Atty.

Alvin Claridades
PUP College of Law

Home About Atty. Alvin T. Claridades

Tag Archives: PHILIPPINE LEGAL DOCTRINES

PHILIPPINE LEGAL DOCTRINES as compiled by

36 Votes

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. Lat. [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. Rem. Law. 1. 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. 2. 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 adherence tojudicial precedents. Also called the Doctrine of stare decisis. [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 agency by estoppel. Also known as the Doctrine of holding out. 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 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 bar by prior judgment. Rem. Law. [A concept of res judicata holding that] When, as between the first case where
the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter,
and causes of action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action.
[Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de Monje, GR 149624, 29 Sept. 2010, 631 SCRA 471, 480].

Doctrine of caveat emptor. Also called the Doctrine of let the buyer beware. A warning that notifies a buyer that the goods he
or she is buying are “as is,” or subject to all defects. The principle under which the buyer could not recover damages from
the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the
seller actively concealed latent defects or otherwise made material misrepresentations amounting to fraud.

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 completeness. [The doctrine holding that] a dying declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself. To be
complete in itself does not mean that the declarant must recite everything that constituted the res gestae of the subject of
his statement, but that his statement of any given fact should be a full expression of all that he intended to say as conveying
his meaning in respect of such fact. [People v. De Joya, GR 75028, Nov. 8, 1991].

Doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment. Rem. Law. 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. Admin. Law. [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. Succ. 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 constructive trust. A general principle that one who acquires land or other property by fraud, misrepresentation,
imposition, or concealment, or under any such other circumstances as to render it inequitable for him to retain the property,
is in equity to be regarded as a trustee ex maleficio thereof for a person who suffers by reason of the fraud or other wrong,
and is equitably entitled to the property, even though such beneficiary may never have any legal estate therein. [Magallon v.
Montejo, GR 73733, Dec. 16, 1986].

Doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction. Rem. Law. The general principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that
jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can do to exercise that jurisdiction. See Doctrine of adherence of
jurisdiction.

Doctrine of corporate negligence. [T]he judicial answer to the problem of allocating hospital’s liability for the negligent acts of
health practitioners, absent facts to support the application of respondeat superior or apparent authority. Its formulation
proceeds from the judiciary’s acknowledgment that in these modern times, the duty of providing quality medical service is no
longer the sole prerogative and responsibility of the physician. The modern hospitals have changed structure. Hospitals now
tend to organize a highly professional medical staff whose competence and performance need to be monitored by the
hospitals commensurate with their inherent responsibility to provide quality medical care. [Professional Services, Inc. v.
Agana, GR 126297, Jan. 31, 2007].

Doctrine of corporate responsibility. The doctrine following which it was held that] a hospital x x x has the duty to see that it
meets the standards of responsibilities for the care of patients. Such duty includes the proper supervision of the members of
its medical staff. [Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, GR 126297, Jan. 31, 2007].

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 dependent relative revocation.Succ. Doctrine which states that a revocation subject to a condition does not
revoke a will unless and until the condition occurs. Thus, where a testator “revokes” a will with the proven intention that he
would execute another will, his failure to validly make a latter will would permit the allowance of the earlier will.

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 election of remedies. A doctrine developed to prevent a plaintiff from a double recovery for a loss, making the
person pursue only one remedy in an action. Although its application is not restricted to any particular cause of action, it is
most commonly employed in contract cases involving fraud, which is a misrepresentation of a material fact that is intended
to deceive a person who relies on it.

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. Rem. Law. [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. Rem. Law. 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. Rem. Law. [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 forum non-conveniens. Lat. The forum is inconvenient. Priv. Internatl. Law. [A rule designed] to deter the practice
of global forum shopping, [Coquia and Aguiling-Pangalangan, Conflicts Of Laws, pp. 40-41, 2000 Ed.] that is to prevent
non-resident litigants from choosing the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for malicious reasons, such as to secure
procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more friendly
venue. Under this doctrine, a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the
most “convenient” or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. [First Phil.
Internatl. Bank v. CA, 252 SCRA 259, 281 (1996).].

Doctrine of governmental immunity from suit. The doctrine that no governmental body can be sued unless it gives
permission.

Doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Rem. Law. An established policy that parties must observe the hierarchy of courts before
they can seek relief directly from th[e Sup.] Court. Therationale for this rule is twofold: (a) it would be an imposition upon the
limited time of th[e Sup.] Court; and (b) it would inevitably result in a delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of
cases, which in some instances, had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of
procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues because th[e Sup.] Court is not a trier of facts. [Heirs of Hinog v.
Melicor, GR 140954, 12 Apr. 2005, 455 SCRA 460].

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 hold-over. The doctrine under which a public officer whose term has expired or services have been terminated is
allowed to continue holding his office until his successor is appointed or chosen and had qualified.

