POOL OF (300+) PHILIPPINE LEGAL DOCTRINES

AS COMPILED BY ATTY. ALVIN T. CLARIDADES

1. Doctrine of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor. Labor. The age-old rule
governing the relation bet. labor and capital or mng’t and employee that if
there is no work performed by the employee, there can be no wage or pay,
unless the laborer was able, willing, and ready to work but was illegally
locked out, dismissed, or suspended. [J.P. Heilbronn Co. v. Nat’l Labor
Union, GR L-5121, Jan. 30, 1953, 92 Phil. 577].
2. Doctrine of abandonment. Labor. The rule requiring that the employer
should exert efforts to contact the employee for the purpose of
determining the legal propriety in the expected dismissal of the latter who
is being cited for abandonment, and holding that the mere act of
undertaking effort of locating the employee does not automatically confer
legality in the exercise of mng’t right to dismiss on the pretext of
abandonment. [Metro, Transit Org’n, Inc. v. NLRC, GR 119724, May 31,
1999, 307 SCRA 747307 SCRA 747].
3. Doctrine of absolute privilege. Rem. Law. The 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 communic’ns made in the context of judicial
proceedings, as part of a trial.
4. Doctrine of absorption of common crimes. Crim’l Law. The rule enunciated
in People v. Hernandez [GR L-6025-26, July 18, 1956, 99 Phil. 515] that
the ingredients of a crime form part and parcel of it, and hence, are
absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately from it or
by the application of Art. 48 of the RPC [Ponce Enrile v. Amin, GR 93335,
Sep. 13, 1990, 189 SCRA 573], and that the crime of rebellion under the
RPC is charged as a single offense and cannot be made into a complex
crime. Also Hernandez doctrine.
5. Doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona. Lat. Civ. Law. The
doctrine that personal action terminates or dies with the person. [Santos
v. Sec. of Labor, GR L-21624, 27 Feb. 1968, 22 SCRA 848].
6. 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: (a) that, even after the judgment has become final, the
 court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it; and (b) that what the
court loses is the power to amend, modify, or alter the judgment.
[Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, GR 132601, Jan. 19, 1999, 301 SCRA 96].
Also Doctrine of continuity of juri sdiction.
7. Doctrine of adherence to judicial precedents. Civ. Law. The doctrine that
enjoins adherence to judicial precedents and requires courts in a country
to follow the rule established in a decision of its Supreme Court which
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, 619 SCRA 585]. Also Doctrine of stare decisis.
8. Doctrine of adoptive admission. Rem. Law. The doctrine pertaining to a
party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is
reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something
stated or implied by the other person. [Estrada v. Desierto, GR 146710-15,
Apr. 3, 2001, 356 SCRA 108].
9. Doctrine of agency by estoppel. Civ. Law. 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. Also Doctrine of holding out.
10. Doctrine of alter ego. Corp’n Law. 1. A doctrine based upon the misuse of
a corp’n by an indiv’l for wrongful or inequitable purposes, and in such case
the court merely disregards the corporate entity and holds the indiv’l
responsible for acts knowingly and intentionally done in the name of the
corp’n. 2. The doctrine which imposes upon the indiv’l who uses a corp’n
merely as an instrumentality to conduct his own business liability as a
consequence of fraud or injustice perpetuated, not on the corp’n, but on
3rd persons dealing with the corp’n. [Cited Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. v. Araneta,
Inc., GR L-31061, Aug. 17, 1976, 72 SCRA 347].
11. Doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction. Rem. Law. The doctrine that the court
acquires jurisdiction of a case or controversy as an entirety and may, as
incident to the disposition of the matters properly before it, possess
jurisdiction to decide other matters raised by case, such as proceedings
which are concerned with pleadings, processes, records, or judgments of
the court in the principal case or proceedings which affect a property
already in the court's custody. [Malaloan v. CA, GR 104879, May 6, 1994,
232 SCRA 249].
12. Doctrine of anticipatory breach. Rem. Law. The doctrine holding that, even
if the contract is divisible in its performance and the future periodic
 deliveries are not yet due, if the obligor has already manifested his refusal
to comply with his future periodic oblig’ns, the contract is entire and the
breach total, hence, there can only be 1 action for damages. [Blossom and
Co., Inc. v. Mla. Gas Corp’n, GR L-32958, Nov. 8, 1930 55 Phil. 226].
13. Doctrine of apparent authority. Civ. Law. 1. The doctrine under which the
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 whose
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. [Banate v. Phil. Countryside
Rural Bank, Inc., GR 163825, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 21]. 2. The doctrine
under which the apparent authority is determined only by the acts of the
principal and not by the acts of the agent. [Ibid.]. 3. The doctrine under
which the principal is liable only as to 3rd persons who have been led
reasonably to believe by the conduct of the principal that such actual
authority exists, although none has been given. [Westmont Bank v. Inland
Construction and Dev’t Corp’n, GR 123650 & 123822, Mar. 23, 2009].
Also Holding out theory; or Doctrine of ostensible agency or Agency by
estoppel. See Apparent authority doctrine.
14. Doctrine of assignment of income. Tax’n. The doctrine under which gross
income from personal services must be included in the gross income of
the person who rendered the services.
15. Doctrine of associated words. Stat. Con. The doctrine that provides that,
where a particular word or phrase in a statement is ambiguous in itself or
is equally susceptible of various meanings, its true meaning may be made
clear and specific by considering the company in which it is found or with
which it is associated. [Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, GR L-5 Sep. 17,
1945, 75 Phil. 113]. See Noscitur a Sociis.
16. Doctrine of assumption of risk. The precept that denotes that a person who
knows and comprehends the peril and voluntarily exposes himself/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 from it. Also Doctrine of volenti non fit injuria.
17. Doctrine of attenuation Evid. The doctrine under which evid. may be
suppressed only if there is a clear causal connection bet. the illegal police
action and the evid., or when the chain of causation bet. the illegal action
 and the tainted evid. is too attenuated, i.e., too thin, weak, decreased, or
fragile.
18. Doctrine of attractive nuisance. A legal doctrine that makes a person
negligent for leaving a piece of equip’t or other condition on property which
would be both attractive and dangerous to curious children, such as
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.
19. Doctrine of autolimitation. Polit. Law. The doctrine under which the Phils.
adheres to the principles of internat’l law as a limitation to the exercise of
its sovereignty.
20. Doctrine of avoidable consequences. The doctrine enunciated in Art. 2203
of the Civ. Code which postulates that the party suffering a loss or injury
must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the
damages resulting from the act or omission in question; otherwise,
damages resulting from such avoidable consequences cannot be
recovered. See also Avoidable consequences doctrine.
21. Doctrine of bar by prior judgment. Rem. Law. A concept of res judicata
holding that when, as bet. the 1st case where the judgment was rendered
and the 2nd case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties,
subject matter, and causes of action, the judgment in the 1st case
constitutes an absolute bar to the 2nd action. [Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de
Monje, GR 149624, 29 Sep. 2010, 631 SCRA 471].
22. Doctrine of bellum justum. A doctrine of military ethics the purpose of
which is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all
of which must be met for a war to be considered just. Also called Just war
theory.
23. Doctrine of beneficial use. Tax’n. 1. The doctrine pursuant to which the tax
exemption carried by the property of the Rep. or its instrumentality ceases
only if, as stated in Sec. 234 (a) of the LGC, the beneficial use of it has
been granted, for a consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person. 2. The
rule in real estate tax’n that the unpaid tax attaches to the property and is
chargeable against the taxable person who had actual or beneficial use
and possession of it regardless of whether or not he is the owner. [Rep. v.
City of Kidapawan, GR 166651, Dec. 09, 2005, 477 SCRA 324].
24. Doctrine of benevolent neutrality. Const’l Law. The doctrine holding that
freedom to carry out a person’s duties to a Supreme Being is an
 inalienable right, not one dependent on the grace of legislature, and
religious freedom is seen as a substantive right and not merely a privilege
against discriminatory legislation. 1. The doctrine which looks upon
religion with benevolence and not hostility, and under which benevolent
neutrality allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances.
[Estrada v. Escritor, AM P-02-1651. Aug. 4, 2003, 408 SCRA 1].
25. Borrowed servant doctrine. The doctrine holding that liability is imputed in
a surgeon for the negligence committed by operating room personnel
regardless of the identity of the employer of the latter. [Nogales v. Capitol
Medical Center, CA-GR CV 45641, Feb. 6, 1998]. Compare with Doctrine
of captain of the ship.
26. Doctrine of captain of the ship. The doctrine under which a surgeon is
likened to a captain of the ship in that it is his duty to control everything
going on in the operating room. [Ramos v. CA, GR 124354, Apr. 11, 2002,
380 SCRA 467]. Compare with Doctrine of borrowed servant.
27. Doctrine of caveat emptor. 1. A warning that notifies a buyer that the
goods he/she is buying are “as is,” or subject to all defects. 2. 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 being where the seller actively concealed the
latent defects or otherwise made material misrepresentations amounting
to fraud. Also Doctrine of let the buyer beware .
28. Doctrine of center of gravity. Conf. of Laws. The doctrine that choice of law
problems are resolved by the application of the law of the jurisdiction
which has the most significant relationship to or contact with event and
parties to litigation and the issue in it. Synonymous with Most significant
relationship theory. Also Grouping of contacts .
29. Doctrine of centralized management. The doctrine holding that the
corporate powers of all corp’ns shall be exercised by the BoD or the indiv’l
officers or agents appointed by it. [Mla. Metal Container Corp’n v. PNB, GR
166862, Dec. 20, 2006, 511 SCRA 444]. Also Centralized management
doctrine.
30. Doctrine of checks and balances. A doctrine in Const’l law. that allows 1
dep’t to resist encroachments upon its powers and prerogatives by the
other depts. or to rectify the mistakes or curb the excesses committed by
the other depts. See also Checks and balances doctrine.
31. Doctrine of class suit or virtual representation. A doctrine based on the
concept that members of a class who are made parties will protect their
 own interests which are such that, in protecting them, the interests of the
persons not made parties will also be protected.
32. Doctrine of clean hands. 1. The principle that he who has done inequity
shall not have equity. 2. A doctrine signifying that a litigant may be denied
relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been
inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the
controversy in issue. [Vitug v. Abuda, GR 201264, Jan. 11, 2016, 778
SCRA 609].
33. Doctrine of close now, hear later. Comm’l Law. The doctrine holding that
the law does not contemplate prior notice and hearing before the bank
may be directed to stop operations and placed under receivership. Its
purpose is to prevent unwarranted dissipation of the bank’s assets and as
a valid exercise of police power to protect the depositors, creditors,
stockholders and the gen’l public. [Central Bank of the Phils. v. CA, GR
76118, Mar. 30, 1993, 220 SCRA 536].
34. Doctrine of collateral estoppel. 1. A doctrine that prevents a person from
relitigating an issue. 2. The doctrine that, 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 diff. cause of action involving a party
to the 1st case. Also Doctrine of preclusion of issues .
35. Doctrine of comity. Internat’l. Law. The legal principle which dictates that
a jurisdiction should recognize and give effect to judicial decrees and
decisions rendered in other jurisdictions unless to do so would offend its
public policy.
36. Doctrine of command responsibility. Crim’l Law. 1. The doctrine under
which any gov’t 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]. 2. Elements: (a) The
existence of a superior-subordinate relationship bet. the accused as
superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate; (b) the
superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to be or
had been committed; and (c) the superior failed to take the necessary and
reasonable measures to prevent the crim’l acts or punish the perpetrators
itself.
37. 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 the injunctive relief must be
denied.
38. Doctrine of comparative negligence. Civ. Law. 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, 7 Phil. 359].
39. Doctrine of compassionate justice. The doctrine in equity stating that the
harsh provisions of law and the rigid rules of procedure may sometimes
be tempered and dispensed with to give room for compassion.
40. Doctrine of complementary contracts construed together. 1. The principle
acc. to which an accessory contract must be read in its entirety and
together with the principal agreement. 2. The principle used in construing
contractual stipulations in order to arrive at their true meaning; certain
stipulations cannot be segregated and then made to control. 3. The No-
segregation principle based on Art. 1374 of the Civ. Code which provides:
“The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together,
attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of
them taken jointly.” [PBCom v. Lim, GR 158138, Apr. 12, 2005, 455 SCRA
714].
41. Doctrine of completeness. Evid. The doctrine holding that a dying
declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself which 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, 203 SCRA 343].
42. Doctrine of conclusive finality. The comity that courts extend to the exec.
branch and the recognition of the expertise of admin. agencies in dealing
with particular questions of fact. [Cosmos Bottling Corp’n v. Nagrama, Jr.,
GR 164403, Mar. 4, 2008, 547 SCRA 571].
43. Doctrine of conclusiveness of administrative findings of fact. The well-
settled doctrine that the findings of fact by an admin. or quasi-judicial
agency are conclusive when supported by substantial evid. and are
generally accorded with great weight and respect, if not finality by the
courts, by reason of their spc’l knowledge and expertise over matters
 falling under their jurisdiction. [Miro v. Mendoza Vda. de Erederos, GR
172532, Nov. 20, 2013, 710 SCRA 371].
44. Doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment. Rem. Law. 1. A concept of res
judicata holding that, where there is identity of parties in the 1st and 2nd
cases but no identity of causes of action, the 1st judgment is conclusive
only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined
and not as to matters merely involved in it. 2. The doctrine stating that 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 such
judgment and cannot again be litigated bet. the parties and their privies,
whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the 2
actions is the same. [Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de Monje, GR 149624, 29
Sep. 2010, 631 SCRA 471].
45. Doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction. The principle vesting certain agencies
or bodies with equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter, but
with the body or agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint
exercising jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. [Fuse v. Delos Santos-
Puse, GR 183678, Mar. 15, 2010, 615 SCRA 500].
46. Doctrine of condonation. Admin. Law. 1. The doctrine that a public official
cannot be removed for admin. misconduct committed during a prior term,
since his re-elec’n to office operates as a condonation of his previous
misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him for it.
[Aguinaldo v. Santos, GR 94115, Aug. 21, 1992, 212 SCRA 768]. 2. The
doctrine which was abandoned by the SC in Morales v. CA and Binay, Jr.
[GR 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015, 774 SCRA 431], but the abandonment is
prospective in effect. Also Doctrine of forgiveness .
47. Doctrine of constitutional avoidance. The doctrine in Const’l law
prescribing that the court should refuse to rule on a Const’l issue if the
case can be resolved on another ground.
48. Doctrine of constitutional supremacy. 1. The doctrine that if a law or
contract violates any norm of the Consti., that law or contract, whether
promulgated by the legislative or by the exec. branch, or entered into by
private persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any force
and effect. 2. The doctrine that since the Consti. is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every
statute and contract. [Mla. Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR 122156, Feb. 3, 1997,
267 SCRA 408].
49. Doctrine of constructive compliance (or fulfillment). Civ. Law. 1. The
principle that a party to a contract may not be excused from performing
his promise by the non-occurrence of an event which he himself prevented.
2. Requisites: (a) The intent of the debtor to prevent fulfillment of the
condition; and (2) the actual prevention of compliance (or fulfillment).
50. Doctrine of constructive compliance. Succ’n. The doctrine that states that
if, without the fault of the heir, the modal instit’n 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].
51. Doctrine of constructive fulfillment of suspensive conditions. Civ. Law. The
doctrine enunciated by Art. 1186 of the Civ. Code which applies when the
ff. requisites concur, viz: (a) The condition is suspensive or one the
happening of which gives rise to the oblig’n; (b) the obligor actually
prevents the fulfillment of the condition; and (c) he acts voluntarily.
52. Doctrine of constructive possession. Land Titles. 1. The gen’l rule that the
possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract under claim of ownership
of all is a constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the
adverse possession of another. [Ramos v. Dir. of Lands. GR 13298, Nov.
19, 1918, 39 Phil. 175]. 2. The doctrine the application of which is subject
to certain qualifications, such as that particularly relating to the size of the
tract in controversy with reference to the portion actually in possession of
the claimant. [Lasam v. Dir. of Lands. GR 42859, Mar. 17, 1938, 65 Phil.
367].
53. Doctrine of constructive trust. A gen’l principle that a person 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 of it 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 in it. [Magallon v. Montejo, GR
73733, Dec. 16, 1986, 146 SCRA 282].
54. Doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction. Rem. Law. The gen’l 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.
55. Doctrine of continuous voyage. Internat’l Law. 1. The doctrine holding that
a voyage, though interrupted, as in the case of transshipment of a
contraband of war, is considered, in view of its purposes, as 1 single
 voyage. 2. The doctrine pertaining to the stoppage and seizure of goods
carried by a neutral vessel either going out of or heading toward a neutral
port, such that when said goods are to be transshipped to another
belligerent power at some point in the voyage, the state invoking the
doctrine could assert that the voyage was continuously geared toward
trade with the enemy, irrespective of the period of neutral possession
56. Doctrine of contributory infringement. Intel. Prop. The doctrine holding
that, aside from the infringer, any person who actively induces the
infringement of a patent or provides the infringer with a component of a
patented product or of a product produced bec. of a patented process,
knowing it to be esp. adapted for infringing the patented invention and not
suitable for substantial non-infringing use, is liable jointly and severally
with the infringer as a contributory infringer: Provided, That it must be
proven that the product can only be used for infringement purposes bec. if
it can be used for legitimate purposes, the action shall not prosper.
57. Doctrine of corporate negligence. 1. The 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. 2. The doctrine the formulation of which 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 considering that: (a) the modern hospitals
have changed structure; and (b) 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, 513 SCRA 478].
58. Doctrine of corporate opportunity. Comm’l Law. The doctrine under which
a dir. of a corp’n is made to account to his corp’n the gains and profits from
transactions entered into by him or by another competing corp’n in which
he has substantial interests which should have been a transaction
undertaken by his corp’n This s a breach of fiduciary relationship.
59. Doctrine of corporate responsibility. Comm’l Law. The doctrine holding
that a hospital has the duty to see that it meets the standards of
responsibilities for the care of patients which duty includes the proper
supervision of the members of its medical staff. [Professional Services,
Inc. v. Agana, GR 126297, Jan. 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 478].
60. Doctrine of corporation by estoppel. Comm’l Law. 1. The doctrine under
Sec. 21 of the Corp’n Code which provides that all persons who assume to
act as a corp’n knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable
as gen’l partners for all debts, liabilities, and damages incurred or arising
as a result of it: Provided, That when any such ostensible corp’n is sued on
any transaction entered by it as a corp’n or on any tort committed by it as
such, it shall not be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate
personality. 2. The doctrine that applies when a non-existent corp’n enters
into contracts or dealings with 3rd persons, in which case, the person who
has contracted or otherwise dealt with the non-existent corp’n is estopped
to deny the latter's legal existence in any action leading out of or involving
such contract or dealing. [The Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima
(Peach Sisters of Laguna) v. Alzona, GR 224307, Aug. 06, 2018].
61. Doctrine of default. Civ. Pro. The doctrine based on the underlying
philosophy that the defendant's failure to answer the complaint despite
receiving a copy of it, together with the summons, is attributable to 1 of 2
causes: either (a) to his realization he has no defenses to the plaintiff's
cause and, hence, resolves not to oppose the complaint, or, (b) having
good defenses to the suit, to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence which prevented him from seasonably filing an answer setting
forth those defenses. [Gochangco v. CFI Negros Occidental, GR L-49396,
Jan. 15, 1088, 157 SCRA 40].
62. Doctrine of deference and non-disturbance on appeal. The doctrine that
the SC 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. [Teehankee, conc. op.,
Llamoso v Sandiganbayan, GR L-63408 & 64026, Aug. 7, 1985, 138
SCRA 92].
63. Doctrine of dependent relative revocation. Succ’n. 1. The doctrine that
states that a revocation subject to a condition does not revoke a will unless
and until the condition occurs. 2. The doctrine which states that where a
testator revokes a will with the proven intention that he would execute
another, his failure to validly make a latter will would permit the allowance
of the earlier will.
64. Doctrine of discouraging the splitting of cause of action in complex crimes.
Crim’l Pro. The doctrine dissuading the splitting of a cause of action in
complex crimes for the reason that it would work unnecessary
inconvenience to the administration of justice in gen’l and to the accused
in particular, considering that it would require the presentation of
 substantially the same evid. in diff. courts. [People v. Cano, GR L-19660,
May 24, 1966].
65. Doctrine of discovered peril. 1. The doctrine 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 party who had
the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so
is chargeable with its consequences. [See Picart v. Smith, Jr., GR L-12219,
Mar. 15, 1918, 37 Phil. 809]. 2. The rule that an 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. [Glan People’s Lumber and
Hardware v. IAC, GR 70493, May 18, 1989, 173 SCRA 464]. See Last clear
chance doctrine.
66. 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, the law will
regard the corp’n as an ass’n of persons, or in the case of 2 corp’ns, merge
them into one, the one being merely regarded as part or instrumentality
of the other. [Yutivo Sons Hardware Co. v. CTA, GR L-13203, Jan. 28, 1961,
1 SCRA 160]. The doctrine under which the separate personality of a
corp’n is disregarded where: (a) it 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, GR L-10510, Mar.
17, 1961, 1 SCRA 722].
67. Doctrine of double sale. The doctrine enunciated in Art. 1544 of the Civ.
Code stating that the ownership of an immovable property which is the
subject of a double sale shall be transferred: (a) to the person acquiring it
who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (b) in its
default, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and (c) in
its default, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is
good faith.
68. Doctrine of dying declaration. Evid. The rule that a dying declaration, while
generally inadmissible as evid. due to its hearsay character, may
nonetheless be admitted when the ff. requisites concur, namely: (a) the
declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
declarant's death; (b) at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is
under a consciousness of an impending death; (c) the declarant is
 competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a crim’l case
for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a victim.
[People v. Santillan, GR 227878, Aug. 09, 2017, 837 SCRA 71].
69. Doctrine of effective nationality. Internat’l Law. The doctrine holding that
a person having more than 1 nationality shall be treated as if he had only
1 – either: (a) the nationality of the country in which he is habitually and
principally resident; or (b) the nationality of the country with which, in the
circumstances, he appears to be most closely connected. [Frivaldo v.
Comelec, GR 87193, June 23, 1989, 174 SCRA 245].
70. Doctrine of effective occupation. A doctrine in internat’l 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.
71. Doctrine of ejusdem generis. Stat. Con. The doctrine which states that
where gen’l terms follow the designation of particular things or classes of
persons or subjects, the gen’l term will be construed to comprehend those
things or persons of the same class or of the same nature as those
specifically enumerated. [Napocor v. Angas, GR 60225-26 May 8, 1992,
208 SCRA 542].
72. Doctrine of election of remedies. 1. A doctrine developed to prevent a
plaintiff from a double recovery for a loss, making the person pursue only
1 remedy in an action. 2. The doctrine the application of which is not
restricted to any particular cause of action, and which is most commonly
employed in contract cases involving fraud, which is a misrepresentation
of a material fact intended to deceive a person who relies on it.
73. Doctrine of enrolled bill. Const’l Law. 1. The doctrine that the signing of a
bill by the Speaker of the House and the Senate Pres. and the certification
of the Secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed is
conclusive not only as to its provisions but also as to its due enactment.
[Arroyo v. De Venecia, GR 127255, Aug. 14, 1997, 277 SCRA 268]. 2. The
doctrine under which a court may not look behind a legislative bill, enrolled
and certified by the appropriate officers, to determine if there are any
defects. [Dis. Op., Regalado J. in Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, GR 115525,
Aug. 25, 1994]. Commonly called the Enrolled bill doctrine.
74. Doctrine of epidermal contact. Crim’l Law. The doctrine that a contact bet.
the penis and the external layer of the victim’s vagina (the stroking or
grazing of the male organ upon the female organ or the Mons pubis)
 categorizes the crime as Attempted rape or Acts of lasciviousness. [People
v. Quarre, GR 140729-30. Feb. 15, 2002, 377 SCRA 185].
75. Doctrine of equality of shares. Corp’n Law. The doctrine that all stocks
issued by the corp’n are presumed equal with the same privileges and
liabilities, provided that the AOI is silent on such differences. See also
Equality of shares doctrine.
76. Doctrine of equitable estoppel. Civ. Law. 1. The doctrine that when 1 of the
2 innocent persons, each guiltless of any intentional or moral wrong, must
suffer a loss, it must be borne by the one whose erroneous conduct, either
by omission or commission, was the cause of injury. [Metropolitan
Banking and Trust Corp’n v. Cabilzo, GR 154469, Dec. 6, 2006, 510 SCRA
259]. 2. Estoppel in pais or Equitable estoppel which arises when one, by
his acts, representations or admissions or by his silence when he ought to
speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another
to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on
such belief so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny
the existence of such facts. The real office of the equitable norm of
estoppel is limited to supplying deficiency in the law but should not
supplant positive law. [Rimasug v. Martin, GR 160118, Nov. 22, 2005, 475
SCRA 703].
77. Doctrine of equitable recoupment. Tax’n. The doctrine providing that a
claim for refund barred by prescription may be allowed to offset unsettled
tax liabilities which rule should be pertinent only to taxes arising from the
same transaction on which an overpayment is made and underpayment
is due.
78. Doctrine of equivalents. Intel. Prop. The doctrine postulating that
an infringement 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 Beckman Corp’n v. CA, GR 126627, Aug. 14, 2003,
409 SCRA 33].
79. Doctrine of equivalents test. Intel. Prop. 1. The doctrine holding that 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. 2. The doctrine stating that an
infringement also occurs when a device: (a) appropriates a prior invention
by incorporating its innovative concept; and, (b) albeit with some
 modification and change, performs substantially the same function in
substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result.
[Godines v. CA, GR 97343, Sep. 13, 1993, 226 SCRA 338].
80. Doctrine of equivalents. Intel. Prop. The rule stating that an infringement
also takes place when a device: (a) appropriates a prior invention by
incorporating its innovative concept; and, (b) 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’n v. CA, GR 126627, Aug. 14, 2003, 409
SCRA 33].
81. Doctrine of estoppel by laches. Rem. Law. 1. An equitable doctrine by
which some courts may deny relief to a claimant who has: (a)
unreasonably delayed; or (b) been negligent in asserting a claim. 2. The
doctrine under which a person invoking laches should assert that: (a) an
opposing party has slept on his/her rights; and (b) the party is no longer
entitled to his/her orig’l claim.
82. 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
a person to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments
to the injury of a person: (a) to whom they were directed; and (b) who
reasonably relied on it. [PNB v. CA, GR L-30831, Nov. 21, 1979, 94 SCRA
357].
