PHILIPPINE LEGAL DOCTRINES

- Doctrine of absolute privilege.

Doctrine that protects persons from claims alleging
defamation where the alleged defamatory statements were
made by members of legislative assemblies while on the floor
of the assembly or communications made in the context of
judicial proceedings, as part of a trial.

- Doctrine of absorption of common crimes. Also

called Hernandez doctrine.
The rule enunciated in People v. Hernandez [99 Phil. Rep
515 (1956)] that the ingredients of a crime form part and
parcel thereof, and hence, are absorbed by the same and
cannot be punished either separately therefrom or by the
application of Art. 48 of the Rev. Penal Code. [Enrile v. Amin,
GR 93335, Sept. 13, 1990]. It held that the crime of rebellion
under the Rev. Penal Code of the Phils. is charged as a
single offense, and that it cannot be made into a complex
crime.

- Doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona.

[The doctrine that] personal action terminates or dies with the
person. [Santos v. Sec. of Labor, L-21624, 27 Feb. 1968].

- Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction.

The principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that
jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can do
in the exercise of that jurisdiction. The doctrine holding that
[e]ven the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the
court of jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses is the
power to amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after the
judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to
enforce and execute it [Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, 301
SCRA 96]. Also called Doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction.

- Doctrine of alter ego.

A doctrine based upon the misuse of a corporation by an
individual for wrongful or inequitable purposes, and in such
case the court merely disregards the corporate entity and
holds the individual responsible for acts knowingly and
intentionally done in the name of the corporation. The
doctrine imposes upon the individual who uses a corporation
merely as an instrumentality to conduct his own business
liability as a consequence of fraud or injustice perpetuated
not on the corporation, but on third persons dealing with the
corporation. [Cited Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. v. Araneta, Inc., GR L-
31061 Aug. 17, 1976].

- Doctrine of apparent authority.

[T]he doctrine [under which] acts and contracts of the agent,
as are within the apparent scope of the authority conferred on
him, although no actual authority to do such acts or to make
such contracts has been conferred, bind the principal. The
principal’s liability, however, is limited only to 3rd persons
who have been led reasonably to believe by the conduct of
the principal that such actual authority exists, although none
was given. In other words, apparent authority is determined
only by the acts of the principal and not by the acts of the
agent.[Banate v. Phil. Countryside Rural Bank, Inc., GR
163825, July 13, 2010].Also called the Holding out theory; or
Doctrine of ostensible agency or Agency by estoppel. See
Apparent authority doctrine.

- Doctrine of assumption of risk.

The precept that denotes that a person who knows and
comprehends the peril and voluntarily exposes himself or
herself to it, although not negligent in doing so, is regarded as
engaging in an assumption of the risk and is precluded from a
recovery for an injury ensuing therefrom. Also called Doctrine
of volenti non fit injuria.

- Doctrine of attractive nuisance.

A legal doctrine which makes a person negligent for leaving a
piece of equipment or other condition on property which
would be both attractive and dangerous to curious children.
These have included tractors, unguarded swimming pools,
open pits, and abandoned refrigerators. Liability could be
placed on the people owning or controlling the premises even
when the child was a trespasser who sneaked on the
property. See Attractive nuisance doctrine.

- Doctrine of collateral estoppel.

A doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue.
Once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to
its judgment, that decision preclude[s] relitigation of the issue
in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the
first case. Also called Doctrine of preclusion of issues.

- Doctrine of command responsibility.

The doctrine under which any government official or
supervisor, or officer of the PNP or that of any other law
enforcement agency shall be held accountable for “Neglect of
Duty” if he has knowledge that a crime or offense shall be
committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his
subordinates, or by others within his area of responsibility
and, despite such knowledge, he did not take preventive or
corrective action either before, during, or immediately after its
commission. [Sec. 1, EO 226. Feb. 17, 1995].

- Doctrine of comparative injury.

A rule in equity which states that although a person is entitled
to injunctive relief, if the injury done to the respondent or the
public would be disproportionate, then injunctive relief must
be denied.

- Doctrine of comparative negligence

[The doctrine that allows] a recovery by a plaintiff whose own
act contributed to his injury, provided his negligence was
slight as compared with that of the defendant. [Rakes v. The
Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific, Co., GR 1719, Jan. 23, 1907].

- Doctrine of compassionate justice.