Doctrine of immunity from suit. 1. [The doctrine the application of which] has been restricted to sovereign or governmental
activities [jure imperii]. The mantle of state immunity cannot be extended to commercial, private and proprietary acts [jure
gestionis]. [Jusmag v. NLRC, GR 108813. Dec. 15, 1994]. 2. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper when the
proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs.
Stated differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and thus can be deemed to have
tacitly given its consent to be used only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates
to the exercise of its sovereign functions. [US v. Ruiz, GR L-35645, May 22, 1985, 136 SCRA 487, 490].

Doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment. The doctrine that 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. [SSS v. Isip, GR 165417, Apr.
3, 2007].

Doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment. Exceptions: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-
called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any party; (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 (TSIEU)-FFW v. Federation of Free Workers (FFW), GR 160993, May 20, 2008, 554 SCRA 122, 134].

Doctrine of immutability of judgment. A fundamental legal principle that a decision 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 and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the
land. The only exceptions to the general rule on finality of judgments are the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause
no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which
render its execution unjust and inequitable. [Sacdalan v. CA, GR 128967, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 586, 599].

Doctrine of implications. Stat. Con. That which is plainly implied in the language of a statute is as much a part of it as that
which is expressed. [In Re: McCulloch Dick, 35 Phil. 41, 45, 50].

Doctrine of implied municipal liability. A municipality may become obligated upon an implied contract to pay the reasonable
value of the benefits accepted or appropriated by it as to which it has the general power to contract. [Province of Cebu v.
IAC, 147 SCRA 447].

Doctrine of implied trust. [The doctrine] enunciated in Art. 1456 of the Civ. Code [which provides that] if property is acquired
through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of
the person from whom the property comes.” [Armamento v. Guerrero, GR L-34228 Feb. 21, 1980].

Doctrine of in pari delicto. Legalprinciple 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 inappropriate provision. [It deals with] item provisions [in a budget bill] that are to be treated as items for the
st
President’s veto power. [Dean Tupaz, 24 Hours Before the Bar (1 Ed. 2005), p. 133].

Doctrine of incompatibility of public offices. Pol. Law. It concerns a potential clash of two incompatible public offices held by
a single official. In other words, the doctrine concerns a conflict between an individual’s performance of potentially
overlapping public duties.

Doctrine of incorporation. Intl. Law. 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 indefeasibility of torrens titles. A certificate of title, once registered, should not thereafter be impugned, altered,
changed, modified, enlarged or diminished except in a direct proceeding permitted by law. [De Pedro v. Romasan, GR
158002, Feb. 28, 2005].

Doctrine of indelible allegiance. The doctrine that an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality
notwithstanding that he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the 2nd state whose nationality he has
acquired.

Doctrine of informed consent.A duty imposed on a doctor to explain the risks of recommended procedures to a patient
before a patient determines whether or not he or she should go forward with the procedure. See Informed consent doctrine.

Doctrine of interlocking confessions. Evid. [The doctrine under which] extra-judicial confessions independently made without
collusion which are identical with each other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on record are
admissible, as circumstantial evidence, against the person implicated to show the probability of the latter’s actual
participation in the commission of the crime. [People v. Molleda, 86 SCRA 667, 701 (1978)].

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 stability. An elementary principle in the administration of justice [where] 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. [Go v. Villanueva, Jr., GR 154623, Mar. 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 126, 131-132]. See Doctrine of non-
interference.

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 legal entity of the separate personality of the corporation.[The doctrine] that a corporation may not be made to
answer for acts and liabilities of its stockholders or those of legal entities to which it may be connected or vice versa.
[Panay, Inc. v. Clave, GR L-56076, Sept. 21, 1983, 124 SCRA 638].

Doctrine of let the buyer beware. Also called the Doctrine of caveat emptor. A warning that notifies a buyer that the goods he
or she is buying are “as is,” or subject to all defects. The principle under which the buyer could not recover damages from
the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the
seller actively concealed latent defects or otherwise made material misrepresentations amounting to fraud.

Doctrine of liberal construction of retirement laws. Stat. Con. [The doctrine] that retirement laws are liberally construed and
administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited. All doubts as to the intent of the law should be resolved in
favor of the retiree to achieve its humanitarian purposes. [Borromeo v. CSC, 199 SCRA 924 (1991)].

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 lis pendens. Lat. A pending suit. The jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires over the property
involved in a suit pending the continuance of the action and until final judgment thereunder.

Doctrine of loss of confidence. Requisites: (1) Loss of confidence should not be simulated; (2) it should not be used as a
subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal, or unjustified; (3) it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary; (4) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in
bad faith; and (5) the employee involved holds a position of trust and confidence. [Midas Touch Food Corp. v. NLRC, GR
111639, July 29, 1996, 259 SCRA 652]. See Loss of confidence doctrine.