83. Doctrine of executive immunity. Const’l Law. Const’l Law. The doctrine that
the Pres., as chief exec. of the gov’t, is held to be immune from any kind
of suit during his incumbency which immunity extends only to his/her
official acts.
84. Doctrine of executive privilege. Const’l Law. The doctrine stating that the
Pres. and those who assist him must: (a) be free to explore alternatives in
the process of shaping policies and making decisions; and (b) (be able) to
do so in a way many would be unwilling to express, except privately, which
are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for pres’l
communic’ns. [Almonte v. Vasquez, GR 95367, May 23, 1995, 244 SCRA
286].
85. Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 1. The gen’l rule that
before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail
of all the means afforded him by admin. processes. 2. The doctrine
postulating that the issues which admin. agencies are authorized to decide
should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court
 without first giving such admin. agency the opportunity to dispose of the
same after due deliberation. [Rep. v. Lacap, GR 158253, Mar. 2, 2007,
517 SCRA 255]. 3. Exceptions: (a) The question involved is purely legal; (b)
the admin. body is in estoppel; (c) the act complained of is patently illegal;
(d) there is an urgent need for judicial intervention; (e) the claim involved
is small; (f) grave and irreparable injury will be suffered; (g) there is no
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; (h) strong public interest is
involved; (i) the subject of the controversy is private law; (j) the case
involves a quo warranto proceeding; (k) the party was denied due process;
(l) the decision is that of a Dep’t Sec.; (m) resort to admin. remedies would
be futile; (n) there is unreasonable delay; (o) the action involves recovery
of physical possession of public land; (p) the party is poor; and (q) the law
provides for immediate resort to the court.
86. Doctrine of exhaustion. Intel. Prop. 1. The doctrine which provides that the
Patent holder has control of the 1st sale of his invention and the
opportunity to receive the full consideration for his invention from his sale,
hence, exhausting his rights in the future control of his invention. 2. The
doctrine espousing that the patentee who has already sold his invention
and has received all the royalty and consideration for the same will be
deemed to have released the invention from his monopoly, thus leaving
the invention open to the use of the purchaser without further restriction.
Also Doctrine of first sale.
87. Doctrine of fair and proper submission. Const’l Law. 1. The doctrine
holding that the proposed amendments to the Consti. shall be presented
to the people for the ratification or rejection all at the same time and not
by piecemeal. 2. The doctrine mandating that in order that a plebiscite for
the ratification of an amendment to the Consti. may be validly held, it must
provide the voter not only sufficient time, but ample basis for an intelligent
appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se, as well as its relation to
the other parts of the Consti. with which it has to form a harmonious whole.
[Tolentino v. Comelec, GR L-34150, Oct. 16, 1971, 41 SCRA 702].
88. Doctrine of fair comment. Crim’l Law. A doctrine in the law of libel which
means that while in gen’l every discreditable imputation publicly made is
deemed false bec. 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, GR 126466, Jan. 14, 1999, 301 SCRA 1].
89. Doctrine of fair use. Intel. Prop. The doctrine that permits a secondary use
which serves the copyright objective of stimulating productive thought and
public instruction without excessively diminishing the incentives for
creativity. See also Fair use doctrine.
90. Doctrine of file wrapper estoppel. Intel. Prop. 1. The doctrine holding that:
(a) a patentee is precluded from claiming as part of patented product that
which he had to excise or modify in order to avoid patent office rejection;
and (b) he may omit any additions which he was compelled to add by
patent office regulations. 2. The doctrine which balances the Doctrine of
equivalents.
91. Doctrine of finality of administrative action. The doctrine in polit. law that
prior to the completion or finality of the action of an admin. agency, courts
will not interfere with it for the reason that absent a final order or decision,
power has not yet been fully and finally exercised, and there can usu. be
no irreparable harm at that point.
92. Doctrine of finality of judgment. Rem. Law. The doctrine that once a
judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and may no longer be
modified in any respect, (a) even if the modification is meant to correct
what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law; and (b)
regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the
court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. 2. A doctrine which,
being grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound
practice, holds 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, GR 136228, Jan.
30, 2001, 350 SCRA 568].
93. Doctrine of first sale. A doctrine in which the owner of an intel. prop., such
as a patent, loses or exhausts all his rights to the goods subject of the intel.
prop. right after its 1st sale in the market. Also Doctrine of exhaustion.
94. Doctrine of forgiveness. Admin. Law. 1. A principle under which the admin.
offenses of an elected official are already deemed forgiven when the
public decides to re-elect him or her for another term. 2. The doctrine
 which was abandoned by the SC in Morales v. CA and Binay, Jr. [GR
217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015, 774 SCRA 431]. See Doctrine of condonation.
95. Doctrine of forum non-conveniens. Lat. The forum is inconvenient. Priv.
Internat’l Law. 1. A rule designed to deter the practice of global forum
shopping, that is, to prevent non-resident litigants from choosing the forum
or place in which to bring their suit for malicious reasons, such as: (a) to
secure procedural advantages; (b) to annoy and harass the defendant; (c)
to avoid overcrowded dockets; or (d) to select a more friendly venue. 2. The
doctrine under which 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. Internat’l Bank v. CA, GR 115849, Jan. 24, 1996,
252 SCRA 259].
96. Doctrine of fraudulent title becoming the root of valid title. Land Titles. The
doctrine that a fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the
root of a valid title if the certificate of title has already been transferred
from the name of the true owner to the name of the forger or the name
indicated by the forger. [Rep. v. Agunoy, Sr., GR 155394, Feb. 17, 2005,
451 SCRA 735].
97. Doctrine of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant. From Lat. Fraus et jus
nunquam cohabitant which means Fraud and justice never cohabitate. 1.
A doctrine stating that no person may enjoy the fruits of fraud. [Acot v.
Kempis, 55 OG 16, p. 2907 (1959)]. 2. A doctrine postulating that
fraud corrupts justice regardless of good faith or just intention.
98. Doctrine of free enterprise. Comm’l Law. A doctrine holding that a
capitalist economy can regulate itself in a free and competitive market
through the relationship of supply and demand with a min. intervention
and regulation from the state.
99. Doctrine of good faith. Admin. Law. 1. The doctrine that the affirmance of
the disallowance of payments or disbursements does not automatically
cast liability on the responsible officers when good faith could be
considered as a valid defense. 2. The rule that good faith may be
appreciated as a valid defense of a public official being required to refund
or reimburse a disallowed payment: Provided, That he possesses a state
of mind denoting honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of
circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest
intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of
another, even though technicalities of law, together with the absence of
 all info., notice or benefit, or belief of facts which render the transaction
unconscientious. [PEZA v. COA, GR 210903, Oct. 11, 2016, 805 SCRA
618].
100. Doctrine of governmental immunity from suit. The doctrine that no govt’l
body can be sued unless it gives permission.
101. Doctrine of governmental interest. Internat’l Law. The doctrine that courts
should apply the law of the State that has the most interest in determining
the outcome of the dispute
102. Doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Rem. Law. 1. The doctrine which dictates
that direct recourse to the SC is allowed only to resolve questions of law,
notwithstanding the invocation of paramount or Transcendental
importance of the action. 2. An established policy that parties must
observe the hierarchy of courts before they can seek relief directly from
the SC. 3. Rationale: (a) Direct resort to the SC would be an imposition
upon its limited time; 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 bec. the SC
is not a trier of facts. [Hinog v. Melicor, GR 140954, 12 Apr. 2005, 455
SCRA 460].
103. Doctrine of hierarchy of rights. Const’l Law. The doctrine which postulates
the order of preference among constitutionally guaranteed rights, giving
primacy the right to life, followed by the right to liberty, and then property
rights.
104. Doctrine of holding out. Civ. Law. The doctrine under which 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. Also Doctrine of agency by estoppel .
105. Doctrine of hold-over. 1. Admin. Law. 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. 2. Corp’n Law. A principle which states that,
upon failure of a quorum at any annual meeting, the directorate naturally
holds over and continues to function until another directorate is chosen
and qualified. 3. The gen’l rule that, unless the law or the charter of a
corp’n expressly provides that an office shall become vacant at the
expiration of the term of office for which the officer was elected, such
officer is allowed to hold over until his successor is duly qualified.
106. Doctrine of horizontal equity. Tax’n. The theory which states that persons
with similar income and assets should pay the same amount in taxes.
107. Doctrine of hot pursuit. Crim’l Law. The doctrine under which a warrantless
arrest may be validly effected when: (a) an offense has just been
committed; and (b) the person arresting has probable cause to believe,
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person
to be arrested has committed it.
108. Doctrine of immunity from suit. Internat’l Law. 1. The doctrine the
application of which has been restricted to sovereign or govt’l activities
(Jure imperii), and does not extend to comm’l, private, and proprietary acts
(Jure gestionis). [JUSMAG v. NLRC, GR 108813, Dec. 15, 1994, 239 SCRA
224]. 2. The doctrine stating that the restrictive application of State
immunity is proper when the proceedings arise out of comm’l transactions
of the foreign sovereign, its comm’l activities or econ. affairs. 3. The
doctrine that a State may be said to have descended to the level of an
indiv’l and thus can be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be used
only when it enters into business contracts. 4. The principle which finds no
application where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign
functions. [USA v. Ruiz, GR L-35645, May 22, 1985, 136 SCRA 487].
109. Doctrine of immunity of state from suit. One of the universally recognized
principles in internat’l law which is commonly understood as an exemption
of the State and its organs from the judicial jurisdiction of another state.
[JUSMAG Phils. v. NLRC, GR 108813, Dec. 15, 1994, 239 SCRA 224].
110. Doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment. Rem. Law.
1. The doctrine postulating that a final and executory judgment may no
longer be modified in any respect, either by the court which rendered it or
even by the SC. 2. The doctrine founded on considerations of public policy
and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must
become final at some definite point in time. 3. Exceptions: (a) The
correction of clerical errors; (b) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries that
cause no prejudice to any party; (c) void judgments; and (d) 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]. 4. Two-fold purpose: (a) To avoid delay in the
administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the
discharge of judicial business; and (b) to put an end to judicial
controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts
 exist. [Mercury Drug Corp’n v. Huang, GR 197654, Aug. 30, 2017, 838
SCRA 221]. Also called Doctrine of immutability of judgment.
111. Doctrine of immutability of judgment. Rem. Law. 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. Also called Doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final
judgment.
112. Doctrine of implications. Stat. Con. The doctrine that a meaning 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, GR 13862, Apr. 16, 1918, 38
Phil. 41].
113. Doctrine of implied conspiracy. Crim’l Law. The doctrine under which 2 or
more persons participating in the commission of a crime are held to be
collectively liable as co-conspirators, notwithstanding the absence of any
agreement to that effect, if they act in concert, showing unity of crim’l
intent and a common purpose.
114. Doctrine of implied municipal liability. Local Gov’t The doctrine that a mun.
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
gen’l power to contract. [Prov. of Cebu v. IAC, GR 72841, Jan. 29, 1987,
147 SCRA 447].
115. Doctrine of implied powers. The doctrine holding that, in determining the
rights and duties possessed by an org’n, a court must look into the
purposes and functions specified in its charter and those developed in
practice.
116. 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, 96 SCRA 178].
117. Doctrine of imputed negligence. Civ. Law. The doctrine under which a
person who has not committed the act or omission which caused damage
or injury to another may nevertheless be held civilly liable to the latter,
either directly or subsidiarily, under certain circumstances. Also called
Doctrine of vicarious liability.
118. Doctrine of in pari delicto. Civ. Law. 1. A legal principle that if 2 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. 2. A doctrine implying that a party may not claim nor be awarded
damages if: (a) his action or failure to act precipitates the breach of a
contract; or (b) he fails to take appropriate action, or takes inappropriate
action, to limit or recoup a loss.
119. Doctrine of inappropriate provision. Const’l Law. The doctrine that deals
with a provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation
bill and may therefore be singled out for veto by the Pres. even if it is not
an appropriation or revenue item.
120. Doctrine of incidental recognition. Civ. Law. The doctrine that: (a) voluntary
acknowledgment of a child may be done incidentally in a pubic document;
and (b) a father’s incidental mention of a child as his in a public document
executed by him deserves full faith and credit. [Javelona v. Monteclaro, GR
48464, Oct. 4, 1943, 74 Phil. 393].
121. Doctrine of incompatibility of public offices. Polit. Law. A doctrine
concerning a potential clash of 2 incompatible public offices held by a
single official which may bring about a conflict in his performance of
potentially overlapping public duties.
122. Doctrine of incomplete testimony. Rem. Law. The doctrine holding that
when the cross-exam’n of a witness cannot be done or completed due to
causes attributable to the party who offered the witness, the incomplete
testimony is rendered incompetent and should be stricken from the
record.
123. Doctrine of incorporation. Internat’l Law. 1. The doctrine which states that
the rules of internat’l law form part of the law of a particular State and that
no legislative action is required to make them applicable to it. 2. The
doctrine followed in the Phils., pursuant to Sec. 2. Art. II of the Consti.,
which states that the Phils. adopts the generally accepted principles of
internat’l law as part of the law of the land. 3. The doctrine that rules of
internat’l law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, nat’l
legislative enactments. [Sec. of Justice v. Lantion, GR 139465, Jan. 18,
2000, 322 SCRA 160]. Compare with Doctrine of transformation.
124. Doctrine of indefeasibility of torrens titles. Land Titles. The doctrine that 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 Dev’t Corp’n, GR
158002, Feb. 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 564].
