Philippine Legal Doctrines 89b

of 8
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  1 PHILIPPINE LEGAL DOCTRINES 1.Doctrine 2.The rule 3.Doctrine of actio personalis moritur 4.Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction5.Doctrine of 6.Doctrine of 7.Doctrine of alter ego. 8.Doctrine of apparent authority. 9. Doctrine of assumption of risk. 10.Doctrine of attractive nuisance. 11.Doctrine of bar by prior judgment. Rem. 12.Doctrine of caveat emptor. 13.Doctrine of collateral estoppel. 14.Doctrine of command responsibility. 15.Doctrine of comparative injury16. a plaintiff whose own 17.Doctrine of compassionate justice. 18.Doctrine of completeness. 19.Doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment. Rem. 20.Doctrine of condonation. Admin. Law. 21.Doctrine of constitutional supremacy. 22.Doctrine of constructive 23.Doctrine of constructive trust. 24. Doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction. Rem.25.Doctrine of corporate negligence. 26.Doctrine of corporate responsibility. 27. Doctrine of deference and non-disturbance on appeal28.Doctrine of dependent relative revocation.29.Doctrine of discovered peril. 30.Doctrine of disregarding the 31.Doctrine of effective occupation. 32.Doctrine of election of remedies. 33.Doctrine of equitable recoupment 34.Doctrine of equivalents. 35.Doctrine of equivalents test. 36.Doctrine of estoppel. Rem. 37.Doctrine of estoppel by laches.38.Doctrine of executive privilege. 39. Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 40.Doctrine of fair comment. 41.Doctrine of inality of judgment. Rem. Law. 42.Doctrine of forgiveness. 43.Doctrine of forum non-conveniens. 44. Doctrine of governmental immunity from suit. 45.Doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Rem. Law. 46.Doctrine of holding out. 47.Doctrine of hold-over. 48.Doctrine of immunity from suit. 49.Doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a inal judgment. 50.Doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a inal judgment. Exceptions: (51.Doctrine of immutability of judgment. 52.Doctrine of implications. 53.Doctrine of implied municipal liability. 54.Doctrine of implied trust. 55.Doctrine of in pari delicto. 56.Doctrine of inappropriate provision57.Doctrine of incompatibility of public ofices. 58.Doctrine of incorporation. Intl. Law. 59.Doctrine of indefeasibility of torrens titles. 60.Doctrine of indelible allegiance. 61.Doctrine of informed consent..62.Doctrine of interlocking confessions. Evid. [63.Doctrine of inverse condemnation. 64.Doctrine of judicial admissions. 65.Doctrine of judicial stability. [66.Doctrine of judicial stability. 67.Doctrine of judicial supremacy. 1. 68.Doctrine of jus sanguinis.Lat.  69.Doctrine of jus soli.Lat. Right of the soil. 70.Doctrine of laches. Also Doctrine of stale demands. 71.inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced orasserted. [Tijam v]72.Doctrine of lack of capacity to sue. 73.Doctrine of last clear chance. 74.Doctrine of legal entity of the separate personality of th75.Doctrine of let the buyer beware. 76.Doctrine of liberal construction of retirement laws. 77. Doctrine of limited liability.78.Doctrine of lis pendens. Lat. A pending suit. 79.Doctrine of loss of conidence. Requisites: 80.Doctrine of malicious prosecution.  2 81.Doctrine of management prerogative. [82.Doctrine of mortgagee in good faith.83.Doctrine of mutuality of remedy. 84.Doctrine of necessary implication. 85.Doctrine of non-delegation. 1. [The principle that] delegated powerconstitutes not only a right b v. Ermita, GR 168056, Sept. 1, 2005, 469 SCRA 1,115-116].86.Doctrine of non-interference. 87.Doctrine of non-suability. The 88.Doctrine of operative fact.89.Doctrine of ostensible agency. 90.Doctrine of ostensible authority. Also known as Doctrine of apparent authority. [The doctrine holding that] if a corporation knowingly permits oneof its oficers, 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 dothose acts, the corporation will, as against any one who has in good faith dealt with the corporation through such agent, be estopped from denying hisauthority [Prudential Bank v. CA, GR 103957, June 14, 1993].91.Doctrine of outside appearance. The doctrine which states that a corporationis bound by a contract entered into by an oficer who acts without, or inexcess of his actual authority, in favor of a person who deals with him in goodfaith relying on such apparent authority.92.Doctrine of overbreadth. Consti. Law. [A]n exception to the prohibitionagainst third-party standing, [the doctrine] permits a person to challenge astatute on the ground that it violates the [free speech] rights of third partiesnot before the court, even though the law is constitutional as applied to that defendant. In other words, the overbreadth doctrine provides that: “Given acase or controversy, a litigant whose own activities are unprotected maynevertheless challenge a statute by showing that it substantially abridges the[free speech] rights of other parties not before the court.” [Chemerinsky,Consti. Law, p. 86, 2 nd  Ed. (2002)]. Compare with Doctrine of void forvagueness.93.Doctrine of parens patriae (father of his country). The doctrine [referring] tothe inherent power and authority of the state to provide protection of theperson and property of a person non sui juries. Under that doctrine, the statehas the sovereign power of guardianship over persons under disability. Thus,the state is considered the parens patriae of minors. [Govt. of the P. I. v. Montede Piedad, 35 Phil. 728].94.Doctrine of pari delicto. [The doctrine under which] no recovery can be madein favor of the plaintiffs for being themselves guilty of violating the law.