Philippine Legal Doctrines

PHILIPPINE LEGAL DOCTRINES
jurisdiction continues until

PHILIPPINE LEGAL the court has done all that it
can do in the exercise of that
DOCRINES jurisdiction. 2. The doctrine
holding that [e]ven the
finality of the judgment does
not totally deprive the court
Doctrine of absolute privilege.
of jurisdiction over the case.
Doctrine that protects persons
What the court loses is the
from claims alleging defamation
power to amend, modify or alter
where the alleged defamatory
the judgment. Even after the
statements were made by members
judgment has become final, the
of legislative assemblies while
court retains jurisdiction to
on the floor of the assembly or
enforce and execute it
communications made in the
[Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice,
context of judicial
301 SCRA 96]. Also called
proceedings, as part of
Doctrine of continuity of
a trial.
jurisdiction.
Doctrine of absorption of
Doctrine of adherence to
common crimes.Also called
judicial precedents. Also
Hernandez doctrine. The rule
called the Doctrine of stare
enunciated in People v.
decisis. [The] doctrine [that]
Hernandez [99 Phil. Rep 515
enjoins adherence to judicial
(1956)] that the ingredients of
precedents. It requires courts
a crime form part and parcel
in a country to follow the rule
thereof, and hence, are
established in a decision of
absorbed by the same and cannot
its Sup. Court. That decision
be punished either separately
becomes a judicial precedent to
therefrom or by the application
be followed in subsequent cases
of Art. 48 of the Rev. Penal
by all courts in the land.
Code. [Enrile v. Amin, GR
[Phil. Guardians Brotherhood,
93335, Sept. 13, 1990]. It held
Inc. (PGBI) v. Comelec, GR
that the crime of rebellion
190529, Apr. 29, 2010].
under the Rev. Penal Code of
the Phils. is charged as a
Doctrine of agency
single offense, and that it
by estoppel. Also known as the
cannot be made into a complex
Doctrine of holding out. The
crime.
doctrine where the principal
will be estopped from denying
Doctrine of actio personalis
the grant of authority if 3rd
moritur cum persona. Lat. [The
parties have changed their
doctrine that] personal action
positions to their detriment in
terminates or dies with the
reliance on the representations
person. [Santos v. Sec. of
made.
Labor, L-21624, 27 Feb. 1968].
Doctrine of alter ego. A
Doctrine of adherence of
doctrine based upon the misuse
jurisdiction. Rem. Law. 1. The
of a corporation by an
principle that once a court has
individual for wrongful or
acquired jurisdiction, that
inequitable purposes, and in Doctrine of assumption of
such case the court merely risk. The precept that denotes
disregards the corporate entity that a person who knows and
and holds the individual comprehends the peril and
responsible for acts knowingly voluntarily exposes himself or
and intentionally done in the herself to it, although not
name of the corporation. The negligent in doing so, is
doctrine imposes upon the regarded as engaging in an
individual who uses a assumption of the risk and is
corporation merely as an precluded from a recovery for
instrumentality to conduct his an injury ensuing therefrom.
own business liability as a Also called Doctrine of volenti
consequence of fraud or non fit injuria.
injustice perpetuated not on
the corporation, but on third Doctrine of attractive
persons dealing with the nuisance. A legal doctrine
corporation. [Cited Sulo ng which makes a person negligent
Bayan, Inc. v. Araneta, Inc., for leaving a piece of
GR L-31061 Aug. 17, 1976]. equipment or other condition on
property which would be both
Doctrine of apparent attractive and dangerous to
authority. [T]he doctrine curious children. These have
[under which] acts and included tractors, unguarded
contracts of the agent, as are swimming pools, open pits, and
within the apparent scope of abandoned refrigerators.
the authority conferred on him, Liability could be placed on
although no actual authority to the people owning or
do such acts or to make such controlling the premises even
contracts has been conferred, when the child was a trespasser
bind the principal. The who sneaked on the property.
principal’s liability, however, See Attractive nuisance
is limited only to 3rd persons doctrine.
who have been led reasonably to
believe by the conduct of the Doctrine of bar by prior
principal that such actual judgment. Rem. Law. [A
authority exists, although none concept of res judicata
was given. In other words, holding that] When, as
apparent authority is between the first case where
determined only by the acts of the judgment was rendered and
the principal and not by the the second case that is
acts of the agent.[Banate v. sought to be barred, there is
Phil. Countryside Rural Bank, identity of parties, subject
Inc., GR 163825, July 13, matter, and causes of action.
2010].Also called the Holding In this instance, the
out theory; or Doctrine of judgment in the first case
ostensible agency or Agency by constitutes an absolute bar
estoppel. See Apparent to the second action.
authority doctrine. [Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de
Monje, GR 149624, 29 Sept.
2010, 631 SCRA 471, 480].
responsibility and, despite
Doctrine of caveat emptor. Also such knowledge, he did not take
called the Doctrine of let preventive or corrective action
the buyer beware. A warning either before, during, or
that notifies a buyer that immediately after its
the goods he or she is buying commission. [Sec. 1, EO 226.
are “as is,” or subject to Feb. 17, 1995].
all defects.
The principle under which Doctrine of comparative injury.
the buyer could not recover A rule in equity which states
damages from the seller for that although a person is
defects on the property that entitled to injunctive relief,
rendered the property unfit if the injury done to the
for ordinary purposes. The respondent or the public would
only exception was if the be disproportionate, then
seller actively concealed injunctive relief must be
latent defects or otherwise denied.
made material
misrepresentations amounting Doctrine of comparative
to fraud. negligence, [The doctrine that
allows] a recovery by a
Doctrine of collateral plaintiff whose own act
estoppel. A doctrine that contributed to his injury,
prevents a person from provided his negligence was
relitigating an issue. Once a slight as compared with that of
court has decided an issue of the defendant. [Rakes v. The
fact or law necessary to its Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific,
judgment, that decision Co., GR 1719, Jan. 23, 1907].
preclude[s] relitigation of the
issue in a suit on a Doctrine of compassionate
different cause of justice. The doctrine that the
action involving a party to the harsh provisions of law and the
first case. Also called rigid rules of procedure may
Doctrine of preclusion of sometimes be tempered and
issues. dispensed with to give room for
compassion.
Doctrine of command Doctrine of completeness. [The
responsibility. The doctrine doctrine holding that] a dying
under which any government declaration to be admissible
official or supervisor, or must be complete in itself. To
officer of the PNP or that of be complete in itself does not
any other law enforcement mean that the declarant must
agency shall be held recite everything that
accountable for “Neglect of constituted the res gestae of
Duty” if he has knowledge that the subject of his statement,
a crime or offense shall be but that his statement of any
committed, is being committed, given fact should be a full
or has been committed by his expression of all that he
subordinates, or by others intended to say as conveying
within his area of his meaning in respect of such
fact. [People v. De Joya, GR (1992)]. Also called Doctrine
75028, Nov. 8, 1991]. of forgiveness.
Doctrine of constitutional
Doctrine of conclusiveness of supremacy. [The doctrine that]
judgment. Rem. Law. A concept if a law or contract violates
of res judicata holding that] any norm of the constitution,
where there is identity of that law or contract, whether
parties in the first and second promulgated by the legislative
cases, but no identity of or by the executive branch or
causes of action, the first entered into by private persons
judgment is conclusive only as for private purposes, is null
to those matters actually and and void and without any force
directly controverted and and effect. Thus, since the
determined and not as to Constitution is the
matters merely involved fundamental, paramount and
therein. Stated differently, supreme law of the nation, it
any right, fact or matter in is deemed written in every
issue directly adjudicated or statute and contract. [Manila
necessarily involved in the Prince Hotel v. GSIS, 335 Phil.
determination of an action 101 (1997].
before a competent court in
which judgment is rendered on Doctrine of constructive
the merits is conclusively compliance. Succ. Doctrine
settled by the judgment therein which states that if, without
and cannot again be litigated the fault of the heir, the
between the parties and their modal institution cannot take
privies, whether or not the effect in the exact manner
claim, demand, purpose, or stated by the testator, it
subject matter of the two shall be complied with in a
actions is the same. [Antonio manner most analogous to and in
v. Sayman Vda. de Monje, GR conformity with his wishes.
149624, 29 Sept. 2010, 631 SCRA [Art. 883, CC].
471, 480]. Doctrine of constructive
trust. A general principle that
Doctrine of condonation. Admin. one who acquires land or other
Law. [The doctrine that a] property by fraud,
public official cannot be misrepresentation, imposition,
removed for administrative or concealment, or under any
misconduct committed during a such other circumstances as to
prior term, since his re- render it inequitable for him
election to office operates as to retain the property, is in
a condonation of the officer’s equity to be regarded as a
previous misconduct to the trustee ex maleficio thereof
extent of cutting off the right for a person who suffers by
to remove him therefor. The reason of the fraud or other
foregoing rule, however, finds wrong, and is equitably
no application to criminal entitled to the property, even
cases pending against though such beneficiary may
petitioner. [Aguinaldo v. never have any legal estate
Santos, 212 SCRA 768, 773
therein. [Magallon v. Montejo, for the care of patients. Such
GR 73733, Dec. 16, 1986]. duty includes the proper
supervision of the members of
Doctrine of continuity of its medical staff.
jurisdiction. Rem. Law. The [Professional Services, Inc. v.
general principle that once a Agana, GR 126297, Jan. 31,
court has acquired 2007].
jurisdiction, that jurisdiction
continues until the court has Doctrine of deference and non-
done all that it can do to disturbance on appeal. [The
exercise that jurisdiction. See doctrine that the Sup.] Court
Doctrine of adherence of on appeal would not disturb the
jurisdiction. findings of the trial court on
the credibility of witnesses in
Doctrine of corporate view of the latter’s advantage
negligence. [T]he judicial of observing at first hand
answer to the problem of their demeanor in giving their
allocating hospital’s liability testimony. [Tehankee,
for the negligent acts of concurring op., Llamoso v
health practitioners, absent Sandiganbayan, GR L-63408 &
facts to support the 64026 Aug. 7, 1985].
application of respondeat Doctrine of dependent relative
superior or apparent authority. revocation.Succ. Doctrine which
Its formulation proceeds from states that a revocation
the judiciary’s acknowledgment subject to a condition does not
that in these modern times, the revoke a will unless and until
duty of providing quality the condition occurs. Thus,
medical service is no longer where a testator “revokes” a
the sole prerogative and will with the proven intention
responsibility of the that he would execute another
physician. The modern hospitals will, his failure to validly
have changed structure. make a latter will would permit
Hospitals now tend to organize the allowance of the earlier
a highly professional medical will.
staff whose competence and
performance need to be Doctrine of discovered
monitored by the hospitals peril. The doctrine [holding]
commensurate with their that where both parties are
inherent responsibility to negligent, but the negligent