125. Doctrine of indelible allegiance. Internat’l Law. The doctrine that an indiv’l
may be compelled to retain his orig’l nationality notwithstanding that he
has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the 2nd state whose
nationality he has acquired.
126. Doctrine of independence. Comm’l Law. The doctrine that the relationship
of the buyer and the bank is separate and distinct from the relationship of
the buyer and seller in the main contract such that the bank is not required
to investigate if the contract underlying the L/Cs has been fulfilled or not
bec., in such transactions, the banks deal only with documents and not
goods (BPI v. De Reny Fabric Industries, Inc., L‐2481, Oct. 16, 1970). Also
called Independence principle. Compare with Fraud exception rule.
127. Doctrine of independent source. Evid. The doctrine under which evid. is
admissible if knowledge of the evid. is gained from a separate or
independent source that is completely unrelated to the illegal act of the
law enforcers.
128. Doctrine of independently relevant statements. Evid. The doctrine holding
that only the fact that statements were made is relevant, and its truth or
falsity is immaterial, hence, such statements are admissible in evid. as an
exception to the hearsay rule.
129. Doctrine of individuality of subscription. Comm’l Law. The doctrine that a
subscription is 1 entire and indivisible contract which cannot be divided
into portions. [Sec. 64, Corp’n Code]. Also Doctrine of indivisibility of
subscription.
130. Doctrine of indivisibility of subscription. Comm’l Law. The doctrine that a
subscription contract is 1 entire and indivisible contract which cannot be
divided into portions so that the stockholder shall not be entitled to a
certificate of stock until full payment of his subscription, together with
interest and expenses, if any, is due. [SEC Opinion, Apr. 11, 1994]. Also
Doctrine of individuality of subscription .
131. Doctrine of inevitable discovery. Evid. The doctrine under which evid. is
admissible, even if obtained through an unlawful arrest, search,
interrogation, or violation of an exclusionary law, if it can be established,
to a very high degree of probability, that normal police investig’n would
have inevitably led to the discovery of the evid.
132. Doctrine of informed consent. Civ. Law. 1. A duty imposed on a physician
to explain the risks of recommended procedures to a patient before a
patient determines whether or not he/she should go forward with the
procedure. 2. Essential elements: (a) The physician had a duty to disclose
material risks; (b) he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those
risks; (c) as a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the
patient consented to treatment he/she otherwise would not have
consented to; and (d) plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment. [Li
v. Soliman, GR 165279, June 07, 2011, 651 SCRA 32]. See Informed
consent doctrine.
133. Doctrine of inscrutable fault. Transp’n. The doctrine holding that in case of
a marit. collision where the vessel at fault not known, each vessel shall
suffer its own losses and both shall be solidarily liable for the losses or
damages on the cargo.
134. 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 evid. on record are admissible, as circumstantial evid., against the
person implicated to show the probability of the latter’s actual
participation in the commission of the crime. [People v. Molleda, GR L-
34248, Nov. 21, 1978, 86 SCRA 667].
135. Doctrine of inverse condemnation. Const’l Law. The doctrine which
involves the action to recover just compensation from the State or its
expropriating agency even though no formal exercise of the power of
eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency. [Napocor v.
Sangkay, GR 165828, Aug. 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 60].
136. Doctrine of isolated transactions. The doctrine that foreign corp’ns, even
unlicensed ones, can sue or be sued on a transaction or series of
transactions set apart from their common business in the sense that there
is no intention to engage in a progressive pursuit of the purpose and object
of business transaction. [Eriks Pte. Ltd. v. CA, GR 118843, Feb. 6, 1997,
267 SCRA 567].
137. Doctrine of joint and several liability. Civ. Law. A legal doctrine that makes
each of the parties who are responsible for an injury liable for all the
damages awarded in a lawsuit if the other parties responsible cannot pay.
[Gacayan v. Leaño, GR L-33754, Mar. 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 260].
138. Doctrine of judicial admissions. Evid. The 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].
139. Doctrine of judicial estoppel. Rem. Law. The doctrine that when a party
assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding and succeeds in
maintaining it, he may not thereafter be permitted to assume a contrary
position just bec. his interests have changed.
140. Doctrine of judicial hierarchy. The doctrine holding that the SC's orig’l
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction is shared by the SC with the RTCs
and the CA, such that direct invocation of the SC's orig’l jurisdiction to issue
these writs should be allowed only when there are spc’l and important
reasons for it, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is an
established policy necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the SC's
time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its
exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the SC's
docket. [Lim v. Vianzon, GR 137187, Aug. 3, 2006, 497 SCRA 482].
141. Doctrine of judicial notice. Rem. Law. The doctrine holding that
courts may: (a) take cognizance of matters as true or existing without need
of introduction of evid.; or (b) accept certain matters as facts even if no
proof of their existence is presented.
142. Doctrine of judicial review. Const’l Law. The doctrine holding that the duty
of courts of justice is not merely confined to settling actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but is also
inclusive of the power to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the gov’t
143. Doctrine of judicial stability. Rem. Law. 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, Sep. 6, 2011, 656 SCRA
747]. Also Doctrine of non-interference.
144. Doctrine of judicial supremacy. Const’l Law. 1. The doctrine recognizing
that the judiciary is vested with the power to annul the acts of either the
legislative or the exec. or of both when not conformable to the
fundamental law. [Ass’n of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agra. Reform, GR
78742, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343]. 2. The power of judicial review
 under the Consti. [Angara v. Electoral Commission, GR L-45081, July 15,
1936, 63 Phil. 139].
145. 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 1 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.
146. Doctrine of jus soli. Lat. Right of the soil. The doctrine recognizing the right
of any person born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.
147. Doctrine of laches. Civ. Law. 1. A doctrine based upon grounds of public
policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale
claims and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of
permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. [Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy, GR L-21450 Apr. 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29]. 2. The time-
honored rule anchored on public policy that relief will be denied to a
litigant: (a) whose claim or demand has become “stale;” or (b) who has
acquiesced for an unreasonable length of time; or (c) who has not been
vigilant or who has slept on his rights either by negligence, folly, or
inattention. [Arradaza v. CA, GR 50422, Feb. 8, 1989, 170 SCRA 12]. Also
Doctrine of stale demands .
148. Doctrine of lack of capacity to sue. 1. Corp’n Law. The doctrine based on
failure to first acquire a local license which is based on considerations of
public policy and was never intended to favor nor insulate from suit
unscrupulous establishments or nationals in case of breach of valid
oblig’ns or violations of legal rights of unsuspecting foreign firms or
entities simply bec. they are not licensed to do business in the country.
[Facilities Mng’t Corp’n v. De la Osa, GR L-38649, Mar. 26, 1979, 89 SCRA
131]. 2. Rem. Law. The rule that that a plaintiff: (a) is not in the exercise
of his civ. rights; or (b) does not have the necessary qualification to appear
in the case; or (c) does not have the character or representation he claims.
149. Doctrine of last antecedent. Stat. Con. The principle that a qualifying or
relative word or clause, such as "which," "said" and "such," is to be
construed as applying to the words, phrase, or clause next preceding, or,
as is frequently stated, to the next preceding antecedent, and not as
extending to or incl’ others more remote, unless a contrary intention
appears. [PLDT Co. v. Public Service Commission, GR L-26762, Aug. 29,
1975], 66 SCRA 341].
150. Doctrine of last clear chance. Civ. Law. 1. The doctrine 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 its consequences. [PNR v. Brunty,
GR 169891, Nov. 2, 2006, 506 SCRA 685]. 2. The rule that an antecedent
negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for the
supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against 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. [Ibid.]. 3. 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, and in
such cases, the person who had the last clear chance to avoid the mishap
is considered in law solely responsible for its consequences. [Ong v.
Metropolitan Water District, GR L-7664, Aug. 29, 1958, 104 Phil. 397].
Also Doctrine of discovered peril or Humanitarian doctrine. See Last clear
chance doctrine.
151. Doctrine of law of the case. 1. The principle under which determination of
questions of law will generally be held to govern a case throughout all its
subsequent stages where such determination has already been made on
a prior appeal to a court of last resort. 2. A doctrine that relates entirely to
questions of law, and is confined in its operation to subsequent
proceedings in the same case. [Villa v. Sandiganbayan, GR 87186, Apr.
24, 1992, 208 SCRA 283].
152. Doctrine of legal entity of the separate personality of the corporation.
Comm’l Law. The doctrine that a corp’n may not be made to answer for
acts or liabilities of its stockholders or those of legal entities to which it
may be connected, or vice versa. [Palay, Inc. v. Clave, GR L-56076, Sep.
21, 1983, 124 SCRA 638].
153. Doctrine of let the buyer beware. 1. The doctrine serving as a warning that
notifies a buyer that the goods he/she is buying are “as is,” or subject to
all defects. 2. 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, except if the seller: (a) actively
concealed the latent defects; or (b) otherwise made material
misrepresentations amounting to fraud. Also Doctrine of caveat emptor.
154. Doctrine of lex loci celebrationis. Civ. Law. 1. The doctrine under which the
law of the place where a contract was made or celebrated, as in the case
of a marriage, shall govern. 2. The doctrine enshrined in Art. 26 of the Fam.
Code which holds that all marriages solemnized outside the Phils. in
accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were
solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in the Phils., except
those prohibited under Art. 35, 1, 4, 5 and 6, 36, 37 and 38 of said law.
155. Doctrine of lex loci delicti commissi. Civ. Law. The doctrine that the
substantive rights and oblig’ns arising out of a tort controversy are
determined by the law of the place of injury or the Lex loci delicti.
156. Doctrine of liberal application of procedural rules. Rem. Law. The doctrine
which allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, as an exception
to the well-settled principle that rules must be complied with for the orderly
administration of justice, only in proper cases and under justifiable causes
such as to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the
degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed
procedure. [Magsino v. De Ocampo, GR 166944, Aug. 18, 2014, 733
SCRA 202].
157. 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 and that 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, GR 96032 July 31, 1991, 199
SCRA 911].
158. Doctrine of limited liability. Mar. Insu. 1. The doctrine that applies not only
to the goods but also in all cases like death or injury to passengers in which
the shipowner or agent may properly be held liable for the negligent or
illicit acts of the captain. [De los Santos v. CA, GR 51165, June 21, 1990,
186 SCRA 649]. 2. The doctrine that 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 from it by abandoning the vessel, with
all the equip’t and the freight it may have earned during the voyage. [Art.
587, Code of Comm.; Yangco v. Laserna, GR L-47447-47449, Oct. 29,
1941, 73 Phil. 330]. 3. Exceptions: (a) Repairs and provisioning of the
vessel before its loss; [Art. 586, Code of Comm.]; (b) Insu. proceeds. If the
vessel is insured, the proceeds will go to the persons entitled to claim from
the shipowner; [Vasquez v. CA, GR L-42926, Sep. 13, 1985, 138 SCRA
553]; (c) Workmen’s Compensation cases (now Employees’
 Compensation under the LC) [Oching v. San Diego, GR 775, Dec. 17,
1946]; (d) When the shipowner is guilty of fault or negligence; but if the
captain is the one who is guilty, the doctrine may still be invoked, hence,
abandonment is still an option; (e) Private carrier; or (f) Voyage is not marit.
in character.
159. Doctrine of lis pendens. Lat. A pending suit. Rem. Law. 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 under it.
[Sps. Po Lam v. CA, GR 116220, Dec. 6, 2000, 347 SCRA 86].
160. Doctrine of logical relevance. Crim’l Law. The rule that allows a judge to
draw a reasonable inference from the appearance of an accused as his
appearance is a material fact, and which inference should then be
weighed in light of the other legally relevant evid. [Puno, J., Dis. Op., People
v. Tapales, GR 125808, Sep. 3, 1999, 313 SCRA 610].
161. Doctrine of loss of confidence. Labor. Requisites: (a) Loss of confidence
should not be simulated; (b) it should not be used as a subterfuge for
causes which are improper, illegal, or unjustified; (c) it may not be
arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evid. to the contrary; (d) it
must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier action taken
in bad faith; and (e) the employee involved holds a position of trust and
confidence. [Midas Touch Food Corp’n v. NLRC, GR 111639, July 29, 1996,
259 SCRA 652]. See Loss of confidence doctrine.
162. Doctrine of loss of confidence. Labor. The doctrine providing a ground for
the dismissal of an employee who: (a) holds a position of confidence; and
(b) has performed an act that would justify the loss of such and confidence.
163. Doctrine of loss of trust and confidence. Labor. 1. The doctrine that loss of
trust and confidence, as a just cause for termination of employment, is
premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where
greater trust is placed by mng’t and from whom greater fidelity to duty is
correspondingly expected. [Wesleyan Univ. Phils. v. Reyes, GR 208321,
July 30, 2014]. 2. Requirements: (a) The employee must be holding a
position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would
justify the loss of trust and confidence. [Jerusalem v. Keppel Monte Bank,
GR 169564, Apr. 6, 2011, 647 SCRA 313].
164. Doctrine of Macalalad. The rule enunciated in US v. Macalalad [GR 2558,
Oct, 8, 1907, 9 Phil. 1] that whenever a homicide has been committed as
a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part
as principals in the commission of the crime are also guilty as principals
 in the spc’l complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not
actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appeared that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide.
165. Doctrine of maintenance. Leg. Ethics. The doctrine directed against
wanton and inofficious intermeddling in the disputes of others: (a) in which
the intermeddler has no interest whatever; and (b) where the assistance
rendered is without justification or excuse. [Cadavedo v. Lacaya, GR
173188, Jan. 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 397].
