be held to govern a case

best claim to be applied.

principle

law
under

of

state

the

case. That

of

[Pantranco

Each

are

throughout all its subsequent stages

150. Doctrine
hypothecary

of

the

nature

real
of

and

maritime

law. Mar. Ins. [The rule that] a ship

owners

liability

merely

See

Ultimate

destination

doctrine.
154. Doctrine

of

ultra

vires. Lat.

co-

Beyond the powers. The doctrine in

extensive with his interest in the

the law of corporations that holds

vessel, except where actual fault is

that if a corporation enters into a

attributable

shipowner.

contract that is beyond the scope of

[Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, GR

its corporate powers, the contract is

121833, Oct. 17, 2008].

illegal.

to

is

voyage.

the

151. Doctrine of the third group. [The

155. Doctrine

of

unforeseen

doctrine] to the effect that the right

events. The doctrine enunciated by

of the owner of the shares of stock of

Art. 1267 of the Civ. Code [which] is

a Phil. Corp. to transfer the same by

not an absolute application of the

delivery of the certificate, whether it

principle of rebus sic stantibus [that]

be regarded as statutory on common

would

law right, is limited and restricted by

contractual relations. [So v. Food Fest

the

no

land, Inc., GR 183628 & 183670. Apr.

transfer, however, shall be valid,

7, 2010]. Art. 1267 provides: When

except as between the parties, until

the service has become so difficult as

the transfer is entered and noted

to

upon the books of the corporation.

contemplation of the parties, the

[Uson v. Diosomito, GR L-42135, June

obligor

17, 1935].

therefrom, in whole or in part.

express

152. Doctrine

provision

of

consumption. Goods

that

ultimate

the

manifestly
may

also

security

beyond
be

of

the

released

156. Doctrine of vagueness. An aspect

for

of the due process requirement of

civilian use which may ultimately find

notice, [which] holds that a law is

their

way and be consumed by

facially invalid if persons of common

belligerent forces, may be seized on

intelligence must necessarily guess

the way. See Ultimate consumption

as at its meaning and differ as to its

doctrine.

application.

153. Doctrine

of

intended

be

endanger

ultimate

157. Doctrine of vicarious liability. A

destination. The final destination in

legal doctrine that assigns liability for

the territory of an enemy or under its

an injury to a person who did not

control making goods contraband

cause the injury but who has a

under the doctrine of continuous

particular legal relationship to the

person who did act negligently. Also

referred to as Imputed negligence.
158. Doctrine

of

of

waiver. A

doctrine

resting upon an equitable principle

for

which courts of law will recognize,

[The

that a person, with full knowledge of

doctrine that] is most commonly

the facts shall not be permitted to

stated to the effect that a statute

act in a manner inconsistent with his

establishing a criminal offense must

former position or conduct to the

define the offense with sufficient

injury of another, a rule of judicial

definiteness that persons of ordinary

policy, the legal outgrowth of judicial

intelligence

abhorrence so to speak, of a persons

vagueness. Consti.

can

void

160. Doctrine

Law.

understand

what

conduct is prohibited by the statute.

taking

It can only be invoked against that

gaining advantages thereby through

specie of legislation that is utterly

the aid of courts. [Lopez v. Ochoa,

vague on its face, i.e., that which

GR L-7955, May 30, 1958].

cannot be clarified either by a saving

inconsistent

161. Doctrine

of

positions

waiver

of

and

double

clause or by construction. [Estrada v.

jeopardy. [The doctrine that holds

Sandiganbayan, GR. 148560, 19 Nov.

that] when the case is dismissed with

2001]. Compare with Doctrine of

the

overbreadth.

defendant, the dismissal will not be a

159. Doctrine

non

of

the

bar to another prosecution for the

injuria. [The doctrine that] refers to

same offense; because, his action in

self-inflicted injury or to the consent

having

to

constitutes

which

volenti

consent

fit

injury

of

express

precludes

the

the

case
a

dismissed

waiver

of

his

recovery of damages by one who has

constitutional right or privilege, for

knowingly and voluntarily exposed

the reason that he thereby prevents

himself to danger, even if he is not

the court from proceeding to the trial

negligent in doing so. [Nikko Hotel

on

Manila Garden v. Reyes, GR 154259,

judgment of conviction against him.

Feb. 28, 2005].

[People

the

(1949)].

merits
v.

and

Salico,

rendering
84

Phil.

722