provide quality medical care. act of one is appreciably later
[Professional Services, Inc. v. in time than that of the other,
Agana, GR 126297, Jan. 31, or when it is impossible to
2007]. determine whose fault or
negligence should be attributed
Doctrine of corporate to the incident, the one who
responsibility. The doctrine had the last clear opportunity
following which it was held to avoid the impending harm and
that] a hospital x x x has the failed to do so is chargeable
duty to see that it meets the with the consequences thereof.
standards of responsibilities [See Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil.
809]. See Last clear chance cases involving fraud, which is
doctrine. a misrepresentation of a
material fact that is intended
Doctrine of disregarding the to deceive a person who relies
distinct personality of the on it.
corporation. [The doctrine
stating that] when “the notion Doctrine of equitable
of legal entity is used to recoupment. It provides that a
defeat public convenience, claim for refund barred by
justify wrong, protect fraud, prescription may be allowed to
or defend crime, x x x the law offset unsettled tax
will regard the corporation as liabilities should be pertinent
an association of persons, or only to taxes arising from the
in the case of two same transaction on which an
corporations, merge them into overpayment is made and
one, the one being merely underpayment is due.
regarded as part or
instrumentality of the other. Doctrine of equivalents. The
[Yutivo & Sons Hardware Co. v. rule stating that an
CTA, 1 SCRA 160]. The same is infringement also takes place
true where a corporation is a when a device appropriates a
dummy and serves no business prior invention by
purpose and is intended only as incorporating its innovative
a blind, or an alter ego or concept and, although with some
business conduit for the sole modification and change,
benefit of the stockholders. performs substantially the same
[McConnel v. CA, 1 SCRA 722]. function in substantially the
same way to achieve
Doctrine of effective substantially the same result.
occupation. A doctrine in [Smith Kline and Beckman Corp.
international law which holds v. CA, 409 SCRA 33].
that in order for a nation to
occupy a coastal possession, it Doctrine of equivalents test. A
also had to prove that it test established to determine
controlled sufficient authority infringement which recognizes
there to protect existing that minor modifications in a
rights such as freedom of trade patented invention are
and transit. See Effective sufficient to put the item
occupation doctrine. beyond the scope of literal
infringement. Thus, an
Doctrine of election of infringement also occurs when a
remedies. A doctrine developed device appropriates a prior
to prevent a plaintiff from a invention by incorporating its
double recovery for a loss, innovative concept and, albeit
making the person pursue only with some modification and
one remedy in an action. change, performs substantially
Although its application is not the same function in
restricted to any particular substantially the same way to
cause of action, it is most achieve substantially the same
commonly employed in contract result. [Godinez v. CA, GR
97343. Sep. 13, 1993]. Compare Doctrine of exhaustion of
with Literal infringement test. administrative remedies. The
general rule that before a
Doctrine of estoppel. Rem. party may seek the intervention
Law. [A doctrine] based on of the court, he should first
grounds of public policy, fair avail of all the means afforded
dealing, good faith and him by administrative
justice, [the] purpose [of processes. The issues which
which] is to forbid one to administrative agencies are
speak against his own act, authorized to decide should not
representations, or commitments be summarily taken from them
to the injury of one to whom and submitted to a court
they were directed and who without first giving such
reasonably relied thereon. [PNB administrative agency the
v. CA, 94 SCRA 357]. opportunity to dispose of the
same after due deliberation.
Doctrine of estoppel by [Rep. v. Lacap, GR 158253, Mar.
laches. Rem. Law. An equitable 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255].
doctrine by which some courts
deny relief to a claimant who Doctrine of fair comment. A
has unreasonably delayed or doctrine in the law of libel,
been negligent in asserting a which means that while in
claim. A person invoking laches general every discreditable
should assert that an opposing imputation publicly made is
party has slept on his/her deemed false, because every man
rights and that the party is no is presumed innocent until his
longer entitled to his/her guilt is judicially proved, and
original claim. every false imputation is
directed against a public
Doctrine of executive person in his public capacity,
privilege. [The doctrine it is not necessarily
stating that a] “x x x actionable. In order that such
President and those who assist discreditable imputation to a
him must be free to explore public official may be
alternatives in the process of actionable, it must either be a
shaping policies and making false allegation of fact or a
decisions and to do so in a way comment based on a false
many would be unwilling to supposition. If the comment is
express except privately. These an expression of opinion, based
are the considerations on established facts, then it
justifying a presumptive is immaterial that the opinion
privilege for Presidential happens to be mistaken, as long
communications. The privilege as it might reasonably be
is fundamental to the operation inferred from the facts.
of government and inextricably [Borjal v. CA, 361 Phil. 1999].
rooted in the separation of
powers under the Constitution x Doctrine of finality of
x x ” [Almonte v. Vasquez, 314 judgment. Rem. Law. [The
Phil. 150 (1995)]. doctrine that] once a judgment
attains finality it thereby
becomes immutable and non-resident litigants from
unalterable. It may no longer choosing the forum or place
be modified in any respect, wherein to bring their suit
even if the modification is for malicious reasons, such
meant to correct what is as to secure procedural
perceived to be an erroneous advantages, to annoy and
conclusion of fact or law, and harass the defendant, to
regardless of whether the avoid overcrowded dockets, or
modification is attempted to be to select a more friendly
made by the court rendering it venue. Under this doctrine, a
or by the highest court of the court, in conflicts of law
land. Just as the losing party cases, may refuse impositions
has the right to file an appeal on its jurisdiction where it
within the prescribed period, is not the most “convenient”
the winning party also has the or available forum and the
correlative right to enjoy the parties are not precluded
finality of the resolution of from seeking remedies
his case. The doctrine of elsewhere. [First Phil.
finality of judgment is Internatl. Bank v. CA, 252
grounded on fundamental SCRA 259, 281 (1996).].
considerations of public policy
and sound practice, and that, Doctrine of governmental
at the risk of occasional immunity from suit. The
errors, the judgments or orders doctrine that no governmental
of courts must become final at body can be sued unless it
some definite time fixed by gives permission.
law; otherwise, there would be
no end to litigations, thus Doctrine of hierarchy of
setting to naught the main role courts. Rem. Law. An
of courts of justice which is established policy that parties
to assist in the enforcement of must observe the hierarchy of
the rule of law and the courts before they can seek
maintenance of peace and order relief directly from th[e Sup.]
by settling justiciable Court. Therationale for this
controversies with finality. rule is twofold: (a) it would
[Gallardo-Corro v. Gallardo, be an imposition upon the
403 Phil. 498 (2001)]. limited time of th[e Sup.]
Doctrine of forgiveness. See Court; and (b) it would
Doctrine of condonation. inevitably result in a delay,
intended or otherwise, in the
Doctrine of forum non- adjudication of cases, which in
conveniens. Lat. The forum is some instances, had to be
inconvenient. Priv. remanded or referred to the
Internatl. Law. [A rule lower court as the proper forum
designed] to deter the under the rules of procedure,
practice of global forum or as better equipped to
shopping, [Coquia and resolve the issues because th[e
Aguiling-Pangalangan, Sup.] Court is not a trier of
Conflicts Of Laws, pp. 40-41, facts. [Heirs of Hinog v.
2000 Ed.] that is to prevent
Melicor, GR 140954, 12 Apr. sovereign functions. [US v.
2005, 455 SCRA 460]. Ruiz, GR L-35645, May 22, 1985,
136 SCRA 487, 490].
Doctrine of holding out. Also Doctrine of immutability and
known as the Doctrine of agency inalterability of a final
by estoppel. The doctrine where judgment. The doctrine that
the principal will be estopped has a two-fold purpose: (1)
from denying the grant of to avoid delay in the
authority if 3rd parties have administration of justice and
changed their positions to thus, procedurally, to make
their detriment in reliance on orderly the discharge of
the representations made. judicial business and (2) to
put an end to judicial
Doctrine of hold-over. The controversies, at the risk of
doctrine under which a public occasional errors, which is
officer whose term has expired precisely why courts exist.
or services have been [SSS v. Isip, GR 165417, Apr.
terminated is allowed to 3, 2007].
continue holding his office Doctrine of immutability and
until his successor is inalterability of a final
appointed or chosen and had judgment. Exceptions: (1) the
qualified. correction of clerical
errors; (2) the so-called
Doctrine of immunity from nunc pro tunc entries that
suit. 1. [The doctrine the cause no prejudice to any
application of which] has been party; (3) void judgments;
restricted to sovereign or and (4) whenever
governmental activities [jure circumstances transpire after
imperii]. The mantle of state the finality of the decision
immunity cannot be extended to rendering its execution
commercial, private and unjust and inequitable.
proprietary acts [jure [Temic Semiconductors, Inc.
gestionis]. [Jusmag v. NLRC, GR Employees Union (TSIEU)-FFW
108813. Dec. 15, 1994]. 2. The v. Federation of Free Workers
restrictive application of (FFW), GR 160993, May 20,
State immunity is proper when 2008, 554 SCRA 122, 134].
the proceedings arise out of
commercial transactions of the Doctrine of immutability of
foreign sovereign, its judgment. A fundamental legal
commercial activities or principle that a decision
economic affairs. Stated that has acquired finality
differently, a State may be becomes immutable and
said to have descended to the unalterable, and may no
level of an individual and thus longer be modified in any
can be deemed to have tacitly respect, even if the
given its consent to be used modification is meant to
only when it enters into correct erroneous conclusions
business contracts. It does not of fact and law, and whether
apply where the contract it be made by the court that
relates to the exercise of its rendered it or by the highest
court of the land. The only party in possession of the
exceptions to the general contested property gets to
rule on finality of judgments retain it and the courts will
are the so-called nunc pro not interfere with the status
tunc entries which cause no quo. It implies that if a party
prejudice to any party, void whose action or failure to act
judgments, and whenever precipitates breach of
circumstances transpire after a contract, or who fails to
the finality of the decision take appropriate action or
which render its execution takes inappropriate action to
unjust and inequitable. limit or recoup a loss, such
[Sacdalan v. CA, GR 128967, party may not claim nor be
May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 586, awarded damages.
599].
Doctrine of inappropriate
Doctrine of implications. Stat. provision. [It deals with] item
Con. That which is plainly provisions [in a budget
implied in the language of a bill] that are to be treated as
statute is as much a part of it items for the President’s veto
as that which is expressed. [In power. [Dean Tupaz, 24 Hours
Re: McCulloch Dick, 35 Phil. Before the Bar (1st Ed. 2005),
41, 45, 50]. p. 133].
Doctrine of implied municipal Doctrine of incompatibility of