[Ponce v. CA, GR L-49494 May 31, 1979].95.Doctrine of part performance. An equitable principle that allows a court torecognize and enforce an oral contract despite its legal deiciencies andprovides a way around the statutory bar to the enforcement of an oralcontract. By applying the doctrine, a party can establish the existence of acontract despite the lack of any written evidence. Generally, without writtenevidence, a contract does not satisfy the formal requirements set by thelegislature under the statute of frauds. The doctrine is an exception to this asit allows failure to comply with the statute of frauds to be overcome by aparty’s execution, in reliance on an opposing party’s oral promise, of an oralcontract’s requirements.96.Doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity. The doctrine used whenevera court inds that the corporate iction is being used to defeat publicconvenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, or to confuselegitimate issues, or that a corporation is the mere alter ego or businessconduit of a person or where the corporation is so organized and controlledand its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality,agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation. [Indophil Textile MillWorkers Union v. Calica, 205 SCRA 697 (1992)].97.Doctrine of political question. [The] well-settled doctrine that politicalquestions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts byexpress constitutional or statutory provisions. [Tanñada v. Cuenco, GR L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957].98.Doctrine of preclusion of issues. The doctrine un which issues actually anddirectly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future casebetween the same parties involving a different cause of action. [Borlongan v.Buenaventura, GR 167234, Feb. 27, 2006]. Also called Doctrine of collateralestoppel.99.Doctrine of prejudicial question. The doctrine [that] comes into play generallyin a situation where civil and criminal actions are pending and the issuesinvolved in both cases are similar or so closely related that an issue must bepre-emptively resolved in the civil case before the criminal action canproceed. Thus, the existence of a prejudicial question in a civil case is allegedin the criminal case to cause the suspension of the latter pending inaldetermination of the former. [Quiambao v. Osorio, GR L-48157 Mar. 16, 1988].  3 100.Doctrine of presumed-identity approach. Also called Doctrine of processual presumption. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same asours. [EDI-Stafbuilders Internatl., v. NLRC, GR 145587, Oct. 26, 2007, 537SCRA 409, 430].101.Doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of oficialduty. The doctrine holding that every public oficial, absent any showing of bad faith and malice, is entitled to the presumption regularity in theperformance of oficial duties.102.Doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Rem. Law. [The doctrine that holdsthat] if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise,specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies becausetechnical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must irst be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will besupplied by the courts even though the matter is within the properjurisdiction of a court. [Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, GR 88550. Apr. 18,1990].103.Doctrine of prior restraint. [The doctrine concerning] oficialgovernmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression inadvance of actual publication or dissemination. [Bernas, The 1987 Consti. of the Rep. of the Phils., A Commentary, 2003 ed., p. 225].104.Doctrine of prior use. The principle that prior use of a trademark by aperson, even in the absence of a prior registration, will convert a claim of legal appropriation by subsequent users.105.Doctrine of privileged communication. 1. [The doctrine] that utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, incl. all kinds of pleadings, petitions and motions, belong to the class of communications that are absolutely privileged. [US v. Salera, 32 Phil. 365]. 2. [The doctrine that]statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutelyprivileged – that is, privileged regardless of defamatory tenor and of thepresence of malice – if the same are relevant, pertinent, or material to thecause in hand or subject of inquiry. [Tolentino v. Baylosis, 1 SCRA 396].106.Doctrine of  privity of  contract . Doctrine that provides that  a contract  cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it. The basic premise is that only partiesto contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages assuch.107.Doctrine of pro reo. Rem. Law. [The doctrine that] where theevidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on which side theevidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.[People v. Abarquez, GR 150762, 20 Jan. 2006, 479 SCRA 225, 239]. See Proreo doctrine.108.Doctrine of processual presumption. [The doctrine holding that] if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts willpresume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internallaw. [Lim v. Collector, 36 Phil. 472].109.Doctrine of promissory estoppel. [The doctrine under which] anestoppel may arise from the making of a promise, even though without consideration, if it was intended that the promise should be relied upon andin fact it was relied upon, and if a refusal to enforce it would be virtually tosanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in other injustice. In thisrespect, the reliance by the promisee is generally evidenced by action orforbearance on his part, and the Idea has been expressed that such action orforbearance would reasonably have been expected by the promisor. Mereomission by the promisee to do whatever the promisor promised to do hasbeen held insuficient ‘forbearance’ to give rise to a promissory estoppel.’[Ramos v. Central Bank of the Phils., GR L-29352, Oct. 4, 1971; 41 SCRA 565 at p. 588].110.Doctrine of proper submission. Consti. Law. 1. All the proposedamendments to the Consti. shall be presented to the people for theratiication or rejection at the same time, not piecemeal. 