166. Doctrine of majority rule. 1. The rule that is almost universally used as a
mechanism for adjusting and resolving conflicts and disagreements within
the group after the members have been given an opportunity to be heard.
2. The doctrine holding that once a decision on a contentious matter is
reached by a Majority vote, the dissenting minority is bound by it so that
the board can speak with 1 voice, for those elected to the governing board
are deemed to implicitly contract that the will of the majority shall govern
in matters within the authority of the board. [Velez v. De Vera, AC 6697,
BM 1227, AM 05-5-15-SC, July 25, 2006, 496 SCRA 345].
167. Doctrine of malicious prosecution. Civ. Law. 1. The doctrine that affords a
person against whom a crim’l prosec’n, civ. action, or other legal
proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause
the right to bring an action for damages against the complainant or
plaintiff after the termination of such prosec’n, suit, or other proceeding in
favor of the former. [Yasoña v. De Ramos, GR 156339, Oct. 6, 2004, 440
SCRA 154]. 2. The doctrine that pertains to: (a) persecution through the
misuse or abuse of judicial processes; or (b) the instit’n 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, 327
SCRA 391].
168. Doctrine of management prerogative. Labor. The doctrine under which
every employer has the inherent right to regulate, acc. to his own discretion
and judgment, all aspects of employment, incl’g: (a) hiring; (b) work
assignments; (c) working methods; (d) the time, place, and manner of
work; (e) work supervision; (f) transfer of employees; (g) lay-off of workers;
and (h) discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees. [Rural Bank of
Cantilan, Inc. v. Julve, GR 169750, Feb. 27, 2007, 517 SCRA 17].
169. Doctrine of mature minor. The legal principle that recognizes the capacity
of some minors to consent independently to medical procedures, if they
have been assessed by qualified health professionals to understand the
 nature of procedures and their consequences to make a decision on their
own. [Sec. 3, RA 11166].
170. Doctrine of mechanical equivalents. Intel. Prop. The doctrine under which
the patentee is protected from colorable invasions of his patent under the
guise of substitution of some part of his invention by some well-known
mechanical equiv’t which substitution constitutes an infringement of the
patent if the substitute: (a) performs the same function; and (b) was well
known at the date of the patent as a proper substitute for the omitted
ingredient. [Gsell v. Yap-Jue, GR L-4720, Jan. 19, 1909, 12 Phil. 519].
171. Doctrine of middle of the bridge. Internat’l Law. The doctrine holding that,
where there is a bridge over a boundary river, the boundary line is the
middle or center of the bridge.
172. Doctrine of mobilia sequuntur personam. Lat. Movables follow the law of
the person. Tax’n. 1. The doctrine under which shares of stock in a corp’n
have their situs or location in the state or country in which their owner
resides, unless they have acquired a business situs elsewhere. 2. The gen’l
rule that intangible personal property (e.g. receivables, promissory notes,
bank deposits, corporate stocks) has its situs for purposes of tax’n in the
domicile of the owner, subject to the ff. exceptions: (a) when the property
has acquired a business situs in another jurisdiction; or (b) when the law
provides for the situs of the subject of tax (E.g.: Sec. 104 of NIRC).
173. Doctrine of mootness. Rem. Law. A principle postulating that courts will
not decide a case in which there is no longer any actual controversy (Moot
case).
174. Doctrine of mortgagee in good faith. 1, 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. 2. The doctrine postulating that the public interest in upholding
the indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as evid. of the lawful ownership
of the land or of any encumbrance on it, protects a buyer or mortgagee
who, in good faith, relied upon what appears on the face of the certificate
of title. [Cavite Dev’t Bank v. Lim, GR 131679, 1 Feb. 2000, 324 SCRA
346]. 3. The doctrine applicable to a situation where, despite the fact that
the mortgagor is not the owner of the mortgaged property, his title being
fraudulent, the mortgage contract and any foreclosure sale arising from it
are given effect by reason of public policy. [Ibid.].
175. Doctrine of most significant relationship. Internat’l Law. The doctrine that
courts should apply the law of the State that has the closest and most real
connection with the dispute. See also Center of gravity doctrine.
176. Doctrine of multiple admissibility. Evid. The doctrine that the evid. may
either be admissible for several purposes or not admissible for 1 purpose
but may be admitted for a diff. purpose if it satisfies all the requirements
of the latter.
177. Doctrine of mutuality of remedy. Civ. Law. 1. A doctrine which states that
a relief should be available to both parties to a transaction in order that
either of them can obtain the same. 2. A doctrine based on the concept
that 1 party should not be permitted to get from equity that which the other
party could not.
178. Doctrine of national standard of care. Internat’l Law. The doctrine that a
State must treat aliens in the same way that it treats its own nationals.
179. Doctrine of nationality or territoriality. Intel. Prop. An established principle
in the law on trademarks stating that an earlier regist’n of a trademark in
another State would not of itself afford protection to the plaintiff for the
use by defendants in the Phils. of the same trademark for the same or diff.
products. [Sterling Products Internat’l, Inc. v. Farbenfabriken Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft, GR L-19906, Apr. 30, 1969, 27 SCRA 1214].
180. Doctrine of necessary implication. Stat. Con. 1. The doctrine which states
that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as that which is
expressed. [Nat’l Ass’n of Trade Unions-Rep. Planters Bank Supervisors
Chapter v. Torres, GR 93468, Dec. 29, 1994, 239 SCRA 546]. 2. The
doctrine that every statutory grant of power, right or privilege is deemed to
include all incidental power, right or privilege. [DENR v. United Planners
Consultants, Inc. (UPCI), GR 212081, Feb. 23, 2015, 751 SCRA 389].
181. Doctrine of no vessel, no liability. 1. The doctrine that provides that the
liability of a ship owner is limited to his interest over the vessel. In case of
loss, the ship owner’s liability is also extinguished. 2. The doctrine under
which the limited liability of a ship owner or agent extends to the ship’s
appurtenances, equip’t, freightage, and insu. proceeds, and is merely co-
extensive with his interest in the vessel, such that a total loss of the vessel
results in the liability’s extinction. 3. The doctrine holding that vessel’s total
destruction extinguishes the marit. liens bec. there is no longer any res
(thing) to which they can attach. [Monarch Insu. v. CA, GR 92735, June 8,
2000, 333 SCRA 71]. Also Doctrine of limited liability.
182. Doctrine of no-estafa-in-bouncing-checks-issued-in-payment-of-
preexisting-obligations. Crim’l Law. The doctrine that a check issued in
payment of a pre-existing oblig’n does not constitute estafa even if there
is no fund in the bank to cover the amount of the check. [People v. Lilius,
GR 38774, Dec. 23, 1933, 59 Phil. 339].
183. Doctrine of non-delegability of legislative power. Const’l Law. 1. A doctrine
that the Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to admin.
agencies or to private org’ns. 2. Exceptions: (a) Delegated legislative power
to local gov’ts which, by immemorial practice, are allowed to legislate on
purely local matters [Rubi v. Prov’l Board of Mindoro, GR 14078, Mar. 7,
1919, 39 Phil. 660]; and (b) constitutionally-grafted exceptions such as
the authority of the Pres. to: (b.1) exercise powers necessary and proper to
carry out a declared nat’l policy in times of war or other nat’l emergency; or
(b.2) fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and
restrictions as Congress may impose, tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within
the framework of the nat’l dev’t program of the Gov’t. [Secs. 23 (2) and 28
(2), Art. VI, 1987 Consti.].
184. Doctrine of non-delegability of the power of taxation. The doctrine in tax’n
that the taxing power of the gov’t, being vested exclusively in
the Congress, is non-delegable, pursuant to the doctrine of separation of
the branches of the gov’t, in order to ensure a System of checks and
balances.
185. Doctrine of non-delegation. Const’l Law. 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. [US v. Barrias, GR 4349, Sep. 24, 1908,
11 Phil. 327]. 2. Exceptions: (a) Delegation of tariff powers to the Pres.
under Sec. 28 (2) of Art. VI of the Consti.; (b) Delegation of emergency
powers to the Pres. under Sec. 23 (2) of Art. VI of the Consti.; (c) Delegation
to the people at large; (d) Delegation to local gov’ts; and (e) Delegation to
admin. bodies. [Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, GR 168056, Sep. 1,
2005, 469 SCRA 14].
186. Doctrine of non-estoppel. Elec’n Law. 1. The doctrine that there can be no
estoppel from questioning coerced or irregular returns despite failure of
the affected candidate to attend or be represented at the canvassing or to
file his objections during the canvassing. 2. A doctrine which is based on
the fundamental premise in elec’n cases that the candidates-protagonists
are mere incidents and that the real party in interest is the electorate
 whose true will must be determined without technicalities and
equivocations. [Guiao v. Comelec, GR L-68056, July 5, 1985, 137 SCRA
356].
187. Doctrine of non-interference. Rem. Law. The rule that a trial court has no
authority to interfere with the proceedings of a court of equal jurisdiction,
much less to annul the final judgment of a co-equal court. [Clark Dev’t
Corp’n v. Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corp’n, GR 150986, Mar. 2,
2007, 517 SCRA 203].
188. Doctrine of non-interference in ecclesiastical matters by civil courts.
Const’l Law. The doctrine that civ. authorities should generally not look into
matters of discipline, excision, faith, (and) practice of religion which are
aspects over which the church is supreme, they being outside the realm of
secular inquiry. [Civ. Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of
Churches, Mar.10, 2005, 453 SCRA 130].
189. Doctrine of non-interference. Rem. Law. The doctrine 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, GR L-30263-5, Oct.
3, 1987, 155 SCRA 313]. Also Doctrine of judicial stability.
190. Doctrine of non-suability (of the State). Const’l Law. The basic postulate
enshrined in the Consti. which is based on the very essence of sovereignty
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. [DA v. NLRC, GR 104269, Nov. 11, 1993, 227
SCRA 693].
191. Doctrine of non-suability of the President. Const’l Law. The implied const’l
doctrine that the Pres. cannot be sued while he is in office for the reason
that any suit will degrade the dignity necessary for the operations of his
office and will additionally provide either a hindrance or distraction from
the performance of his official duties and functions. [Leonen, J. conc. op.,
Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013, 710 SCRA 1].
192. Doctrine of operative fact. Const’l Law. The doctrine that nullifies the
effects of an unconst’l 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, as the past cannot
always be erased by a new judicial declaration. 2. A doctrine which 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’n, GR 166006, 14 Mar. 2008, 548 SCRA 485]. See
also Operative fact doctrine.
193. Doctrine of ostensible agency. Civ. Law. The doctrine that imposes liability,
not as the result of the reality of a contractual relationship, but rather bec.
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, Jan. 31, 2007, 513
SCRA 478]. See Doctrine of ostensible authority.
194. Doctrine of ostensible authority. Comm’l Law. The doctrine holding that if
a corp’n knowingly permits 1 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 corp’n will, as against any
person who has in good faith dealt with the corp’n through such agent, be
estopped from denying his authority. [Prudential Bank v. CA, GR 108957,
June 14, 1993, 223 SCRA 350]. Also Doctrine of apparent authority.
195. Doctrine of outside appearance. Comm’l Law. The doctrine that states that
a corp’n 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.
196. Doctrine of overbreadth. Const’l Law. 1. The doctrine permitting, as an
exception to the prohibition against 3rd-party standing, a person to
challenge a statute on the ground that it violates the free speech rights of
3rd parties not before the court, even though the law is Const’l as applied
to that defendant. 2. The doctrine which provides that, given a case or
controversy, a litigant whose own activities are unprotected may
nevertheless challenge a statute by showing that it substantially abridges
the (free speech) rights of other parties not before the court. Compare with
Doctrine of void for vagueness.
197. Doctrine of parens patriae (father of his country). Const’l Law. 1. 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. 2.
The doctrine under which the state has the sovereign power of
guardianship over persons under disability and is thus considered the
Parens patriae of minors. [Gov’t of the Phil. Islands. v. Monte de Piedad,
GR L-9959, Dec. 13, 1916, 35 Phil. 728].
198. Doctrine of pari delicto. Civ. Law. 1. The doctrine which stipulates that the
guilty parties to an illegal contract are not entitled to any relief, cannot
prevent a recovery, if doing so violates the public policy against Unjust
 enrichment. [Gonzalo v. Tarnate, Jr., GR 160600, Jan. 15, 2014, 713 SCRA
224]. 2. 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, 90 SCRA 533].
199. Doctrine of part performance. Civ. Law. An equitable principle holding that
where 1 party to an oral contract has, in reliance on it, so far performed
his part of the agreement that it would be perpetuating a fraud upon him
to allow the other party to repudiate the contract and to set up the statute
of frauds in justification of it, equity will regard the case as being removed
from the operation of the statute and will enforce the contract by
decreeing specific performance of it, or by granting other appropriate
relief, such as: (a) quieting title: (b) establishing a resulting or a
constructive trust; (c) enjoining interference with the possession of
property; or (d) enjoining a conveyance of property. [Shoemaker v. La
Tondeña, Inc., GR L-45667. May 9, 1939].
200. Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. Comm’l Law. 1. The principle that
the corporate mask may be removed or the corporate veil pierced when
the corp’n is just an alter ego of a person or of another corp’n. 2. The
doctrine stating that, for reasons of public policy and in the interest of
justice, the corporate veil will justifiably be impaled only when it becomes
a shield for fraud, illegality, or inequity committed against 3rd persons.