liability. A municipality may public offices. Pol. Law. It
become obligated upon an concerns a potential clash of
implied contract to pay the two incompatible public offices
reasonable value of the held by a single official. In
benefits accepted or other words, the doctrine
appropriated by it as to which concerns a conflict between an
it has the general power to individual’s performance of
contract. [Province of Cebu v. potentially overlapping public
IAC, 147 SCRA 447]. duties.
Doctrine of implied trust. [The Doctrine of

doctrine] enunciated in Art. incorporation. Intl. Law. The
1456 of the Civ. Code [which doctrine that states that the
provides that] if property is rules of Intl. Law form part of
acquired through mistake or the law of the land and no
fraud, the person obtaining it legislative action is required
is, by force of law, considered to make them applicable to a
a trustee of an implied trust country. The Phils. follows
for the benefit of the person this doctrine, because Sec. 2.
from whom the property comes.” Art. II of the Consti. states
[Armamento v. Guerrero, GR L- that the Phils. adopts the
34228 Feb. 21, 1980]. generally accepted principles
Doctrine of in pari of international law as part of
delicto. Legal principle that the law of the land.
if two parties in a dispute are
equally at fault, then the
Doctrine of indefeasibility of Doctrine of inverse
torrens titles. A certificate condemnation. [It involves]
of title, once registered, [t]he action to recover just
should not thereafter be compensation from the State or
impugned, altered, changed, its expropriating agency. It
modified, enlarged or has the objective to recover
diminished except in a direct the value of property taken in
proceeding permitted by law. fact by the governmental
[De Pedro v. Romasan, GR defendant, even though no
158002, Feb. 28, 2005]. formal exercise of the power of
eminent domain has been
Doctrine of indelible attempted by the taking agency.
allegiance. The doctrine that [Napocor v. Heirs of Sangkay,
an individual may be GR 165828, Aug. 24, 2011].
compelled to retain his
original nationality Doctrine of judicial
notwithstanding that he has admissions. [The] well-settled
already renounced or [doctrine] that judicial
forfeited it under the laws admissions cannot be
of the 2nd state whose contradicted by the admitter
nationality he has acquired. who is the party himself and
binds the person who makes the
Doctrine of informed consent.A same, and absent any showing
duty imposed on a doctor to that this was made thru
explain the risks of palpable mistake, no amount of
recommended procedures to a rationalization can offset it.
patient before a patient [Binarao v. Plus Builders,
determines whether or not he or Inc., GR 154430, June 16, 2006,
she should go forward with the 491 SCRA 49, 54].
procedure. See Informed consent
doctrine. Doctrine of judicial
Doctrine of interlocking stability. [The doctrine that]
confessions. Evid. [The no court can interfere by
doctrine under which] extra- injunction with the judgments
judicial confessions or orders of another court of
independently made without concurrent jurisdiction having
collusion which are identical the power to grant the relief
with each other in their sought by the injunction.
essential details and are [Cabili v. Balindong, AM RTJ-
corroborated by other evidence 10-2225, Sept. 6, 2011].
on record are admissible, as
circumstantial evidence, Doctrine of judicial
against the person implicated stability. An elementary
to show the probability of the principle in the administration
latter’s actual participation of justice [where] no court can
in the commission of the crime. interfere by injunction with
[People v. Molleda, 86 SCRA the judgments or orders of
667, 701 (1978)]. another court of concurrent
jurisdiction having the power
to grant the relief sought by
the injunction. [Go v. inequity or unfairness of
Villanueva, Jr., GR 154623, permitting a right or claim to
Mar. 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 126, be enforced or asserted. [Tijam
131-132]. See Doctrine of non- v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29
interference. (1968)]. 2. The time-honored
rule anchored on public policy
Doctrine of judicial that relief will be denied to a
supremacy. 1. [The doctrine litigant whose claim or demand
recognizing that] the judiciary has become “stale”, or who has
is vested with the power to acquiesced for an unreasonable
annul the acts of either the length of time, or who has not
legislative or the executive or been vigilant or who has slept
of both when not conformable to on his rights either by
the fundamental law. [Assoc. of negligence, folly or
Small Landowners v. Sec. of inattention. [Arradaza v. CA,
Agrarian Reform, GR 78742. July 170 SCRA 12, 20 (1989)].
14, 1989]. 2. The power of
judicial review under the Doctrine of lack of capacity to
Constitution. [Angara v. sue. The doctrine of lack of
Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. capacity to sue based on
139]. failure to first acquire a
local license is based on
Doctrine of jus considerations of public
sanguinis.Lat. Right of blood. policy. It was never intended
A principle of nationality to favor nor insulate from suit
law by which citizenship is not unscrupulous establishments or
determined by place of birth nationals in case of breach of
but by having instead one or valid obligations or violations
both parents who are citizens of legal rights of unsuspecting
of the state or more generally foreign firms or entities
by having state citizenship or simply because they are not
membership to a nation licensed to do business in the
determined or conferred by country. [Facilities Mngt.
ethnic, cultural or other Corp. v. De la Osa, GR L-38649,
descent or origin. Mar. 26, 1979, 89 SCRA 131].
Doctrine of jus soli.Lat. Right
of the soil. The doctrine Doctrine of last clear chance.
recognizing the right of anyone Also known as the Doctrine of
born in the territory of a discovered peril or the
state Humanitarian doctrine. A
to nationality or citizenship. doctrine in the law of torts
which states that the
Doctrine of laches. Also contributory negligence of the
Doctrine of stale demands. 1. party injured will not defeat
[A doctrine] based upon grounds the claim for damages if it is
of public policy which shown that the defendant might,
requires, for the peace of by the exercise of reasonable
society, the discouragement of care and prudence, have avoided
stale claims and x x x is the consequences of the
principally a question of the negligence of the injured
party. In such cases, the the intent of the law should
person who had the last clear be resolved in favor of the
chance to avoid the mishap is retiree to achieve its
considered in law solely humanitarian purposes.
responsible for the [Borromeo v. CSC, 199 SCRA
consequences thereof. [Ong v. 924 (1991)].
Metropolitan Water District,
104 Phil. 405 (1958)]. See Last Doctrine of limited
clear chance doctrine. liability.The ship agent shall
also be civilly liable for the
Doctrine of legal entity of the indemnities in favor of 3rd
separate personality of the persons which may arise from
corporation.[The doctrine] the conduct of the captain in
that a corporation may not be the care of the goods which he
made to answer for acts and loaded on the vessel; but he
liabilities of its may exempt himself therefrom by
stockholders or those of abandoning the vessel with all
legal entities to which it the equipments and the freight
may be connected or vice it may have earned during the
versa. [Panay, Inc. v. Clave, voyage. [Art. 587, Code of
GR L-56076, Sept. 21, 1983, Commerce; Yangco v. Lasema, 73
124 SCRA 638]. Phil. 330 (1941)]. See Limited
Doctrine of let the buyer liability doctrine.
beware. Also called the
Doctrine of caveat emptor. A Doctrine of lis pendens. Lat. A
warning that notifies a buyer pending suit. The jurisdiction,
that the goods he or she is power or control which a court
buying are “as is,” or acquires over the property
subject to all defects. involved in a suit pending the
The principle under which continuance of the action and
the buyer could not recover until final judgment
damages from the seller for thereunder.
defects on the property that
rendered the property unfit Doctrine of loss of
for ordinary purposes. The confidence. Requisites: (1)
only exception was if the Loss of confidence should not
seller actively concealed be simulated; (2) it should
latent defects or otherwise not be used as a subterfuge
made material for causes which are
misrepresentations amounting improper, illegal, or
to fraud. unjustified; (3) it may not
be arbitrarily asserted in
Doctrine of liberal the face of overwhelming
construction of retirement evidence to the contrary; (4)
laws. Stat. Con. [The it must be genuine, not a
doctrine] that retirement mere afterthought to justify
laws are liberally construed an earlier action taken in
and administered in favor of bad faith; and (5) the
the persons intended to be employee involved holds a
benefited. All doubts as to position of trust and
confidence. [Midas Touch Food upon what appears on the face
Corp. v. NLRC, GR 111639, of the certificate of title.
July 29, 1996, 259 SCRA [Cavite Devt. Bank v. Sps.
652]. See Loss of confidence Lim, GR 131679, 1 Feb. 2000].
doctrine.
Doctrine of mutuality of
Doctrine of malicious remedy. A civil law doctrine
prosecution. [The doctrine that founded on the idea that one
pertains to] persecution party should not obtain from
through the misuse or abuse of equity that which the other
judicial processes; or the party could not obtain.
institution and pursuit of
legal proceedings for the Doctrine of necessary
purpose of harassing, annoying, implication. Stat. Con. The
vexing or injuring an innocent doctrine which states that what
person. [Villanueva v. UCPB, GR is implied in a statute is as