The doctrine that the harsh provisions of law and the rigid
rules of procedure may sometimes be tempered and
dispensed with to give room for compassion.
 - Doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment.
A concept of res judicata holding that] where there is identity
of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of
causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to
those matters actually and directly controverted and
determined and not as to matters merely involved therein.
Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly
adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an
action before a competent court in which judgment is
rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment
therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and
their privies, whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or
subject matter of the two actions is the same. [Antonio v.
Sayman Vda. de Monje, GR 149624, 29 Sept. 2010, 631
SCRA 471, 480].

- Doctrine of condonation.
[The doctrine that a] public official cannot be removed for
administrative misconduct committed during a prior term,
since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of
the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off
the right to remove him therefor. The foregoing rule, however,
finds no application to criminal cases pending against
petitioner. [Aguinaldo v. Santos, 212 SCRA 768, 773 (1992)].
Also called Doctrine of forgiveness.

- Doctrine of constitutional supremacy.

[The doctrine that] if a law or contract violates any norm of the
constitution, that law or contract, whether promulgated by the
legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by
private persons for private purposes, is null and void and
without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is
the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it
is deemed written in every statute and contract. [Manila
Prince Hotel v. GSIS, 335 Phil. 101 (1997].

- Doctrine of constructive compliance.

Doctrine which states that if, without the fault of the heir, the
modal institution cannot take effect in the exact manner
stated by the testator, it shall be complied with in a manner
most analogous to and in conformity with his wishes. [Art.
883, CC].

- Doctrine of deference and non-disturbance on

appeal.
[The doctrine that the Sup.] Court on appeal would not disturb
the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses in
view of the latter’s advantage of observing at first hand their
demeanor in giving their testimony. [Tehankee, concurring
op., Llamoso v Sandiganbayan, GR L-63408 & 64026 Aug. 7,
1985].

- Doctrine of discovered peril.

The doctrine [holding] that where both parties are negligent,
but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than
that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose
fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the
one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending
harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the
consequences thereof. [See Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809].
See Last clear chance doctrine.

- Doctrine of disregarding the distinct personality

of the corporation.
[The doctrine stating that] when “the notion of legal entity is
used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect
fraud, or defend crime, x x x the law will regard the
corporation as an association of persons, or in the case of
two corporations, merge them into one, the one being merely
regarded as part or instrumentality of the other. [Yutivo &
Sons Hardware Co. v. CTA, 1 SCRA 160]. The same is true
where a corporation is a dummy and serves no business
purpose and is intended only as a blind, or an alter ego or
business conduit for the sole benefit of the stockholders.
[McConnel v. CA, 1 SCRA 722].
 - Doctrine of effective occupation.
A doctrine in international law which holds that in order for a
nation to occupy a coastal possession, it also had to prove
that it controlled sufficient authority there to protect existing
rights such as freedom of trade and transit. See Effective
occupation doctrine.

- Doctrine of equitable recoupment.

It provides that a claim for refund barred by prescription may
be allowed to offset unsettled tax liabilities should be
pertinent only to taxes arising from the same transaction on
which an overpayment is made and underpayment is due.

- Doctrine of equivalents.
The rule stating that an infringement also takes place when a
device appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its
innovative concept and, although with some modification and
change, performs substantially the same function in
substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same
result. [Smith Kline and Beckman Corp. v. CA, 409 SCRA
33].

- Doctrine of equivalents test.

A test established to determine infringement which
recognizes that minor modifications in a patented invention
are sufficient to put the item beyond the scope of literal
infringement. Thus, an infringement also occurs when a
device appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its
innovative concept and, albeit with some modification and
change, performs substantially the same function in
substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same
result. [Godinez v. CA, GR 97343. Sep. 13, 1993]. Compare
with Literal infringement test.

- Doctrine of estoppel.
[A doctrine] based on grounds of public policy, fair dealing,
good faith and justice, [the] purpose [of which] is to forbid one
to speak against his own act, representations, or
commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed
and who reasonably relied thereon. [PNB v. CA, 94 SCRA
357].

- Doctrine of estoppel by laches.

An equitable doctrine by which some courts deny relief to a
claimant who has unreasonably delayed or been negligent in
asserting a claim. A person invoking laches should assert that
an opposing party has slept on his/her rights and that the
party is no longer entitled to his/her original claim.

- Doctrine of executive privilege.

[The doctrine stating that a] “x x x President and those who
assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process
of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a
way many would be unwilling to express except privately.
These are the considerations justifying a presumptive
privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is
fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably
rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution x x
x ” [Almonte v. Vasquez, 314 Phil. 150 (1995)].

- Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative

remedies.
The general rule that before a party may seek the intervention
of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him
by administrative processes. The issues which administrative
agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily
taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving
such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the
same after due deliberation. [Rep. v. Lacap, GR 158253, Mar.
2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255].

- Doctrine of fair comment.

A doctrine in the law of libel, which means that while in
general every discreditable imputation publicly made is
deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until
his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is
directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not
necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable
imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either
be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false
supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion,
based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the
opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might
reasonably be inferred from the facts. [Borjal v. CA, 361 Phil.
1999].

- Doctrine of finality of judgment.

[The doctrine that] once a judgment attains finality it thereby
becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be
modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to
correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of
fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is
attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the
highest court of the land. Just as the losing party has the right
to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning
party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the
resolution of his case. The doctrine of finality of judgment is
grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and
sound practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the
judgments or orders of courts must become final at some
definite time fixed by law; otherwise, there would be no end to
litigations, thus setting to naught the main role of courts of
justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law
and the maintenance of peace and order by settling
justiciable controversies with finality. [Gallardo-Corro v.
Gallardo, 403 Phil. 498 (2001)].
Doctrine of forgiveness. See Doctrine of condonation.

- Doctrine of governmental immunity from suit.

The doctrine that no governmental body can be sued unless it
gives permission.

- Doctrine of holding out.

Also known as the Doctrine of agency by estoppel. The
doctrine where the principal will be estopped from denying
the grant of authority if 3rd parties have changed their
positions to their detriment in reliance on the representations
made.

- Doctrine of in pari delicto.

Legal principle that if two parties in a dispute are equally at
fault, then the party in possession of the
contested property gets to retain it and the courts will not
interfere with the status quo. It implies that if a party
whose action or failure to act precipitates breach of
a contract, or who fails to take appropriate action or takes
inappropriate action to limit or recoup a loss, such party may
not claim nor be awarded damages.

- Doctrine of incorporation.
The doctrine that states that the rules of Intl. Law form part of
the law of the land and no legislative action is required to
make them applicable to a country. The Phils. follows this
doctrine, because Sec. 2. Art. II of the Consti. states that the
Phils. adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land.

- Doctrine of inverse condemnation.

[It involves] [t]he action to recover just compensation from the
State or its expropriating agency. It has the objective to
recover the value of property taken in fact by the
governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of
the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the
taking agency. [Napocor v. Heirs of Sangkay, GR 165828,
Aug. 24, 2011].

- Doctrine of judicial admissions.

[The] well-settled [doctrine] that judicial admissions cannot be
contradicted by the admitter who is the party himself and
binds the person who makes the same, and absent any
showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount
of rationalization can offset it. [Binarao v. Plus Builders, Inc.,
GR 154430, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 49, 54].
 - Doctrine of judicial stability.
[The doctrine that] no court can interfere by injunction with the
judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction
having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction.
[Cabili v. Balindong, AM RTJ-10-2225, Sept. 6, 2011].

- Doctrine of judicial supremacy.

1. [The doctrine recognizing that] the judiciary is vested with
the power to annul the acts of either the legislative or the
executive or of both when not conformable to the
fundamental law. [Assoc. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of
Agrarian Reform, GR 78742. July 14, 1989]. 2. The power of
judicial review under the Constitution. [Angara v. Electoral
Commission, 63 Phil. 139].

- Doctrine of jus sanguinis.Lat. Right of blood.

A principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not
determined by place of birth but by having instead one or
both parents who are citizens of the state or more generally
by having state citizenship or membership to a nation
determined or conferred by ethnic, cultural or other descent
or origin.

- Doctrine of jus soli.Lat. Right of the soil.

The doctrine recognizing the right of anyone born in the
territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.
Doctrine of laches. Also Doctrine of stale demands. 1. [A
doctrine] based upon grounds of public policy which requires,
for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims
and x x x is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness
of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
[Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 (1968)]. 2. The time-
honored rule anchored on public policy that relief will be
denied to a litigant whose claim or demand has become
“stale”, or who has acquiesced for an unreasonable length of
time, or who has not been vigilant or who has slept on his
rights either by negligence, folly or inattention. [Arradaza v.
CA, 170 SCRA 12, 20 (1989)].
 - Doctrine of lack of capacity to sue.
The doctrine of lack of capacity to sue based on failure to first
acquire a local license is based on considerations of public
policy. It was never intended to favor nor insulate from suit
unscrupulous establishments or nationals in case of breach of
valid obligations or violations of legal rights of unsuspecting
foreign firms or entities simply because they are not licensed
to do business in the country. [Facilities Mngt. Corp. v. De la
Osa, GR L-38649, Mar. 26, 1979, 89 SCRA 131].