[PNB v. Andrada Electric Eng’g Co., GR 142936, Apr. 17, 2002, 381 SCRA
244]. 3. Areas of application: (a) Defeat of public convenience as when the
corporate fiction is used as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing oblig’n;
(b) fraud cases or when the corporate entity is used to: (b.1) justify a wrong;
(b.2) protect fraud; or (b.3) defend a crime; or (c) alter ego cases, where:
(c.1) a corp’n is merely a farce since it is a mere alter ego or business
conduit of a person; or (c.2) the corp’n is so organized and controlled and
its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality,
agency, conduit, or adjunct of another corp’n. [PNB v. Hydro Resources
Contractors Corp, GR 167530, Mar. 13, 2013, 693 SCRA 294].
201. Doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity. Comm’l Law. 1. The
doctrine under which the legal fiction that a corp’n is an entity with a
juridical personality separate and distinct from its members or
stockholders may be disregarded when valid grounds for it exist (and) in
such cases, the corp’n will be considered as a mere ass’n of persons, and
the members or stockholders of the corp’n will be considered as the
corp’n, that is, liability will attach directly to them. [Indophil Textile Mill
Workers Union-PTGWO v. Calica, GR 96490, Feb. 3, 1992, 205 SCRA 697].
 The doctrine that applies (a) when the corporate fiction is used to defeat
public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime; or (b)
when it is made as a shield to confuse the legitimate issues; or (c) where
a corp’n is the mere alter ego or business conduit of a person; or (d) where
the corp’n is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted
as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit, or adjunct of
another corp’n. [Umali v. CA, GR 89561, Sep. 13, 1990, 189 SCRA 529].
202. Doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction. Comm’l Law. The doctrine
that allows the State to disregard the notion of separate personality of a
corp’n for justifiable reason/s, as an exception to the Doctrine of separate
corporate entity.
203. Doctrine of plain view. Crim’l Pro. The doctrine postulating that warrantless
search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest, may extend
beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or
surroundings under his immediate control such that objects in the plain
view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view
are subject to seizure and may be presented as evid. [People v. Musa, GR
96177, Jan. 27, 1993, 217 SCRA 597].
204. Doctrine of political question. Const’l Law. The doctrine arising from the
principle of separation of powers under which the judicial branch cannot
decide questions in regard to which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the legislative or exec. branch of the gov’t. [Tañada v. Cuenco,
GR L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957, 103 Phil. 1051].
205. Doctrine of precedent. Rem. Law. A principle that requires courts to follow
the rulings and determinations of higher courts where a case involves
similar facts and issues. Also called Doctrine of stare decisis .
206. Doctrine of preclusion of claims. Civ. Pro. The doctrine which bars the re-
litigation of the same claim bet. the parties.
207. Doctrine of preclusion of issues. Civ. Pro. The doctrine under which issues
actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in
any future case bet. the same parties involving a diff. cause of action.
[Borlongan v. Buenaventura, GR 167234, Feb. 27, 2006, 483 SCRA 405].
Also Doctrine of collateral estoppel .
208. Doctrine of prejudicial question. Rem. Law. 1. The doctrine that comes into
play generally in a situation where civ. and crim’l actions are pending and
the issues involved in both cases are similar or so closely related that an
issue must be preemptively resolved in the civ. case before the crim’l
action can proceed. 2. The doctrine under which the allegation in a crim’l
 case of the existence of a prejudicial question in a civ. case will cause the
suspension of the former pending final determination of the latter.
[Quiambao v. Osorio, GR L-48157, Mar. 16, 1988, 158 SCRA 674].
209. Doctrine of presumed-identity approach. Civ. Law. The doctrine that 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
Internat’l, Inc. v. NLRC, GR 145587, Oct. 26, 2007, 537 SCRA 409]. Also
Doctrine of processual presumption.
210. Doctrine of presumption of being always in favor of constitutionality. The
doctrine that the presumption of right and legality which fortifies the
exercise of the function of the legislature as being primary, and which is
not to be interfered with lightly, nor by any judicial conception of its
wisdom or propriety. [Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, GR 20479, Feb. 06, 1925,
47 Phil. 385].
211. Doctrine of presumption of regularity in favor of public documents. 1. The
doctrine that a duly notarized document carries with it the presumption of
regularity, authenticity, and due execution. 2. The rule that, without clear,
convincing, and more than preponderant evid. to controvert, the
evidentiary weight conferred upon a public document with respect to its
execution, as well as the statements and the authenticity of the signatures
on it, enjoy the presumption of regularity. [Liwagon v. Liwagon, GR
193117, Nov. 26, 2014, 743 SCRA 16].
212. Doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.
Evid. 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.
213. Doctrine of primacy of administrative remedies. Rem. Law. 1. The rule that
before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail
of all the means afforded him by admin. processes. 2. The doctrine
postulating that the issues which admin. agencies are authorized to decide
should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court
without first giving such admin. agency the opportunity to dispose of the
same after due deliberation. [Rep. v. Lacap, GR 158253, Mar. 2, 2007,
517 SCRA 255].
214. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Rem. Law. The doctrine holding that if the
case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized
skills, and knowledge of the proper admin. bodies bec. technical matters
or intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be
 obtained in an admin. proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the
courts, even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court.
[Ind’l Ent., Inc. v. CA, GR 88550, Apr. 18, 1990, 184 SCRA 426].
215. Doctrine of primus tempore, potior jure. Lat. First in time, stronger in right.
Civ. Law. The principle which gains greater significance in case of a double
sale of immovable property which, when sold twice to diff. vendees, is
deemed owed by the vendee who acquires it and first records it in the
Registry of Property, both in good faith. [Rosaroso v. Soria, GR 194846,
June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 232].
216. Doctrine of prior resort. Admin. Law. A doctrine holding that when a claim
originally cognizable in the courts involves issues which, under a regulatory
scheme, are within the spc’l competence of an admin. agency, judicial
proceedings will be suspended pending the referral of these issues to the
admin. body for its view.
217. Doctrine of prior restraint. Const’l Law. The doctrine concerning official
govt’l restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of
actual publication or dissemination.
218. Doctrine of prior use. Intel. Prop. The principle stating that the prior use of
a trademark by a person, even in the absence of a prior regist’n, will
convert a claim of legal appropriation by subsequent users.
219. Doctrine of privileged communication. 1. The doctrine that utterances
made in the course of judicial proceedings, incl’g all kinds of pleadings,
petitions, and motions, belong to the class of communic’ns that are
absolutely privileged. [Sison v. David, GR L-11268, Jan. 28, 1961, 1 SCRA
60]. 2. The doctrine that statements made in the course of judicial
proceedings are absolutely privileged - that is, privileged regardless of their
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, GR L-15742, Jan. 31, 1961, 1 SCRA 396].
220. Doctrine of privity of contract. Civ. Law. 1. A doctrine that provides that a
contract cannot confer rights or impose oblig’ns arising under it on any
person or agent except the parties to it. 2. The principle the basic premise
of which is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce
their rights or claim damages as such.
221. Doctrine of pro reo. Rem. Law. The doctrine that, where the evid. on an
issue of fact is in question, or there is doubt on which side the evid. weighs,
the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. [Abarquez v. People,
GR 150762, 20 Jan. 2006, 479 SCRA 225]. See Pro reo doctrine.
222. Doctrine of processual presumption. Civ. Law. 1. The doctrine holding that
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. [Atci Overseas Corp’n
v. Echin, GR 178551, Oct. 11, 2010, 632 SCRA 528]. 2. The doctrine based
on the presumption that, in the absence of anything to the contrary as to
the character of a foreign law, such foreign law is the same as the
domestic law on the same subject. [Lim v. Insular Collector of Customs,
GR 11759, Mar. 16, 1917, 36 Phil. 472]. Also Doctrine of presumed-
identity approach.
223. Doctrine of promissory estoppel. Comm’l Law. The doctrine under which
estoppel may arise from the making of a promise, even though without
consideration, if: (a) it was intended that the promise should be relied upon
and in fact it was relied upon; and (b) a refusal to enforce it would be
virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in other
injustice. [Ramos v. Central Bank of the Phils., GR L-29352, Oct. 4, 1971,
41 SCRA 565].
224. Doctrine of proprietary interest. Tax’n. The doctrine that was conceived to
preserve the permanence of ownership of land and other assets and
encompasses the rights, profits, advantages, and ownership shares
associated with full or partial ownership of an asset.
225. 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: (a) to expose his property to a
forfeiture; or (b) to form a link in a chain of evid. for that purpose, as well
as to incriminate him. [Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr., GR L-19052, Dec. 29, 1962,
6 SCRA 1059].
226. Doctrine of proximate cause. Civ. Law. The doctrine stating that proximate
legal cause is that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred. [Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Co., Inc., GR
164749, Mar. 15, 2017, 820 SCRA 301].
227. 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
Univ., GR L-15127, 30 May 1961, 2 SCRA 205].
228. Doctrine of public trust. A doctrine which recognizes the public right to
many natural resources, incl’g the air, running water, the sea and its shore,
 and requires the sovereign or State to hold in trust designated resources
for the benefit of the people.
229. Doctrine of purposeful hesitation. The doctrine that charges every court,
incl’g the SC, with the duty of a purposeful hesitation before declaring a
law unconst’l, on the theory that the measure was first carefully studied by
the exec. and legislative depts. and determined by them to be in
accordance with the fundamental law before it was finally approved.
[Drilon v. Lim, GR 112497, Aug. 4, 1994, 235 SCRA 135].
230. Doctrine of qualification. Conf. of Laws. The doctrine which established the
process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question
specified in a conflicts rule, or simply the process of characterization the
purpose of which is to enable the court of the forum to select the Proper
law. See Characterization.
231. Doctrine of qualified political agency. Polit. Law. 1. The principle that the
Pres.'s power of control is directly exercised by him over the members of
the Cabinet who, in turn, and by his authority, control the bureaus and
other offices under their respective jurisdictions in the exec. dep’t. [Berdin
v. Mascariñas, GR 135928, July 6, 2007, 526 SCRA 592]. 2. The rule that
the acts of a subordinate bears the implied approval of his superior, unless
actually disapproved by the latter. [Perez v. Sandiganbayan, GR 166062,
Sep. 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 252]. 3. The doctrine holding that, as the Pres.
cannot be expected to exercise his control powers all at the same time and
in person, he will have to delegate some of them to his Cabinet members
who, in turn and by his authority, control the bureaus and other offices
under their respective jurisdictions in the exec. dep’t. [Carpio v. Exec. Sec.,
GR 96409, Feb. 14, 1992, 206 SCRA 290].
232. Doctrine of quantum meruit. Lat. As much as one deserves. Civ. Law. The
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, GR 123892, 21 May 2001, 358 SCRA 57].
233. Doctrine of qui facit per alium. Lat. He who acts through another. Civ. Law.
The doctrine holding that, if in the nature of things, the master is obliged
to perform the duties by employing servants, he is responsible for their
acts in the same way that he is responsible for his own acts. See Doctrine
of respondeat superior.
234. Doctrine of ratification in agency. Civ. Law. 1. The doctrine pertaining to
the adoption or confirmation by 1 person of an act performed on his behalf
by another without authority. 2. The doctrine the substance of which is
 confirmation after conduct, amounting to a substitute for a prior authority.
[Mla. Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan, GR 151319, Nov. 22,
2004, 443 SCRA 377].
235. . Crim’l Law. The doctrine which presupposes the consideration not only of
the nature and quality of the weapons used by the defender and the
assailant but of the totality of circumstances surrounding the defense vis-
à-vis the unlawful aggression. [Espinosa v. People, GR 181071, Mar. 15,
2010, 615 SCRA 446]. 2. The doctrine that the reasonable necessity of
the means employed (to repel the unlawful aggression) does not imply
material commensurability bet. the means of attack and defense but what
the law requires is rational equivalence in the consideration of which will
enter the principal factors of: (a) the emergency; (b) the imminent danger
to which the person attacked is exposed; and (c) the instinct, more than
the reason, that moves or impels the defense, and its proportionateness
(which) does not depend upon the harm done but rests upon the imminent
danger of such injury. [People v. Gutual, GR 115233, Feb. 22, 1996, 254
SCRA 37].
236. Doctrine of regularity of performance of official duty. The doctrine
establishing the evidentiary presumption that public officers have
performed their duties regularly. [Miro v. Carpio, GR 170697, Apr. 30,
2010, 619 SCRA 653].
237. Doctrine of rejection of the second placer. Elec’n Law. 1. The doctrine
enunciated in Labo, Jr. v. Comelec [GR 105111, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA
297] and applied in other cases that the candidate obtaining the 2nd
highest number of votes for the contested office could not assume the
office despite the disqualification of the 1st placer bec. the second placer
was "not the choice of the sovereign will" and bec. the judgment declaring
the 1st placer candidate’s disqualification had not become final before the
elec’ns. 2. The doctrine clarifying the rule in Labo, Jr. v. Comelec stating
that the 2nd-placer cannot be proclaimed winner if the 1st-placer is
disqualified or declared ineligible should be limited to situations where the
certificate of candidacy of the 1st-placer was valid at the time of filing, but
subsequently had to be cancelled bec. of a violation of law that took place,
or a legal impediment that took effect, after the filing of the CoC. [Jalosjos,
Jr. v. Comelec, GR 193237, Oct. 09, 2012, 683 SCRA 1]. Compare with
Qualified second placer rule .