138291, Mar. 7, 2000]. much a part thereof as that
Doctrine of management which is expressed. [Natl.
prerogative. [The doctrine Assoc. of Trade Unions (NATU)
under which] every employer has v. Torres, GR 93468. Dec. 29,
the inherent right to regulate, 1994].
according to his own discretion
and judgment, all aspects of Doctrine of non-delegation. 1.
employment, incl. hiring, work [The principle that] delegated
assignments, working methods, power constitutes not only a
the time, place and manner of right but a duty to be
work, work supervision, performed by the delegate
transfer of employees, lay-off through the instrumentality of
of workers, and discipline, his own judgment and not
dismissal, and recall of through the intervening mind of
employees. [Rural Bank of another. 2. The recognized
Cantilan, Inc. vs Julve, 517 exceptions to this principle
SCRA 17]. are as follows: (1) Delegation
of tariff powers to the Pres.
Doctrine of mortgagee in good under Sec. 28 (2) of Art. VI of
faith. The rule that all the Consti.; (2) Delegation of
persons dealing with property emergency powers to the Pres.
covered by a Torrens under Sec. 23(2) of Art. VI of
Certificate of Title, as the Consti.; (3) Delegation to
buyers or mortgagees, are not the people at large; (4)
required to go beyond what Delegation to local
appears on the face of the governments; and (5) Delegation
title. The public interest in to administrative bodies.
upholding the indefeasibility [Abakada Guro Party List v.
of a certificate of title, as Ermita, GR 168056, Sept. 1,
evidence of the lawful 2005, 469 SCRA 1, 115-116].
ownership of the land or of
any encumbrance thereon, Doctrine of non-
protects a buyer or mortgagee interference. Rem. Law. An
who, in good faith, relied elementary principle of higher
importance in the imposes liability, not as the
administration of justice that result of the reality of a
the judgment of a court of contractual relationship, but
competent jurisdiction may not rather because of the actions
be opened, modified, or vacated of a principal or an employer
by any court of concurrent in somehow misleading the
jurisdiction. [Rep. v. Reyes, public into believing that the
155 SCRA 313 (1987)]. Also relationship or the authority
Doctrine of judicial stability. exists. [Professional Services,
Doctrine of non-suability. The Inc. v. Agana, GR 126297,
basic postulate enshrined in 126467 and 127590, Jan. 31,
the constitution that ‘(t)he 2007, 513 SCRA 478, 500-501].
State may not be sued without See Doctrine of ostensible
its consent,’ [which] reflects authority.
nothing less than a recognition
of the sovereign character of Doctrine of ostensible
the State and an express authority. Also known as
affirmation of the unwritten Doctrine of apparent authority.
rule effectively insulating it [The doctrine holding that] if
from the jurisdiction of a corporation knowingly permits
courts. It is based on the very one of its officers, or any
essence of sovereignty. [DA v. other agent, to do acts within
NLRC, GR 104269, Nov. 11, 1993, the scope of an apparent
227 SCRA 693]. authority, and thus holds him
out to the public as possessing
Doctrine of operative power to do those acts, the
fact. [The doctrine that] corporation will, as against
nullifies the effects of an any one who has in good faith
unconstitutional law by dealt with the corporation
recognizing that the existence through such agent, be estopped
of a statute prior to a from denying his authority
determination of [Prudential Bank v. CA, GR
unconstitutionality is an 103957, June 14, 1993].
operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot Doctrine of outside
always be ignored. The past appearance. The doctrine which
cannot always be erased by a states that a corporation is
new judicial declaration. [It] bound by a contract entered
is applicable when a into by an officer who acts
declaration of without, or in excess of his
unconstitutionality will impose actual authority, in favor of a
an undue burden on those who person who deals with him in
have relied on the invalid law. good faith relying on such
[Planters Products, Inc. v. apparent authority.
Fertiphil Corp., GR 166006, 14
Mar. 2008]. See also Operative Doctrine of
fact doctrine. overbreadth. Consti. Law. [A]n
exception to the prohibition
Doctrine of ostensible against third-party standing,
agency. [The doctrine which] [the doctrine] permits a person
to challenge a statute on the deficiencies and provides a way
ground that it violates the around the statutory bar to the
[free speech] rights of third enforcement of an oral
parties not before the court, contract. By applying the
even though the law is doctrine, a party can establish
constitutional as applied to the existence of a contract
that defendant. In other words, despite the lack of any written
the overbreadth doctrine evidence. Generally, without
provides that: “Given a case or written evidence, a contract
controversy, a litigant whose does not satisfy the formal
own activities are unprotected requirements set by the
may nevertheless challenge a legislature under the statute
statute by showing that it of frauds. The doctrine is an
substantially abridges the exception to this as it allows
[free speech] rights of other failure to comply with the
parties not before the court.” statute of frauds to be
[Chemerinsky, Consti. Law, p. overcome by a party’s
86, 2nd Ed. (2002)]. Compare execution, in reliance on an
with Doctrine of void for opposing party’s oral promise,
vagueness. of an oral contract’s
requirements.
Doctrine of parens patriae
(father of his country). The Doctrine of piercing the veil
doctrine [referring] to the of corporate entity. The
inherent power and authority of doctrine used whenever a court
the state to provide protection finds that the corporate
of the person and property of a fiction is being used to defeat
person non sui juries. Under public convenience, justify
that doctrine, the state has wrong, protect fraud, or defend
the sovereign power of crime, or to confuse legitimate
guardianship over persons under issues, or that a corporation
disability. Thus, the state is is the mere alter ego or
considered the parens patriae business conduit of a person or
of minors. [Govt. of the P. I. where the corporation is so
v. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil. organized and controlled and
728]. its affairs are so conducted as
to make it merely an
Doctrine of pari delicto. [The instrumentality, agency,
doctrine under which] no conduit or adjunct of another
recovery can be made in favor corporation. [Indophil Textile
of the plaintiffs for being Mill Workers Union v. Calica,
themselves guilty of violating 205 SCRA 697 (1992)].
the law. [Ponce v. CA, GR L- Doctrine of political
49494 May 31, 1979]. question. [The] well-settled
doctrine that political
Doctrine of part questions are not within the
performance. An equitable province of the judiciary,
principle that allows a court except to the extent that power
to recognize and enforce an to deal with such questions has
oral contract despite its legal been conferred upon the courts
by express constitutional or Doctrine of presumption of
statutory provisions. [Tañada regularity in the performance
v. Cuenco, GR L-10520, Feb. 28, of official duty. The doctrine
1957]. holding that every public
official, absent any showing of
Doctrine of preclusion of bad faith and malice, is
issues. The doctrine un which entitled to the presumption
issues actually and directly regularity in the performance
resolved in a former suit of official duties.
cannot again be raised in any
future case between the same Doctrine of primary
parties involving a different jurisdiction. Rem. Law. [The
cause of action. [Borlongan v. doctrine that holds that] if
Buenaventura, GR 167234, Feb. the case is such that its
27, 2006]. Also called Doctrine determination requires the
of collateral estoppel. expertise, specialized skills
and knowledge of the proper
Doctrine of prejudicial administrative bodies because
question. The doctrine [that] technical matters or intricate
comes into play generally in a questions of facts are
situation where civil and involved, then relief must
criminal actions are pending first be obtained in an
and the issues involved in both administrative proceeding
cases are similar or so closely before a remedy will be
related that an issue must be supplied by the courts even
pre-emptively resolved in the though the matter is within the
civil case before the criminal proper jurisdiction of a court.
action can proceed. Thus, the [Industrial Enterprises, Inc.
existence of a prejudicial v. CA, GR 88550. Apr. 18,
question in a civil case is 1990].
alleged in the criminal case to
cause the suspension of the Doctrine of prior
latter pending final restraint. [The doctrine
determination of the former. concerning] official
[Quiambao v. Osorio, GR L-48157 governmental restrictions on
Mar. 16, 1988]. the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual
Doctrine of presumed-identity publication or dissemination.
approach. Also called Doctrine [Bernas, The 1987 Consti. of
of processual presumption. the Rep. of the Phils., A
Where a foreign law is not Commentary, 2003 ed., p. 225].
pleaded or, even if pleaded, is
not proved, the presumption is Doctrine of prior use. The
that foreign law is the same as principle that prior use of a
ours. [EDI-Staffbuilders trademark by a person, even in
Internatl., v. NLRC, GR 145587, the absence of a prior
Oct. 26, 2007, 537 SCRA 409, registration, will convert a
430]. claim of legal appropriation by
subsequent users.
Doctrine of privileged holding that] if the foreign
communication. 1. [The law involved is not properly
doctrine] that utterances made pleaded and proved, our courts
in the course of judicial will presume that the foreign
proceedings, incl. all kinds of law is the same as our local or
pleadings, petitions and domestic or internal law. [Lim