- Doctrine of last clear chance.

Also known as the Doctrine of discovered peril or the
Humanitarian doctrine. A doctrine in the law of torts which
states that the contributory negligence of the party injured will
not defeat the claim for damages if it is shown that the
defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and
prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence
of the injured party. In such cases, the person who had the
last clear chance to avoid the mishap is considered in law
solely responsible for the consequences thereof. [Ong v.
Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil. 405 (1958)]. See Last
clear chance doctrine.

- Doctrine of limited liability.

The ship agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in
favor of 3rd persons which may arise from the conduct of the
captain in the care of the goods which he loaded on the
vessel; but he may exempt himself therefrom by abandoning
the vessel with all the equipments and the freight it may have
earned during the voyage. [Art. 587, Code of Commerce;
Yangco v. Lasema, 73 Phil. 330 (1941)]. See Limited liability
doctrine.

- Doctrine of management prerogative.

[The doctrine under which] every employer has the inherent
right to regulate, according to his own discretion and
judgment, all aspects of employment, incl. hiring, work
assignments, working methods, the time, place and manner
of work, work supervision, transfer of employees, lay-off of
workers, and discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees.
[Rural Bank of Cantilan, Inc. vs Julve, 517 SCRA 17].

- Doctrine of necessary implication.

The doctrine which states that what is implied in a statute is
as much a part thereof as that which is expressed. [Natl.
Assoc. of Trade Unions (NATU) v. Torres, GR 93468. Dec.
29, 1994].

- Doctrine of non-delegation.
1. [The principle that] delegated power constitutes not only a
right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the
instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the
intervening mind of another. 2. The recognized exceptions to
this principle are as follows: (1) Delegation of tariff powers to
the Pres. under Sec. 28 (2) of Art. VI of the Consti.; (2)
Delegation of emergency powers to the Pres. under Sec.
23(2) of Art. VI of the Consti.; (3) Delegation to the people at
large; (4) Delegation to local governments; and (5) Delegation
to administrative bodies. [Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita,
GR 168056, Sept. 1, 2005, 469 SCRA 1, 115-116].

- Doctrine of non-interference.
An elementary principle of higher importance in the
administration of justice that the judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified, or
vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction. [Rep. v.
Reyes, 155 SCRA 313 (1987)]. Also Doctrine of judicial
stability.

- Doctrine of non-suability.
The basic postulate enshrined in the constitution that ‘the
State may not be sued without its consent,’ [which] reflects
nothing less than a recognition of the sovereign character of
the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule
effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts. It is
based on the very essence of sovereignty. [DA v. NLRC, GR
104269, Nov. 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 693].
 - Doctrine of operative fact.
[The doctrine that] nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional
law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a
determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and
may have consequences which cannot always be ignored.
The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial
declaration. [It] is applicable when a declaration of
unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who
have relied on the invalid law. [Planters Products, Inc. v.
Fertiphil Corp., GR 166006, 14 Mar. 2008]. See also
Operative fact doctrine.

- Doctrine of pari delicto.

[The doctrine under which] no recovery can be made in favor
of the plaintiffs for being themselves guilty of violating the law.
[Ponce v. CA, GR L-49494 May 31, 1979].

- Doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity.

The doctrine used whenever a court finds that the corporate
fiction is being used to defeat public convenience, justify
wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, or to confuse legitimate
issues, or that a corporation is the mere alter ego or business
conduit of a person or where the corporation is so organized
and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it
merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of
another corporation. [Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union v.
Calica, 205 SCRA 697 (1992)].

- Doctrine of prejudicial question.

The doctrine [that] comes into play generally in a situation
where civil and criminal actions are pending and the issues
involved in both cases are similar or so closely related that an
issue must be pre-emptively resolved in the civil case before
the criminal action can proceed. Thus, the existence of a
prejudicial question in a civil case is alleged in the criminal
case to cause the suspension of the latter pending final
determination of the former. [Quiambao v. Osorio, GR L-
48157 Mar. 16, 1988].
 - Doctrine of presumed-identity approach.
Also called Doctrine of processual presumption. Where a
foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved,
the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours. [EDI-
Staffbuilders Internatl., v. NLRC, GR 145587, Oct. 26, 2007,
537 SCRA 409, 430].