238. Doctrine of relation. The rule that all parts and ceremonies necessary to
complete conveyance shall be taken together as 1 act, and operate from
 the substantial part by relation. [Comilang v. Buendia, GR L-24757, Oct.
25, 1967, 21 SCRA 486].
239. Doctrine of relation back. 1. A principle that something done today will be
treated as if it were done earlier. 2. The doctrine applied under certain
circumstances such as a document held in escrow and then delivered later
which will be treated as if delivered when it was put into escrow. Also
Doctrine of relations back or Relation back doctrine.
240. Doctrine of relations back. 1. The principle of law by which an act done at
1 time is considered by a fiction of law to have been done at some
antecedent period. 2. A legal fiction invented to promote the ends of
justice or to prevent injustice and the occurrence of injuries where
otherwise there would be no remedy. 3. The doctrine which, when invoked,
must have a connection with an actual fact and must be based on some
antecedent lawful rights. [Allied Banking Corp’n v. CA, GR 85868, Oct. 13,
1989, 178 SCRA 526]. Also Doctrine of relation back or Relation back
doctrine.
241. Doctrine of renvoi. Fr. Refer back. Conf. of Laws. 1. The doctrine pertaining
to the process by which a court adopts the rules of a foreign jurisdiction
with respect to any conf. of laws that arises. 2. The principle under which,
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.
242. Doctrine of res gestae. Lat. Things done. Evid. The doctrine which is a
recognized exception to the rule against hearsay evid. based on the belief
that, bec. 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.
243. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Lat. Civ. Law. The thing itself speaks. A
doctrine of law that a person is presumed to be negligent if he had
exclusive control of whatever caused the injury, even though there is no
specific evid. of an act of negligence, and, without negligence, the accident
would not have happened.
244. Doctrine of res judicata. Lat. Rem. Law. The thing adjudged. The doctrine
which has the ff. aspects: (a) The effect of a judgment as a bar to the
prosec’n of a 2nd action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action;
and (b) The preclusion of the relitigation of a particular fact or issues in
 another action bet. the same parties on a diff. claim or cause of action.
[Lopez v. Reyes, GR L-29498, Mar. 31, 1977, 76 SCRA 179].
245. Doctrine of res perit domino. Lat. Civ. Law. The thing perishes with 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 that time.
246. Doctrine of residual jurisdiction. Rem. Law. The doctrine that the residual
jurisdiction of trial courts is available at a stage in which the court is
normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject
matter involved in the appeal, which stage is reached upon: (a) the
perfection of the appeals by the parties; or (b) the approval of the records
on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the orig’l records or the records
on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called
residual jurisdiction to: (b.1) issue protective orders; (b.2) approve
compromises; (b.3) permit appeals of indigent litigants; (b.4) order
execution pending appeal; and (b.5) allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
247. Doctrine of residual powers. Const’l Law. 1. The doctrine that, unless
Congress provides otherwise, the Pres. shall exercise such other powers
and functions vested in the Pres. which are provided for under the laws
and which are not specifically enumerated in Title I, Book III of the Admin.
Code of 1987 (EO 292), or which are not delegated by the President in
accordance with law. [Sec. 20, Chap. 7, Title I, Book III, EO 292]. 2. The
doctrine that the residual powers of the Pres. contemplated under Sec. 20,
Chap. 7, Title I, Book III of the Admin. Code of 1987 (EO 292) can operate
only within the context of a pre-existing law and cannot stand independent
of a valid legislative act.
248. Doctrine of respect for administrative or practical construction. The
doctrine which the courts apply by referring to several factors such as: (a)
the respect due the govt’l agencies charged with administration, their
competence, expertness, experience, and informed judgment and the fact
that they frequently are the drafters of the law they interpret; (b) the fact
that the agency is the one on which the legislature must rely to advise it
as to the practical working out of the statute; and (c) the practical
application of the statute presents the agency with unique opportunity and
experiences for discovering deficiencies, inaccuracies, or improvements in
the statute. [Asturias v. Comm. of Customs, GR L-19337, Sep. 30, 1969,
29 SCRA 617].
249. Doctrine of respondeat superior. Lat. Let the master answer. Civ. Law. 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.
250. Doctrine of restitution. 1. Civ. Law. The doctrine providing for a remedy
correlated with unjust enrichment in which the funds recovered are
generally based on the gain of the defendant rather than on the loss of the
plaintiff. 2. Crim’l Law. The rule pertaining to a partial or full compensation
to a victim for a loss that is paid by the criminal.
251. Doctrine of restrictive foreign sovereign immunity. The doctrine of
internat’l law under which a State or its instrumentality is immune from
the jurisdiction of the courts of another State, except with respect to claims
arising out of activities of the kind that may be carried on by private
persons.
252. Doctrine of restrictive sovereign immunity. The doctrine which postulates
that the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public
acts or Acts jure imperii of a State, but not with regard to private acts or
Acts jure gestionis. [The Holy See v. Rosario, GR 101949, Dec. 1, 1994,
238 SCRA 524]. Also Restrictive theory of sovereign immunity.
253. Doctrine of ripeness for judicial review. Rem. Law. 1. The doctrine which
determines the point at which courts may review an admin. action. 2. The
principle 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, 608 SCRA 149].
254. Doctrine of secondary meaning. The doctrine that a word or phrase
originally incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article
on the market, bec. it is geographical or otherwise descriptive, may
nevertheless be used exclusively by 1 producer with reference to his article
so long as, in that trade and to that branch of the purchasing public, the
word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his product. [Ang v.
Teodoro, GR L-48226, Dec. 14, 1942, 74 Phil. 50].
255. Doctrine of self-help. The doctrine enunciated in Art. 429 of the Civ. Code
which provides that the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right
to exclude any person from its enjoyment and disposal, and 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.
256. Doctrine of separability. Arbit. Law. The doctrine that an arbitration
agreement is independent of the main contract and is to be treated as a
 separate agreement which 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, 512 SCRA 148]. Also called Doctrine of
severability.
257. Doctrine of separate (legal) personality. A well-settled doctrine both in law
and in equity that, as a legal entity, a corp’n has a personality distinct and
separate from its indiv’l stockholders or members. [Cruz v. Dalisay, AM R-
181-P, July 31, 1987, 152 SCRA 482].
258. Doctrine of separate juridical personality (of corporate entities). Comm’l
Law. 1. The doctrine which provides that a corp’n has a legal personality
separate and distinct from that of the people comprising it. [Tan Uy v.
Internat’l Exchange Bank, GR 166282, Feb. 13, 2013, 690 SCRA 519]. 2.
The doctrine by virtue of which the stockholders of a corp’n enjoy the
principle of limited liability, thus, the corporate debt is not the debt of the
stockholder. [PNB v. Hydro Resources Contractors Corp’n, GR 167530,
Mar. 12, 2013, 693 SCRA 294].
259. Doctrine of separate larceny. The doctrine, that when several things
belonging to diff. owners[ are taken, there is a distinct larceny as to the
property of each victim. [Santiago v. Garchitorena, GR 109266, Dec. 2,
1993, 228 SCRA 214].
260. Doctrine of separation of church and State. Const’l Law. 1. 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. 2. The principle
advocating the idea of delineating the boundaries bet. the 2 instit’ns
(Church and State) and thus avoid encroachments by 1 against the other
bec. of a misunderstanding of the limits of their respective exclusive
jurisdictions. [Austria v. NLRC, GR 124382, 16 Aug. 1999, 312 SCRA 410].
261. Doctrine of separation of powers. Const’l Law. A basic postulate that
forbids 1 branch of gov’t: (a) to exercise powers belonging to another
coequal branch; or (b) to interfere with the other’s performance of its
constitutionally-assigned functions. [Velasco, Jr., Conc. Op., Neri v. Senate
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investig’ns, GR
180643, Mar. 25, 2008, 549 SCRA 77].
262. Doctrine of severability. Arbit. Law. 1. The doctrine that the arbitration
agreement is to be treated as a separate agreement which is independent
of the main contract, even if it is contained in an arbitration clause. 2. The
doctrine denoting that the invalidity of the main contract does not affect
 the validity of the arbitration agreement. Also called Doctrine of
separability.
263. Doctrine of shifting majority. The rule that, in order for each House of
Congress to pass a bill, it requires only the votes of the majority of those
present in the session, there being a quorum.
264. Doctrine of sole and exclusive competence of the labor tribunal. Labor. The
doctrine that recognizes the Labor Arbiters’ exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and decide the ff. cases involving all workers, whether agric’l or non-agric’l:
(a) ULP cases; (b) Termination disputes; (c) If accompanied with a claim
for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rate
of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; (e)
Claims for actual, moral, exemplary, and other forms of damages arising
from the employer-employee relations; (f) Cases arising from any violation
of Art. 264 of the LC, incl’g questions involving the legality of strikes and
lockouts; and (g) Except claims for employees compensation, social
security, medicare, and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from
employer-employee relations, incl’g those of persons in domestic or
household service, involving an amount exceeding P5,000, whether or not
accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. [From Art. 217, LC].
265. Doctrine of sovereign immunity. Const’l Law. 1. The doctrine expressly
provided in Sec. 3, Art. XVI of the 1987 Consti. that the State may not be
sued without its consent. 2. The doctrine holding that a sovereign is
exempt from suit, not bec. 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
Doctrine of non-suability.
266. Doctrine of special facts. Corp’n Law. The doctrine postulating that a
director does not stand in fiduciary relation to the stockholder and, as
such, is under legal oblig’n make a fair and full disclosure of pertinent
official info. where spc’l circumstances exist that give rise to the oblig’n to
disclose such info.
267. Doctrine of specialty. A principle of internat’l law included in most
extradition treaties by which a person who is extradited to a country to
stand trial for certain crim’l offenses may be tried only for those offenses
and not for any other pre-extradition offenses.
268. Doctrine of stale demands. Civ. Law. 1. A doctrine based upon grounds of
public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement
of stale claims and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of
 permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. [Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy, GR L-21450, Apr. 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29]. 2. The time-
honored rule anchored on public policy that relief will be denied to a
litigant: (a) whose claim or demand has become stale; or (b) who has
acquiesced for an unreasonable length of time; or (c) who has not been
vigilant or who has slept on his rights either by negligence, folly, or
inattention. [Arradaza v. CA, GR 50422, Feb. 8, 1989, 170 SCRA 12]. Also
Doctrine of laches.
269. Doctrine of stare decisis. 1. The doctrine that enjoins adherence to judicial
precedents and requires courts in a country to follow the rule established
in a decision of its Sup. Court. 2. The rule that a 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, 619 SCRA 585]. 3. Instances when doctrine may be abandoned: (a)
When adherence to it would result in the gov’t’s loss of its case; (b) when
the application of the doctrine would cause great prejudice to a foreign
national; and (c) when it is necessary to promote the passage of a new
law. Also Doctrine of adherence to judicial precedents .
270. Doctrine of state immunity from suit. 1. 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, 239 SCRA 224]. 2.
The doctrine holding that a sovereign is exempt from suit, not bec. 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. [Kawamanakoa v. Polyblank, 205 US
353, 51 L. ed. 834]. Also called Royal prerogative of dishonesty.
271. Doctrine of state responsibility to aliens. Internat’l Law. The doctrine
postulating that a state is under oblig’n to make reparation to another
state for the failure to fulfill its primary oblig’n to afford; in accordance with
internat’l law, the proper protection due to an alien who is a national of
the latter state. See also State responsibility doctrine.
272. Doctrine of statistical improbability. Elec’n Law. 1. The rule that any elec’n
return which on the basis exclusively of data found on its face appears to
be obviously and patently false is nothing but a manufactured return which
should not be accorded any prima facie value as evid. of the result of the
count and should be disregarded in the canvass. [Sinsuat v. Pendatun, GR
L-31501, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 630]. 2. The doctrine that is applied
only where the unique uniformity of tally of all the votes cast in favor of all
the candidates belonging to 1 party and the systematic blanking of all the
 candidates of all the opposing parties appear in the elec’n return. [Ibid.].
Also known as Lagumbay doctrine. [Lagumbay v. Comelec, GR L-25444,
Jan. 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 175].
273. Doctrine of stewardship. A doctrine under which private property is
supposed to be held by the indiv’l only as a trustee for the people in gen’l,
who are its real owners, and as a mere steward who must exercise his
rights to the property not for his own exclusive and selfish benefit but for
the good of the entire community or nation. [Mataas na Lupa Tenants
Ass’n v. Dimayuga, GR L-32049, June 25, 1984, 130 SCRA 30].].
274. Doctrine of stop and frisk. Crim’l Pro. A doctrine dealing with the
jurisprudential exception to the requirement of a search warrant which
allows stoppage and bodily search of a person by police officers to prevent
the occurrence of a crime, and which may be resorted to by the police
when dealing with a rapidly unfolding and potentially crim’l situation in the
streets where there is no time to secure a search warrant. [Manalili v. CA,
GR 113447, Oct. 9, 1997, 280 SCRA 400].
275. Doctrine of strained relations. Labor. 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’n, GR 126561, July 8, 1998,
292 SCRA 109].
276. Doctrine of strict compliance. 1. Comm’l Law. A settled rule in comm’l
transactions involving L/Cs that: (a) the documents tendered must strictly
conform to the terms of the L/C; and (b) the tender of documents by the
beneficiary (seller) must include all documents required by the letter. 2.