motions, belong to the class of v. Collector, 36 Phil. 472].
communications that are
absolutely privileged. [US v. Doctrine of promissory
Salera, 32 Phil. 365]. 2. [The estoppel. [The doctrine under
doctrine that] statements made which] an estoppel may arise
in the course of judicial from the making of a promise,
proceedings are absolutely even though without
privileged – that is, consideration, if it was
privileged regardless of intended that the promise
defamatory tenor and of the should be relied upon and in
presence of malice – if the fact it was relied upon, and if
same are relevant, pertinent, a refusal to enforce it would
or material to the cause in be virtually to sanction the
hand or subject of inquiry. perpetration of fraud or would
[Tolentino v. Baylosis, 1 SCRA result in other injustice. In
396]. this respect, the reliance by
the promisee is generally
Doctrine evidenced by action or
of privity of contract. Doctrin forbearance on his part, and
e that provides that the Idea has been expressed
a contract cannot confer rights that such action or forbearance
or impose obligations arising would reasonably have been
under it on any person or agent expected by the promisor. Mere
except the parties to it. The omission by the promisee to do
basic premise is that only whatever the promisor promised
parties to contracts should be to do has been held
able to sue to enforce their insufficient ‘forbearance’ to
rights or claim damages as give rise to a promissory
such. estoppel.’ [Ramos v. Central
Bank of the Phils., GR L-29352,
Doctrine of pro reo. Rem. Law. Oct. 4, 1971; 41 SCRA 565 at p.
[The doctrine that] where the 588].
evidence on an issue of fact is
in question or there is doubt Doctrine of proper
on which side the evidence submission. Consti. Law. 1. All
weighs, the doubt should be the proposed amendments to the
resolved in favor of the Consti. shall be presented to
accused. [People v. Abarquez, the people for the ratification
GR 150762, 20 Jan. 2006, 479 or rejection at the same time,
SCRA 225, 239]. See Pro reo not piecemeal. 2. Plebiscite
doctrine. may be held on the same day as
regular election provided the
Doctrine of processual people are sufficiently
presumption. [The doctrine informed of the amendments to
be voted upon, to prudent and intelligent person,
conscientiously deliberate have reasonable ground to
thereon, to express their will expect at the moment of his act
in a genuine manner. Submission or default that an injury to
of piece-meal amendments is some person might probably
constitutional. All the result therefrom. [Vda. de
amendments must be submitted Bataclan v. Medina, GR L-10126,
for ratification at one Oct. 22, 1957].
plebiscite only. The people
have to be given a proper frame Doctrine of public policy. [The
of reference in arriving at doctrine under which], as
their decision. They have no applied to the law of
idea yet of what the rest of contracts, courts of justice
the amended constitution would will not recognize or uphold a
be. [Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 transaction when its object,
SCRA 702]. operation, or tendency is
calculated to be prejudicial to
Doctrine of protection against the public welfare, to sound
compulsory disclosures. [The morality or to civic honesty.
doctrine that] no person could [Cui v. Arellano University, GR
be compelled to testify against L-15127, 30 May 1961, 2 SCRA
himself or to answer any 205, 209].
question which would have had a
tendency to expose his property Doctrine of purposeful
to a forfeiture or to form a hesitation. [The doctrine that
link in a chain of evidence for charges every court, including
that purpose, as well as to ths Sup. Court,] with the duty
incriminate him. [Cabal v. of a purposeful hesitation
Kapunan, Jr., GR L-19052, Dec. before declaring a law
29, 1962]. unconstitutional, on the theory
that the measure was first
Doctrine of proximate carefully studied by the
cause. The [doctrine stating executive and legislative
that] proximate legal cause is departments and determined by
that acting first and producing them to be in accordance with
the injury, either immediately the fundamental law before it
or by settling other events in was finally approved. [Drilon
motion, all constituting a v. Lim, 235 SCRA 135 (1994)].
natural and continuous chain of
events, each having a close Doctrine of
causal connection with its qualification. Conf. of Laws.
immediate predecessor, the The process of deciding whether
final event in the chain or not the facts relate to the
immediately affecting the kind of question specified in a
injury as a natural and conflicts rule. The purpose of
probable result of the cause characterization is to enable
which first acted, under such the court of the forum to
circumstances that the person select the proper law. [Agpalo,
responsible for the first event Conflict of Laws, p. 18]. See
should, as an ordinarily Characterization.
material commensurability
Doctrine of qualified political between the means of attack and
agency. Pol. Law. The doctrine defense [but] [w]hat the law
which holds that, as the Pres. requires is rational
cannot be expected to exercise equivalence, in the
his control powers all at the consideration of which will
same time and in person, he enter the principal factors of
will have to delegate some of the emergency, the imminent
them to his Cabinet members, danger to which the person
who in turn and by his attacked is exposed, and the
authority, control the bureaus instinct, more than the reason,
and other offices under their that moves or impels the
respective jurisdictions in the defense, and the
executive department. [Carpio proportionateness thereof does
v. Exec. Sec., GR 96409. Feb. not depend upon the harm done,
14, 1992]. but rests upon the imminent
danger of such injury. [People
Doctrine of quantum v. Gutual, 324 Phil. 244, 259-
meruit. Lat. As much as one 260 (1996)].
deserves. [Doctrine that]
prevents undue enrichment based Doctrine of relations
on the equitable postulate that back. That principle of law by
it is unjust for a person to which an act done at one time
retain benefit without paying is considered by a fiction of
for it. [See Soler v. CA, 410 law to have been done at some
Phil. 264, 273 (2001)]. antecedent period. It is a
doctrine which, although of
Doctrine of qui facit per equitable origin, has a well
alium. See Doctrine of recognized application to
respondeat superior. proceedings at law; a legal
fiction invented to promote the
Doctrine of ratification in ends of justice or to prevent
agency. [The doctrine injustice end the occurrence of
pertaining to] the adoption or injuries where otherwise there
confirmation by one person of would be no remedy. The
an act performed on his behalf doctrine, when invoked, must
by another without authority. have connection with actual
The substance of the doctrine fact, must be based on some
is confirmation after conduct, antecedent lawful rights. It
amounting to a substitute for a has also been referred to as
prior authority. [Manila “the doctrine of relation
Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. back.” [Allied Banking Corp. v.
Linsangan, GR 151319, Nov. 22, CA, GR 85868. Oct. 13, 1989].
2004, 443 SCRA 394-395]. Also called Doctrine of
relation back.
Doctrine of rational
equivalence. [The] reasonable Doctrine of renvoi. Fr. Refer
necessity of the means employed back. The process by which a
[to repel the unlawful court adopts the rules of a
aggression] does not imply foreign jurisdiction with
respect to any conflict of laws of action. [Lopez v. Reyes, GR
that arises. In some instances, L-29498, Mar. 31, 1977, 76 SCRA
the rules of the foreign state 179].
might refer the court back to
the law of the forum where the Doctrine of res perit
case is being heard. domino. Lat. The thing is lost
to the owner. The doctrine that
Doctrine of res gestae. Lat. states that when a thing is
Things done. Doctrine that is a lost or destroyed, it is lost
recognized exception to the to the person who was the owner
rule against hearsay evidence of it at the time.
based on the belief that,
because certain statements are Doctrine of respect for
made naturally, spontaneously, administrative or practical
and without deliberation during construction. See Respect for
the course of an event, they administrative or practical
leave little room for construction doctrine.
misunderstanding or
misinterpretation upon hearing Doctrine of respondeat
by someone else, i.e., by the superior.Lat. Let the master
witness, who will later repeat answer. A legal doctrine which
the statement to the court, and states that, in many
thus the courts believe that circumstances, an employer is
such statements carry a high responsible for the actions of
degree of credibility. employees performed within the
course of their employment.
Doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur. Lat. The thing itself Doctrine of ripeness for
speaks. A doctrine of law that judicial review. This
one is presumed to be negligent [doctrine] determines the point
if he had exclusive control of at which courts may review
whatever caused the injury even administrative action. The
though there is no specific basic principle of ripeness is
evidence of an act of that the judicial machinery
negligence, and without should be conserved for
negligence the accident would problems which are real and
not have happened. present or imminent and should
not be squandered on problems
Doctrine of res judicata. The which are future, imaginary or
doctrine [that] has 2 aspects. remote. [Mamba v. Lara, GR
The first is the effect of a 165109, Dec. 14, 2009].
judgment as a bar to the
prosecution of a second action Doctrine of secondary
upon the same claim, demand or meaning. The doctrine [under
cause of action. The second which] a word or phrase
aspect is that it precludes the originally incapable of