- Doctrine of presumption of regularity in the

performance of official duty.
The doctrine holding that every public official, absent any
showing of bad faith and malice, is entitled to the presumption
regularity in the performance of official duties.

- Doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

[The doctrine that holds that] if the case is such that its
determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and
knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because
technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved,
then relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts
even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a
court. [Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, GR 88550. Apr. 18,
1990].

- Doctrine of privileged communication.

1. [The doctrine] that utterances made in the course of judicial
proceedings, incl. all kinds of pleadings, petitions and
motions, belong to the class of communications that are
absolutely privileged. [US v. Salera, 32 Phil. 365].
2. [The doctrine that] statements made in the course of
judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged – that is,
privileged regardless of defamatory tenor and of the presence
of malice – if the same are relevant, pertinent, or material to
the cause in hand or subject of inquiry. [Tolentino v. Baylosis,
1 SCRA 396].

- Doctrine of privity of contract.

Doctrine that provides that a contract cannot confer rights or
impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent
except the parties to it. The basic premise is that only parties
to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or
claim damages as such.

- Doctrine of pro reo.

[The doctrine that] where the evidence on an issue of fact is
in question or there is doubt on which side the evidence
weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.
[People v. Abarquez, GR 150762, 20 Jan. 2006, 479 SCRA
225, 239]. See Pro reo doctrine.

- Doctrine of proper submission.

1. All the proposed amendments to the Consti. shall be
presented to the people for the ratification or rejection at the
same time, not piecemeal. 2. Plebiscite may be held on the
same day as regular election provided the people are
sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, to
conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a
genuine manner. Submission of piece-meal amendments is
constitutional. All the amendments must be submitted for
ratification at one plebiscite only. The people have to be given
a proper frame of reference in arriving at their decision. They
have no idea yet of what the rest of the amended constitution
would be. [Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702].

- Doctrine of protection against compulsory

disclosures.
[The doctrine that] no person could be compelled to testify
against himself or to answer any question which would have
had a tendency to expose his property to a forfeiture or to
form a link in a chain of evidence for that purpose, as well as
to incriminate him. [Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr., GR L-19052, Dec.
29, 1962].

- Doctrine of proximate cause.

The [doctrine stating that] proximate legal cause is that acting
first and producing the injury, either immediately or by settling
other events in motion, all constituting a natural and
continuous chain of events, each having a close causal
connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in
the chain immediately affecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which first acted, under such
circumstances that the person responsible for the first event
should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or
default that an injury to some person might probably result
therefrom. [Vda. de Bataclan v. Medina, GR L-10126, Oct.
22, 1957].

- Doctrine of public policy.

[The doctrine under which], as applied to the law of contracts,
courts of justice will not recognize or uphold a transaction
when its object, operation, or tendency is calculated to be
prejudicial to the public welfare, to sound morality or to civic
honesty. [Cui v. Arellano University, GR L-15127, 30 May
1961, 2 SCRA 205, 209].

- Doctrine of quantum meruit. Lat. As much as one

deserves.
[Doctrine that] prevents undue enrichment based on the
equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to retain
benefit without paying for it. [See Soler v. CA, 410 Phil. 264,
273 (2001)].

- Doctrine of renvoi. Fr. Refer back.

The process by which a court adopts the rules of a foreign
jurisdiction with respect to any conflict of laws that arises. In
some instances, the rules of the foreign state might refer the
court back to the law of the forum where the case is being
heard.

- Doctrine of res gestae. Lat. Things done.

Doctrine that is a recognized exception to the rule
against hearsay evidence based on the belief that, because
certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously, and
without deliberation during the course of an event, they leave
little room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation upon
hearing by someone else, i.e., by the witness, who will later
repeat the statement to the court, and thus the courts believe
that such statements carry a high degree of credibility.

- Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Lat. The thing itself

speaks.
A doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he
had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even
though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence,
and without negligence the accident would not have
happened.

- Doctrine of res judicata.

The doctrine [that] has 2 aspects. The first is the effect of a
judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon
the same claim, demand or cause of action. The second
aspect is that it precludes the relitigation of a particular fact or
issues in another action between the same parties on a
different claim or cause of action. [Lopez v. Reyes, GR L-
29498, Mar. 31, 1977, 76 SCRA 179].

- Doctrine of res perit domino. Lat. The thing is lost

to the owner.
The doctrine that states that when a thing is lost or destroyed,
it is lost to the person who was the owner of it at the time.
Doctrine of respect for administrative or practical
construction. See Respect for administrative or practical
construction doctrine.