Doctrine of malicious prosecution. [The doctrine that pertains to] persecution through the misuse or abuse of judicial
processes; or the institution and pursuit of legal proceedings for the purpose of harassing, annoying, vexing or injuring an
innocent person. [Villanueva v. UCPB, GR 138291, Mar. 7, 2000].

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 mortgagee in good faith. The rule that all persons dealing with property covered by a Torrens Certificate of Title,
as buyers or mortgagees, are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. The public interest in
upholding the indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as evidence of the lawful ownership of the land or of any encumbrance
thereon, protects a buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relied upon what appears on the face of the certificate of title.
[Cavite Devt. Bank v. Sps. Lim, GR 131679, 1 Feb. 2000].

Doctrine of mutuality of remedy. A civil law doctrine founded on the idea that one party should not obtain from equity that
which the other party could not obtain.

Doctrine of necessary implication. Stat. Con. 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. Rem. Law. 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 ‘(t)he 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 ostensible agency. [The doctrine which] imposes liability, not as the result of the reality of a contractual
relationship, but rather because of the actions of a principal or an employer in somehow misleading the public into believing
that the relationship or the authority exists. [Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, GR 126297, 126467 and 127590, Jan. 31,
2007, 513 SCRA 478, 500-501]. See Doctrine of ostensible authority.

Doctrine of ostensible authority. Also known as Doctrine of apparent authority. [The doctrine holding that] if a corporation
knowingly permits one of its officers, or any other agent, to do acts within the scope of an apparent authority, and thus holds
him out to the public as possessing power to do those acts, the corporation will, as against any one who has in good faith
dealt with the corporation through such agent, be estopped from denying his authority [Prudential Bank v. CA, GR 103957,
June 14, 1993].

Doctrine of outside appearance. The doctrine which states that a corporation is bound by a contract entered into by an
officer who acts without, or in excess of his actual authority, in favor of a person who deals with him in good faith relying on
such apparent authority.

Doctrine of overbreadth. Consti. Law. [A]n exception to the prohibition against third-party standing, [the doctrine] permits a
person to challenge a statute on the ground that it violates the [free speech] rights of third parties not before the court, even
though the law is constitutional as applied to that defendant. In other words, the overbreadth doctrine provides that: “Given a
case or controversy, a litigant whose own activities are unprotected may nevertheless challenge a statute by showing that it
nd
substantially abridges the [free speech] rights of other parties not before the court.” [Chemerinsky, Consti. Law, p. 86, 2
Ed. (2002)]. Compare with Doctrine of void for vagueness.

Doctrine of parens patriae (father of his country). The doctrine [referring] to the inherent power and authority of the state to
provide protection of the person and property of a person non sui juries. Under that doctrine, the state has the sovereign
power of guardianship over persons under disability. Thus, the state is considered the parens patriae of minors. [Govt. of the
P. I. v. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil. 728].

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 part performance. An equitable principle that allows a court to recognize and enforce an oral contract despite its
legal deficiencies and provides a way around the statutory bar to the enforcement of an oral contract. By applying the
doctrine, a party can establish the existence of a contract despite the lack of any written evidence. Generally, without written
evidence, a contract does not satisfy the formal requirements set by the legislature under the statute of frauds. The doctrine
is an exception to this as it allows failure to comply with the statute of frauds to be overcome by a party’s execution, in
reliance on an opposing party’s oral promise, of an oral contract’s requirements.

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 political question. [The] well-settled doctrine that political questions are not within the province of the judiciary,
except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or
statutory provisions. [Tañada v. Cuenco, GR L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957].

Doctrine of preclusion of issues. The doctrine un which issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be
raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action. [Borlongan v. Buenaventura, GR
167234, Feb. 27, 2006]. Also called Doctrine of collateral estoppel.

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. Rem. Law. [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 prior restraint. [The doctrine concerning] official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. [Bernas, The 1987 Consti. of the Rep. of the Phils., A
Commentary, 2003 ed., p. 225].

Doctrine of prior use. The principle that prior use of a trademark by a person, even in the absence of a prior registration, will
convert a claim of legal appropriation by subsequent users.

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. Rem. Law. [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 processual presumption. [The doctrine holding that] if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and
proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law. [Lim v. Collector, 36
Phil. 472].

Doctrine of promissory estoppel. [The doctrine under which] an estoppel may arise from the making of a promise, even
though without consideration, if it was intended that the promise should be relied upon and in fact it was relied upon, and if a
refusal to enforce it would be virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in other injustice. In this respect,
the reliance by the promisee is generally evidenced by action or forbearance on his part, and the Idea has been expressed
that such action or forbearance would reasonably have been expected by the promisor. Mere omission by the promisee to
do whatever the promisor promised to do has been held insufficient ‘forbearance’ to give rise to a promissory estoppel.’
[Ramos v. Central Bank of the Phils., GR L-29352, Oct. 4, 1971; 41 SCRA 565 at p. 588].

Doctrine of proper submission. Consti. Law. 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