relitigation of a particular exclusive appropriation with
fact or issues in another reference to an article in the
action between the same parties market, because geographical or
on a different claim or cause otherwise descriptive might
nevertheless have been used so one against the other because
long and so exclusively by one of a misunderstanding of the
producer with reference to this limits of their respective
article that, in that trade and exclusive jurisdictions.
to that group of the purchasing [Austria v. NLRC, GR 124382, 16
public, the word or phrase has August 1999]
come to mean that the article
was his produce. [Ang v. Doctrine of separation of
Teodoro, 74 Phil. 56]. powers. A basic postulate that
forbids one branch of
Doctrine of self-help. The government to exercise powers
doctrine enunciated in Art. 429 belonging to another co-equal
of the Civ. Code which branch; or for one branch to
provides: “The owner or lawful interfere with the other’s
possessor of a thing has the performance of its
right to exclude any person constitutionally-assigned
from the enjoyment and disposal functions. [Velasco, Jr.,
thereof. For this purpose, he concurring op., Neri v. Senate
may use such force as may be Committee on Accountability of
reasonably necessary to repel Public Officers and
or prevent an actual or Investigations, GR 180643, Mar.
threatened unlawful physical 25, 2007].
invasion or usurpation of his
property.” Doctrine of severability. See
Doctrine of separability.
Doctrine of separability. [The Doctrine of shifting
doctrine that] enunciates that majority. For each House of
an arbitration agreement is Congress to pass a bill, only
independent of the main the votes of the majority of
contract. The arbitration those present in the session,
agreement is to be treated as a there being a quorum, is
separate agreement and the required.
arbitration agreement does not
automatically terminate when Doctrine of sole and exclusive
the contract of which it is competence of the labor
part comes to an end. [Gonzales tribunal. Labor. The doctrine
v. Climax Mining Ltd., GR that recognizes the Labor
161957, Jan. 22, 2007]. Arbiters’ exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide
Doctrine of separation of the following cases involving
church and state. The doctrine all workers, whether
enshrined in Sec. 6, Art. II of agricultural or non-
the 1987 Phil. Consti. which agricultural: (1) Unfair labor
provides that: “The separation practice cases; (2) Termination
of Church and State shall be disputes; (3) If accompanied
inviolable.” The idea advocated with a claim for reinstatement,
by this principle is to those cases that workers may
delineate the boundaries file involving wages, rate of
between the two institutions pay, hours of work and other
and thus avoid encroachments by terms and conditions of
employment; (4) Claims for or asserted. [Tijam v.
actual, moral, exemplary and Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29
other forms of damages arising (1968)]. 2. The time-honored
from the employer-employee rule anchored on public policy
relations; (5) Cases arising that relief will be denied to a
from any violation of Art. 264 litigant whose claim or demand
of the Labor Code, including has become “stale”, or who has
questions involving the acquiesced for an unreasonable
legality of strikes and length of time, or who has not
lockouts; and (6) Except claims been vigilant or who has slept
for employees compensation, on his rights either by
social security, medicare and negligence, folly or
maternity benefits, all other inattention. [Arradaza v. CA,
claims arising from employer- 170 SCRA 12, 20 (1989)].
employee relations, including
those of persons in domestic or Doctrine of stare decisis. Also
household service, involving an called the Doctrine of
amount exceeding P5,000.00, adherence tojudicial
whether or not accompanied with precedents. [The] doctrine
a claim for reinstatement. [that] enjoins adherence to
[From Art. 217, LC]. judicial precedents. It
requires courts in a country to
Doctrine of sovereign follow the rule established in
immunity. 1. [Doctrine] a decision of its Sup. Court.
expressly provided in Art. XVI That decision becomes a
of the 1987 Consti., viz: “Sec. judicial precedent to be
3. The State may not be sued followed in subsequent cases by
without its consent.” 2. [The all courts in the land. [Phil.
doctrine which holds that] a Guardians Brotherhood, Inc.
sovereign is exempt from suit, (PGBI) v. Comelec, GR 190529,
not because of any formal Apr. 29, 2010].
conception or obsolete theory, Doctrine of stare decisis et
but on the logical and non quieta movere. Lat. To
practical ground that there can adhere to precedents and not to
be no legal right as against unsettle things which are
the authority that makes the established.
law on which the right depends. The doctrine [that] enjoins
Also called Doctrine of non- adherence to judicial
suability. precedents. It requires courts
in a country to follow the rule
Doctrine of stale demands. Also established in a decision of
Doctrine of laches. 1. [A the Supreme Court thereof. That
doctrine] based upon grounds of decision becomes a judicial
public policy which requires, precedent to be followed in
for the peace of society, the subsequent cases by all courts
discouragement of stale claims in the land. The doctrine of
and x x x is principally a stare decisis is based on the
question of the inequity or principle that once a question
unfairness of permitting a of law has been examined and
right or claim to be enforced decided, it should be deemed
settled and closed to further exacerbate the tension and
argument. [Fermin v. People, GR strained relations bet. the
157643, Mar. 28, 2008, 550 SCRA parties, or where the
132]. relationship bet. the employer
and employee has been unduly
Doctrine of State strained by reason of their
immunity. [The doctrine under irreconcilable differences,
which] a State cannot be sued particularly where the
in the courts of another State, illegally dismissed employee
without its consent or waiver. held a managerial or key
[Jusmag Phils. v. NLRC, GR position in the company, it
108813 Dec. 15, 1994]. would be more prudent to order
payment of separation pay
Doctrine of state instead of reinstatement.
responsibility to aliens. Intl. [Quijano v. Mercury Drug Corp.,
Law. The doctrine under which GR 126561. July 8, 1998]. The
a state is under obligation to principle [that] covers a
make reparation to another situation wherein an insurer
state for the failure to [who] has paid a loss under an
fulfill its primary obligation insurance policy is entitled to
to afford; in accordance with all the rights and remedies
international law, the proper belonging to the insured
protection due to an alien who against a 3rd party with
is a national of the latter respect to any loss covered by
state. See also State the policy. It contemplates
responsibility doctrine. full substitution such that it
places the party subrogated in
Doctrine of statistical the shoes of the creditor, and
improbability. Also known as he may use all means that the
Lagumbay doctrine. [Lagumbay v. creditor could employ to
Comelec, 16 SCRA 175 (1966)]. enforce payment. [Keppel Cebu
Elec. Law. The doctrine [that] Shipyard, Inc. v. Pioneer Ins.
is applied only where the and Surety Corp., GR 180880-81
unique uniformity of tally of & 180896-97, Sept. 25, 2009,
all the votes cast in favor of 601 SCRA 96, 141-142].
all the candidates belonging to
one party and the systematic Doctrine of supervening
blanking of all the candidates event. The doctrine under which
of all the opposing parties facts and events transpiring
appear in the election return. after the judgment or order had
[Sinsuat v. Pendatun, GR L- become final and executory
31501, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA [which circumstances] affect or
630]. change the substance of the
judgment and render its
Doctrine of strained execution inequitable would
relations. Labor. [The justify the suspension or
rule] that where reinstatement nullification of such final and
is not feasible, expedient or executory judgment or order.
practical, as where
reinstatement would only
Doctrine of supervening 87186, Apr. 24, 1992, 208 SCRA
negligence. Also Doctrine of 283, 295-296].
discovered peril. The doctrine
x x x to the effect that where Doctrine of the proper
both parties are negligent, but law. Conf. of Laws. The
the negligent act of one is doctrine applied in the choice
appreciably later in time than of law stage of
that of the other, or when it a lawsuit involving
is impossible to determine the conflict of laws. In a
whose fault or negligence conflicts lawsuit, one or
should be attributed to the more statelaws will be relevant
incident, the one who had the to the decision-making process.
last clear opportunity to avoid If the laws are the same, this
the impending harm and failed will cause no problems, but if
to do so is chargeable with the there are substantive
consequences thereof. [Picart differences, the choice of
v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809]. [A]n which law to apply will produce
antecedent negligence of a a different judgment. Each
person does not preclude the state therefore produces a set
recovery of damages for of rules to guide the choice of
supervening negligence of, or law, and one of the most
bar a defense against the significant rules is that the
liability sought by, another if law to be applied in any given
the latter, who had the last situation will be the proper
fair chance, could have avoided law. This is the law which
the impending harm by the seems to have the closest and
exercise of due diligence. most real connection to the
[Pantranco North Express, Inc. facts of the case, and so has
v. Baesa, 179 SCRA 384]. the best claim to be applied.
Doctrine of the law of the Doctrine of the real and