- Doctrine of respondeat superior.Lat. Let the

master answer.
A legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances,
an employer is responsible for the actions of employees
performed within the course of their employment.

- Doctrine of ripeness for judicial review.

This [doctrine] determines the point at which courts may
review administrative action. The basic principle of ripeness is
that the judicial machinery should be conserved for problems
which are real and present or imminent and should not be
squandered on problems which are future, imaginary or
remote. [Mamba v. Lara, GR 165109, Dec. 14, 2009].

- Doctrine of self-help.
The doctrine enunciated in Art. 429 of the Civ. Code which
provides: “The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the
right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal
thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be
reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his
property.”

- Doctrine of separability.
[The doctrine that] enunciates that an arbitration agreement is
independent of the main contract. The arbitration agreement
is to be treated as a separate agreement and the arbitration
agreement does not automatically terminate when the
contract of which it is part comes to an end. [Gonzales v.
Climax Mining Ltd., GR 161957, Jan. 22, 2007].

- Doctrine of separation of church and state.

The doctrine enshrined in Sec. 6, Art. II of the 1987
Phil. Consti. which provides that: “The separation of Church
and State shall be inviolable.” The idea advocated by this
principle is to delineate the boundaries between the two
institutions and thus avoid encroachments by one against the
other because of a misunderstanding of the limits of their
respective exclusive jurisdictions. [Austria v. NLRC, GR
124382, 16 August 1999].

- Doctrine of sovereign immunity.

1. [Doctrine] expressly provided in Art. XVI of the 1987
Consti., viz: “Sec. 3. The State may not be sued without its
consent.”
2. [The doctrine which holds that] a sovereign is exempt from
suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory,
but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no
legal right as against the authority that makes the law on
which the right depends. Also called Doctrine of non-suability.
 - Doctrine of stare decisis. Also called the Doctrine
of adherence tojudicial precedents.
[The] doctrine [that] enjoins adherence to judicial precedents.
It requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in
a decision of its Sup. Court. That decision becomes a judicial
precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in
the land. [Phil. Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v.
Comelec, GR 190529, Apr. 29, 2010].

- Doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta

movere. Lat. To adhere to precedents and not to
unsettle things which are established.
The doctrine [that] enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It
requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a
decision of the Supreme Court thereof. That decision
becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent
cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis is
based on the principle that once a question of law has been
examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and
closed to further argument. [Fermin v. People, GR 157643,
Mar. 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 132].

- Doctrine of State immunity.

[The doctrine under which] a State cannot be sued in the
courts of another State, without its consent or waiver.
[Jusmag Phils. v. NLRC, GR 108813 Dec. 15, 1994].

- Doctrine of strained relations.

[The rule] that where reinstatement is not feasible, expedient
or practical, as where reinstatement would only exacerbate
the tension and strained relations bet. the parties, or where
the relationship bet. the employer and employee has been
unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences,
particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a
managerial or key position in the company, it would be more
prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of
reinstatement. [Quijano v. Mercury Drug Corp., GR 126561.
July 8, 1998].
 - Doctrine of subrogation.
The principle [that] covers a situation wherein an insurer
[who] has paid a loss under an insurance policy is entitled to
all the rights and remedies belonging to the insured against a
3rd party with respect to any loss covered by the policy. It
contemplates full substitution such that it places the party
subrogated in the shoes of the creditor, and he may use all
means that the creditor could employ to enforce payment.
[Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc. v. Pioneer Ins. and Surety Corp.,
GR 180880-81 & 180896-97, Sept. 25, 2009, 601 SCRA 96,
141-142].

- Doctrine of supervening event.

The doctrine under which facts and events transpiring after
the judgment or order had become final and executory [which
circumstances] affect or change the substance of the
judgment and render its execution inequitable would justify
the suspension or nullification of such final and executory
judgment or order.

- Doctrine of supervening negligence.

Also Doctrine of discovered peril. The doctrine x x x to the
effect that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent
act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or
when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last
clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to
do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. [Picart v.
Smith, 37 Phil. 809]. [A]n antecedent negligence of a person
does not preclude the recovery of damages for supervening
negligence of, or bar a defense against the liability sought by,
another if the latter, who had the last fair chance, could have
avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
[Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Baesa, 179 SCRA 384].

- 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 doli incapax

The common law presumes that a child between the ages of
10 and 14 does not possess the necessary knowledge to
have a criminal intention.