Doctrine of Conclusiveness of Judgement

Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved
in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the
latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action. The identity of causes of action is not
required but merely identity of issues.
Res Judicata Doctrine
The doctrine of res judicata is founded on a public policy against re-opening that which has
previously been decided, so as to put the litigation to an end. Matters settled by a court’s final
judgment should not be litigated upon or invoked again. Relitigation of issues already settled
merely burdens the courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and wastes
valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier cases

Miranda Rights Principle

"Miranda rights" stemming from the landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court,
Miranda v. Arizona.15 It has been the linchpin of the modern Bill of Rights, and the ultimate
refuge of individuals against the coercive power of the State.

The Miranda doctrine requires that: (a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to
remain silent; (b) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law; (c) he has
the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present when
being questioned; and (d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any
questioning if he so desires.

In the Philippines, the right to counsel espoused in the Miranda doctrine was based on the
leading case of People v. Galit16 and Morales, Jr. v. Enrile,17 rulings subsequently incorporated
into the present Constitution. The Miranda doctrine under the 1987 Charter took on a modified
form where the right to counsel was specifically qualified to mean competent and independent
counsel preferably of the suspect's own choice. Waiver of the right to counsel likewise provided
for stricter requirements compared to its American counterpart; it must be done in writing, and in
the presence of counsel.

Verily, it may be observed that the Philippine law on custodial investigation has evolved to
provide for more stringent standards than what was originally laid out in Miranda v. Arizona.
The purpose of the constitutional limitations on police interrogation as the process shifts from the
investigatory to the accusatory seems to be to accord even the lowliest and most despicable
criminal suspects a measure of dignity and respect. The main focus is the suspect, and the
underlying mission of custodial investigation – to elicit a confession.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

 Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if
he/she/it 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.
Examples: a) a load of bricks on the roof of a building being constructed by Highrise Construction Co.
falls and injures Paul Pedestrian below, and Highrise is liable for Pedestrian's injury even though no
one saw the load fall. b) While under anesthetic, Isabel Patient's nerve in her arm is damaged although
it was not part of the surgical procedure, and she is unaware of which of a dozen medical people in
the room caused the damage. Under res ipsa loquitur all those connected with the operation are
liable for negligence. Lawyers often shorten the doctrine to "res ips," and find it a handy shorthand
for a complex doctrine.

Doctrine of Immutability of Judgement

espouses that a judgment that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and
may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the
highest court of the land
The significance of this rule was emphasized in Apo Fruits Corporation v. Court of Appeals, to wit:
The reason for the rule is that if, on the application of one party, the court could change its
judgment to the prejudice of the other, it could thereafter, on application of the latter, again
change the judgment and continue this practice indefinitely. The equity of a particular case must
yield to the overmastering need of certainty and inalterability of judicial pronouncements.

doctrine has a two-fold purpose: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus,
procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business and (2) to put an end to judicial
controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. Thus,
controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. The rights and obligations of every litigant must not
hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time (Land Bank v. Arceo, G.R. 18270, 21 July 2008).
However, this doctrine has several exceptions, such as: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2)
nunc pro tunc judgments; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after
the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable (Temic Semiconductors
Inc. Employees Union v. FFW, G.R. 160993, 20 May 2008).

Doctrine of Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability, also known by the Latin term “respondeat superior,” is the holding of a
person or entity responsible for damages or harm caused by someone else. Most commonly
thought of in employee-employer relationships, it applies in other situations in which a person or
entity holds a superior position to an agent. For instance, a hospital is responsible for its doctors’
actions.
The concept of vicarious liability is rooted in the fact that the superior party (such as an
employer) has induced, facilitated, or otherwise contributed to its agent’s acts. An example of
vicarious liability is when an employer is held liable for the action of one of his employees.

Doctrine of Apparent Authority

The doctrine of apparent authority provides that a corporation will be estopped from denying
the agent’s authority if it knowingly permits one of its officers or any other agent to act within
the scope of an apparent authority, and it holds him out to the public as possessing the power to
do those acts. The doctrine of apparent authority does not apply if the principal did not commit
any act or conduct which a third party knew and relied upon in good faith as a result of the
exercise of reasonable prudence. Moreover, the agent’s acts or conduct must have produced a
change of position to the third party’s detriment.

Operative fact doctrine

In Yap v. Thenamaris Ship’s Management,[170] the Operative Fact Doctrine was discussed
in that:
As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if
it has not been passed at all. The general rule is supported by Article 7 of the Civil
Code, which provides:
Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation
or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or
practice to the contrary.
The doctrine of operative fact serves as an exception to the aforementioned
general rule. In Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, we held:
The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule,
only applies as a matter of equity and fair play. It 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.
The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality
will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid
law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of
unconstitutionality would put the accused in double jeopardy or
would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance upon
a law creating it