case. That principle under hypothecary nature of maritime
which determination of law. Mar. Ins. [The rule that]
questions of law will generally a ship owner’s liability is
be held to govern a case merely co-extensive with his
throughout all its subsequent interest in the vessel, except
stages where such determination where actual fault is
has already been made on a attributable to the shipowner.
prior appeal to a court of last [Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA,
resort. It is “merely a rule of GR 121833, Oct. 17, 2008].
procedure and does not go to
the power of the court, and Doctrine of the third
will not be adhered to where group. [The doctrine] to the
its application will result in effect that the right of the
an unjust decision. It relates owner of the shares of stock of
entirely to questions of law, a Phil. Corp. to transfer the
and is confined in its same by delivery of the
operation to subsequent certificate, whether it be
proceedings in the same case. regarded as statutory on common
[Villa v. Sandiganbayan, GR law right, is limited and
restricted by the express manifestly beyond the
provision that “no transfer, contemplation of the parties,
however, shall be valid, except the obligor may also be
as between the parties, until released therefrom, in whole
the transfer is entered and or in part.”
noted upon the books of the
corporation.” [Uson v. Doctrine of vagueness. An
Diosomito, GR L-42135, June 17, aspect of the due process
1935]. requirement of notice,
[which] holds that a law is
Doctrine of ultimate facially invalid if persons
consumption. Goods intended for of “common intelligence must
civilian use which may necessarily guess as at its
ultimately find their way and meaning and differ as to its
be consumed by belligerent application.”
forces, may be seized on the
way. See Ultimate consumption Doctrine of vicarious
doctrine. liability. A legal doctrine
that assigns liability for an
Doctrine of ultimate injury to a person who did
destination. The final not cause the injury but who
destination in the territory of has a particular legal
an enemy or under its control relationship to the person
making goods contraband under who did act negligently. Also
the doctrine of continuous referred to as
voyage. See Ultimate Imputed negligence.
destination doctrine.
Doctrine of ultra vires. Lat. Doctrine of void for
Beyond the powers. The doctrine vagueness. Consti. Law. [The
in the law of corporations that doctrine that] is most
holds that if a corporation commonly stated to the effect
enters into a contract that is that a statute establishing a
beyond the scope of its criminal offense must define
corporate powers, the contract the offense with sufficient
is illegal. definiteness that persons of
ordinary intelligence can
Doctrine of unforeseen understand what conduct is
events. The doctrine prohibited by the statute. It
enunciated by Art. 1267 of can only be invoked against
the Civ. Code [which] is not that specie of legislation
an absolute application of that is utterly vague on its
the principle of rebus sic face, i.e., that which cannot
stantibus [that] would be clarified either by a
endanger the security of saving clause or by
contractual relations. [So v. construction. [Estrada v.
Food Fest land, Inc., GR Sandiganbayan, GR. 148560, 19
183628 & 183670. Apr. 7, Nov. 2001]. Compare with
2010]. Art. 1267 provides: Doctrine of overbreadth.
“When the service has become
so difficult as to be
Doctrine of volenti non fit
injuria. [The doctrine that]
refers to self-inflicted injury
or to the consent to injury
which precludes the recovery of
damages by one who has
knowingly and voluntarily
exposed himself to danger, even
if he is not negligent in doing
so. [Nikko Hotel Manila Garden
v. Reyes, GR 154259, Feb. 28,
2005].
Doctrine of waiver. A doctrine