2. Plebiscite may beheld on the same day as regular election provided the people are suficientlyinformed of the amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously deliberatethereon, to express their will in a genuine manner. Submission of piece-mealamendments is constitutional. All the amendments must be submitted forratiication at one plebiscite only. The people have to be given a proper frameof reference in arriving at their decision. They have no idea yet of what therest of the amended constitution would be. [Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA702].111.Doctrine of protection against compulsory disclosures. [The doctrinethat] no person could be compelled to testify against himself or to answer anyquestion which would have had a tendency to expose his property to aforfeiture or to form a link in a chain of evidence for that purpose, as well asto incriminate him. [Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr., GR L-19052, Dec. 29, 1962].  4 112.Doctrine of proximate cause. The [doctrine stating that] proximatelegal cause is that acting irst and producing the injury, either immediately orby settling other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuouschain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediatepredecessor, the inal event in the chain immediately affecting the injury as anatural and probable result of the cause which irst acted, under suchcircumstances that the person responsible for the irst event should, as anordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom. [Vda. de Bataclan v. Medina, GR L-10126, Oct. 22,1957].113.Doctrine of public policy. [The doctrine under which], as applied tothe law of contracts, courts of justice will not recognize or uphold atransaction when its object, operation, or tendency is calculated to beprejudicial to the public welfare, to sound morality or to civic honesty. [Cui v.Arellano University, GR L-15127, 30 May 1961, 2 SCRA 205, 209].114.Doctrine of purposeful hesitation. [The doctrine that charges everycourt, including ths Sup. Court,] with the duty of a purposeful hesitationbefore declaring a law unconstitutional, on the theory that the measure wasirst carefully studied by the executive and legislative departments anddetermined by them to be in accordance with the fundamental law before it was inally approved. [Drilon v. Lim, 235 SCRA 135 (1994)].115.Doctrine of qualiication. Conf. of Laws. The process of decidingwhether or not the facts relate to the kind of question speciied in a conlictsrule. The purpose of characterization is to enable the court of the forum toselect the proper law. [Agpalo, Conlict of Laws, p. 18]. See Characterization.116.Doctrine of qualiied political agency. Pol. Law. The doctrine whichholds that, as the Pres. cannot be expected to exercise his control powers allat the same time and in person, he will have to delegate some of them to hisCabinet members, who in turn and by his authority, control the bureaus andother ofices under their respective jurisdictions in the executive department.[Carpio v. Exec. Sec., GR 96409. Feb. 14, 1992].117.Doctrine of quantum meruit. Lat. As much as one deserves. [Doctrinethat] prevents undue enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it isunjust for a person to retain beneit without paying for it. [See Soler v. CA, 410Phil. 264, 273 (2001)].118.Doctrine of qui facit per alium. See Doctrine of respondeat superior.119.Doctrine of ratiication in agency. [The doctrine pertaining to] theadoption or conirmation by one person of an act performed on his behalf byanother without authority. The substance of the doctrine is conirmation afterconduct, amounting to a substitute for a prior authority. [Manila MemorialPark Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan, GR 151319, Nov. 22, 2004, 443 SCRA 394-395].120.Doctrine of rational equivalence. [The] reasonable necessity of themeans employed [to repel the unlawful aggression] does not imply materialcommensurability between the means of attack and defense [but] [w]hat thelaw requires is rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will enterthe principal factors of the emergency, the imminent danger to which theperson attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of suchinjury. [People v. Gutual, 324 Phil. 244, 259-260 (1996)].121.Doctrine of relations back. That principle of law by which an act doneat one time is considered by a iction of law to have been done at someantecedent period. It is a doctrine which, although of equitable srcin, has awell recognized application to proceedings at law; a legal iction invented topromote the ends of justice or to prevent injustice end the occurrence of injuries where otherwise there would be no remedy. The doctrine, wheninvoked, must have connection with actual fact, must be based on someantecedent lawful rights. It has also been referred to as “the doctrine of relation back.” [Allied Banking Corp. v. CA, GR 85868. Oct. 13, 1989]. Alsocalled Doctrine of relation back.122.Doctrine of renvoi. Fr. Refer back. The process by which a court adopts the rules of a foreign jurisdiction with respect to any conlict of lawsthat arises. In some instances, the rules of the foreign state might refer thecourt back to the law of the forum where the case is being heard.123.Doctrine of res gestae. Lat. Things done. Doctrine that is a recognizedexception to the rule against  hearsay evidence based on the belief that, because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously, and without deliberation during the course of an event, they leave little room formisunderstanding or misinterpretation upon hearing by someone else, i.e., bythe witness, who will later repeat the statement to the court, and thus thecourts believe that such statements carry a high degree of credibility.124.Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Lat. The thing itself speaks. A doctrineof law that one is presumed to be negligent if he had exclusive control of 
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!