The doctrine that a correspondent bank which departs from what has been
stipulated under the L/C, as when it accepts a faulty tender, acts on its
own risks and it may not thereafter be able to recover from the buyer or
the issuing bank, as the case may be, the money thus paid to the
beneficiary. [Feati Bank and Trust Co. v. CA, GR 94209, Apr. 30, 1991, 196
SCRA 576]. 3. Land Titles. The doctrine holding that, in order to establish
that the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable public
land, all applications for orig’l regist’n under the Property Regist’n Decree
(PD 1529) must include both: (a) a CENRO or PENRO certification; and (b)
a certified true copy of the orig’l classification made by the DENR Sec.
 [Rep. v. Vega, GR 177790. Jan. 17, 2011, 639 SCRA 541]. See Strict
compliance doctrine.
277. Doctrine of strict interpretation. Tax’n. 1. The doctrine that tax laws, being
clearly in derogation of personal rights and property interests, are subject
to strict construction and any ambiguity in their provisions must be
resolved against their imposition. 2. The doctrine under which the burden
is upon the Comm. of Int. Rev. to primarily prove that the new MCIT
provisions of the NIRC of 1997, clearly, expressly, and unambiguously
extend and apply to (a corp’n), despite the latter’s existing tax exemption.
[CIR v. PAL, GR 179259, Sep. 25, 2013, 706 SCRA 288].
278. Doctrine of strictissimi juris on tax exemptions. 1. The principle that tax’n
is the rule and exemption is the exception. 2. The doctrine that tax
exemption must be strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally in
favor of the gov’t
279. Doctrine of subrogation. Insu. The principle that covers a situation in which
an insurer who has paid a loss under an insu. 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, and 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 Insu. and Surety
Corp’n, GR 180880-81 & 180896-97, Sep. 25, 2009, 601 SCRA 96].
280. Doctrine of subsequent negligence. A principle of tort law that allows a
plaintiff who committed contributory acts of negligence to recover
damages against a defendant who had the last opportunity in time to
avoid the damage. See Doctrine of last clear chance.
281. Doctrine of substantial compliance. Land Titles. A rule in land regist’n
recognizing and affirming applications for land regist’n on other
substantial and convincing evid. duly presented, as an exception to the
gen’l rule on strict compliance, where such applications are without any
opposition from the LRA or the DENR. [Rep. v. Vega, GR 177790. Jan. 17,
2011, 639 SCRA 541].
282. Doctrine of substitution. Civ. Law. Subrogation which is an arm of equity
that may guide or even force a person to pay a debt for which an oblig’n
was incurred but which was in whole or in part paid by another. [Fireman’s
Fund Insu. Co. v. Jamila & Co., Inc., GR 27427, Apr. 7, 1976, 70 SCRA
323].
283. Doctrine of successor-employer. Labor. 1. The doctrine that rests on the in
personam character of employer-employee relationship and under which
a 3rd party that buys the business of the employer: (a) does not become
the new employer of the employees of the latter; and (b) is, for such
reason, totally insulated from the liabilities of the latter in rel’n to its
displaced employees. 2. The doctrine holding that transfer or absorption
of employees from 1 company to another, as successor employer, may be
held as valid as long as: (a) the transferor is not in bad faith; and (b) the
employees absorbed by a successor-employer enjoy the continuity of their
employment status and their rights and privileges with their former
employer. Also called Successor-employer doctrine.
284. Doctrine of successorship. Labor. The doctrine holding that when a buyer
takes over a unionized employer-company, the former shall be considered
a successor of the latter only if a majority of its present employees
previously worked for the purchased company.
285. Doctrine of supervening event. Rem. Law. 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.
286. Doctrine of supervening fact/s in double jeopardy. Crim’l Law. 1. The rule
that where, after the 1st prosec’n, a new fact supervenes for which the
defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense and,
together with the fact existing at the time, constitutes a new and distinct
offense, the accused cannot be said to be in 2nd jeopardy if indicted for
the new offense. [Melo v. People, GR L-3580, Mar. 22, 1950, 85 Phil. 766].
2. The doctrine in crim’l law that where, after the 1st prosec’n for a lesser
crime, new facts have supervened which, together with those already in
existence at the time of the 1st prosec’n, have made the offense graver
and the penalty 1st imposed legally inadequate, the accused cannot be
said to be in 2nd jeopardy if indicted for the new offense. [Melo v. People,
GR L-3580, Mar. 22, 1950, 85 Phil. 766]. Also called the Melo doctrine.
287. Doctrine of supervening negligence. Civ. Law. 1. The doctrine to the effect
that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of 1 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 party who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm
and failed to do so is chargeable with its consequences. [Picart v. Smith,
GR L-12219, Mar. 15, 1918, 37 Phil. 809]. 2. The doctrine holding that an
 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, GR Nos. 79050-51, Nov. 14,
1989, 179 SCRA 384]. Also Doctrine of discovered peril .
288. Doctrine of tax benefit. The doctrine holding that a recovery of bad debt
previously deducted from gross income constitutes a taxable income if, in
the year the account was written off, the deduction resulted in a tax
benefit, that is, in the reduction of the taxable income of the taxpayer.
289. Doctrine of Terry search. Crim’l Pro. A case where a police officer
approaches a person who is acting suspiciously, for purposes of
investigating possibly crim’l behavior in line with the gen’l interest of
effective crime prevention and detection. To assure himself that the
person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against him, he could validly conduct a
carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such person to discover
weapons which might be used to assault him. [People v. Canton, GR
148825, Dec. 27, 2002, 394 SCRA 478].
290. Doctrine of the proper law. Conf. of Laws. The doctrine applied in the
choice of law stage of a lawsuit involving the conf. of laws where 1 or more
state laws will be relevant to the decision-making process such that if the
laws have substantive differences, the choice of which law to apply will
produce a diff. judgment. 2. The rule in a conflicts lawsuit under which
each state produces a set of rules to guide the choice of law, and 1 of the
most significant rules is that the law to be applied in any given situation
will be the Proper law or the law which seems to have the closest and most
real connection to the facts of the case and has the best claim to be
applied.
291. Doctrine of the real and hypothecary nature of maritime law. Mar. Insu.
The rule that a ship owner’s liability is merely co-extensive with his interest
in the vessel, except where actual fault is attributable to the shipowner.
[Aboitiz Shipping Corp’n v. CA, GR 121833, Oct. 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 294].
292. Doctrine of the third group. Comm’l Law. The doctrine to the effect that
the right of the owner of the shares of stock of a Phil. corp’n to transfer the
same by delivery of the certificate, whether it be regarded as statutory on
common law right, is limited and restricted by the express provision that
no transfer shall be valid, except as bet. the parties, until the transfer is
 entered and noted upon the books of the corp’n. [Uson v. Diosomito, GR L-
42135, June 17, 1935, 61 Phil. 535].
293. Doctrine of totality of conduct. Labor. 1. The culpability of an employer's
remarks were to be evaluated not only on the basis of their implicit
implications, but were to be appraised against the background of and in
conjunction with collateral circumstances. [Insular Life Assu. Co., Ltd.
Employees Ass’n-NATU v. Insular Life Assu. Co., Ltd., GR L-25291, Jan. 30,
1971, 37 SCRA 244]. 2. The doctrine under which expressions of opinion
by an employer which, though innocent in themselves, frequently were
held to be culpable bec. of the circumstances under which they were
uttered, the history of the particular employer's labor relations or anti-
union bias, or bec. of their connection with an established collateral plan
of coercion or interference. [Ibid.].
294. Doctrine of transformation. Internat’l Law. The doctrine which holds that
the generally accepted rules of internat’l law are not per se binding upon
the State but must first be embodied in a legislation enacted by the
lawmaking body and only when so transformed will they become binding
upon the State as part of its mun’l law. Compare with Doctrine of
incorporation.
295. Doctrine of triennial cohabitation. A rule of presumption by which a
husband is deemed to be impotent should the marriage remain
unconsummated (the wife remains a virgin) after a cohabitation of at least
3 years.
296. Doctrine of unclean hands. The equitable doctrine that injunction will be
denied, even though complainant shows that he has a right and would
otherwise be entitled to the remedy, in case it appears that he himself
acted dishonestly, fraudulently, or illegally in respect to the matter in which
redress is sought, or where he has encouraged, invited, or contributed to
the injury sought to be enjoined. [North Negros Sugar Co. v. Hidalgo, GR
42334. Oct. 31, 1936, 63 Phil. 664].
297. Doctrine of ultimate consumption. Internat’l Law. The goods intended for
civilian use which may ultimately find their way and be consumed by
belligerent forces, may be seized on the way. See Ultimate consumption
doctrine.
298. Doctrine of ultimate destination. Internat’l Law. The final destination in the
territory of an enemy or under its control making goods contraband under
the Doctrine of continuous voyage. See Ultimate destination doctrine.
299. Doctrine of ultra vires. Lat. Beyond the powers. The doctrine in the law of
corp’ns that holds that a contract entered into by a corp’n that is beyond
the scope of its corporate powers is illegal.
300. Doctrine of unforeseen events. Civ. Law. 1. The doctrine enunciated under
Art. 1267 of the Civ. Code which provides that (w)hen the service has
become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the
parties, the obligor may also be released from it, in whole or in part. 2. The
doctrine enunciated by Art. 1267 of the Civ. Code which is not an absolute
application of the principle of Rebus sic stantibus that would endanger the
security of contractual relations. [So v. Food Fest land, Inc., GR 183628 &
183670, Apr. 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 541].
301. Doctrine of unjust enrichment. Civ. Law. 1. The principle embodied in Art.
22 of the Civ. Code which states that (e)very person who, through an act
of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into
possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal
ground, shall return the same to him. 2. Elements: (a) Enrichment on the
part of the defendant; (b) impoverishment on the part of the plaintiff; and
(c) lack of cause. [Ponce de Leon v. Santiago Syjuco, Inc., GR L-3316, Oct.
31, 1951, 90 Phil. 311].
302. Doctrine of vagueness. Crim’l Law. An aspect of the due process
requirement of notice which holds that a law is facially invalid if persons
of common intelligence must necessarily guess as at its meaning and
differ as to its application.
303. Doctrine of verbal act. Evid. The doctrine under which the ascertainment
of the complete significance of a person's conduct by listening to what
he/she said while doing the act is allowed and admits in evid. the
statements that are offered to give meaning to an ambiguous act.
304. Doctrine of vested rights. 1. Civ. Law. The doctrine postulating that rights
are vested when the right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has
become the property of some particular person or persons as a present
interest, which right must be absolute, complete and unconditional,
independent of a contingency, and not a mere expectancy of future
benefit, or a contingent interest in property founded on anticipated
continuance of existing laws, which does not constitute a Vested
right. [Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. v. Pineda, GR L-7231. Mar. 28,
1956, 98 Phil. 711]. 2. Internat’l. Law. The doctrine holding that the duty
to recognize another jurisdiction’s law was not dependent on comity, with
its expectation of reciprocity, but rather on the mere fact that such right
 had been validly created under the foreign law of their place of origin, i.e.,
that they were vested rights.
305. Doctrine of vicarious liability. Civ. Law. 1. A legal doctrine that assigns
liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has
a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. Also
referred to as Doctrine of imputed negligence.
306. Doctrine of virtual representation. Rem. Law. The doctrine which permits
a party to a proceeding to represent the interests of a person. or class of
persons who are not cited and not made parties to it. See Doctrine of class
suit.
307. Doctrine of void for overbreadth. Crim’l Law. 1. The doctrine that a penal
statute is unconst’l if its language is so broad that it unnecessary interferes
with the exercise of const’l rights, even though the purpose is to prohibit
activities that the gov’t may constitutionally prohibit.
308. Doctrine of void for vagueness. Crim’l Law. 1. The doctrine that a statute
establishing a crim’l offense must define the offense with sufficient
definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what
conduct is prohibited by the statute. 2. The principle which can only be
invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face,
i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by
construction. [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148560, Nov. 19, 2001, 369
SCRA 394]. Compare with Doctrine of overbreadth.
309. Doctrine of volenti non fit injuria. Lat. To a willing person, no injury is done.
Civ. Law. The doctrine that self-inflicted injury or consent to injury
precludes the recovery of damages by the person who has knowingly and
voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing
so. [Nikko Hotel Mla. Garden v. Reyes, GR 154259, Feb. 28, 2005, 452
SCRA 532].
310. Doctrine of waiver of double jeopardy. Crim’l Law. The doctrine that when
a case is dismissed with the express consent of the defendant, the
dismissal will not be a bar to another prosec’n for the same offense; bec.
his action in having the case dismissed constitutes a waiver of his Const’l
right or privilege, for the reason that he thus prevents the court from
proceeding to the trial on the merits and rendering a judgment of
conviction against him. [People v. Salico, GR L-1567, Oct. 13, 1949, 84
Phil. 722].
311. Doctrine of waiver. Civ. Law. A doctrine resting upon an equitable principle
that a person, with full knowledge of the facts, shall not be permitted to
 act in a manner inconsistent with his former position or conduct to the
injury of another. [Lopez v. Ochoa, GR L-7955, May 30, 1958, 103 Phil.
950].
312. Doctrine of willful blindness. A doctrine in tax’n that an indiv’l or a corp’n
can no longer say that the errors on his/its tax returns are not his/its
responsibility or that it is the fault of the accountant he/it hired.
313. Doctrine on circumstantial evidence. The that circumstantial evid. suffices
to convict only if the following requisites concur: 1st, there is more than 1
circumstance; 2nd, the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and 3rd, the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. [People v. Modesto, GR L-
25484, Sep. 21, 1968, 25 SCRA 36].