resting upon an equitable
principle which courts of law
will recognize, that a person,
with full knowledge of the
facts shall not be permitted to
act in a manner inconsistent
with his former position or
conduct to the injury of
another, a rule of judicial
policy, the legal outgrowth of
judicial abhorrence so to
speak, of a person’s taking
inconsistent positions and
gaining advantages thereby
through the aid of courts.
[Lopez v. Ochoa, GR L-7955, May
30, 1958].
Doctrine of waiver of double

jeopardy. [The doctrine that
holds that] when the case is
dismissed with the express
consent of the defendant, the
dismissal will not be a bar to
another prosecution for the
same offense; because, his
action in having the case
dismissed constitutes a waiver
of his constitutional right or
privilege, for the reason that
he thereby prevents the court
from proceeding to the trial on
the merits and rendering a
judgment of conviction against
him. [People v. Salico, 84
Phil. 722 (1949)]

Philippine Legal Doctrines

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Philippine Legal Doctrines

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

PHILIPPINE LEGAL DOCTRINES

jurisdiction continues until

Doctrine of implied municipal Doctrine of incompatibility of

Doctrine of implied trust. [The Doctrine of

Doctrine of the law of the Doctrine of the real and

Doctrine of waiver. A doctrine

Doctrine of waiver of double

Você também pode gostar