Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25










Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. Neither misjoinder nor non-
joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by
order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage the action and
on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded
with separately. (11a)

Section 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. In any action involving the validity of
any treaty, law, ordinance, executive order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the court, in
its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor General who may be heard in
person or a representative duly designated by him. (23a)


Section 3. Signature and address. Every pleading must be signed by the party or
counsel representing him, stating in either case his address which should not be a post office box.

The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading;
that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and
that it is not interposed for delay.

An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in its
discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or
signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or
fails promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate
disciplinary action. (5a)


Section 12. Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein. Upon motion made
by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these
Rules, upon motion made by a party within twenty (20) days after the service of the pleading
upon him, or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order any pleading to
be stricken out or that any sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter be stricken out therefrom. (5, R9)

Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. Defenses and objections not pleaded
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears
from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that
the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the
claim. (Emphasis supplied)

Under this provision of law, the Court may motu proprio dismiss a case when any of
the four (4) grounds referred to therein is present. These are: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter; (b) litis pendentia; (c) res judicata; and (d) prescription of action. Thus, in Heirs
of Domingo Valientes v. Ramas, the Court ruled:

Section 3. Default; declaration of. If the defending party fails to answer within the
time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the
defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the
court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may
warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such
reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court. (1a, R18)


Section 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses. If no motion to dismiss has

been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an
affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing
may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed. (5a)

The dismissal of the complaint under this section shall be without prejudice to the
prosecution in the same or separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer. (n)


Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff
fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to
prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any
order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the
court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an
adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. (3a)

Section 1. When examination may be ordered. In an action in which the mental or

physical condition of a party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may in
its discretion order him to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician. (1)


Section 5. Failure of party to attend or serve answers. If a party or an officer or

managing agent of a party wilfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take his deposition,
after being served with a proper notice, or fails to serve answers to interrogatories submitted
under Rule 25 after proper service of such interrogatories, the court on motion and notice, may
strike out all or any part of any pleading of that party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any
part thereof, or enter a judgment by default against that party, and in its discretion, order him to
pay reasonable expenses incurred by the other, including attorney's fees. (5)


Section 2. Reference ordered on motion. When the parties do not consent, the court
may, upon the application of either or of its own motion, direct a reference to a commissioner in
the following cases:

(a) When the trial of an issue of fact requires the examination of a long account on either
side, in which case the commissioner may be directed to hear and report upon the whole
issue or any specific question involved therein;

(b) When the taking of an account is necessary for the information of the court before
judgment, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect.

(c) When a question of fact, other than upon the pleadings, arises upon motion or
otherwise, in any stage of a case, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect. (2a, R33)


Section 4. Judgments not stayed by appeal. Judgments in actions for injunction,

receivership, accounting and support, and such other judgments as are now or may hereafter be
declared to be immediately executory, shall be enforceable after their rendition and shall not, be
stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court. On appeal
therefrom, the appellate court in its discretion may make an order suspending, modifying,
restoring or granting the injunction, receivership, accounting, or award of support.
The stay of execution shall be upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as may be
considered proper for the security or protection of the rights of the adverse party. (4a)


Section 13. Dismissal of appeal. Prior to the transmittal of the original record or the
record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial court may motu propio or on motion dismiss the
appeal for having been taken out of time. (14a)

Section 7. Approval of record on appeal. Upon the filing of the record on appeal for
approval and if no objection is filed by the appellee within five (5) days from receipt of a copy
thereof, the trial court may approve it as presented or upon its own motion or at the instance
of the appellee, may direct its amendment by the inclusion of any omitted matters which are
deemed essential to the determination of the issue of law or fact involved in the appeal. If the
trial court orders the amendment of the record, the appellant, within the time limited in the order,
or such extension thereof as may be granted, or if no time is fixed by the order within ten (10)
days from receipt thereof, shall redraft the record by including therein, in their proper
chronological sequence, such additional matters as the court may have directed him to
incorporate, and shall thereupon submit the redrafted record for approval, upon notice to the
appellee, in like manner as the original draft.


Section 6. Dispensing with complete record. Where the completion of the record
could not be accomplished within a sufficient period allotted for said purpose due to insuperable
or extremely difficult causes, the court, on its own motion or on motion of any of the parties,
may declare that the record and its accompanying transcripts and exhibits so far available
are sufficient to decide the issues raised in the appeal, and shall issue an order explaining
the reasons for such declaration. (n)


Section 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. The failure of the petitioner to comply with
any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees,
deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which
should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

The Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny the petition on the ground that the
appeal is without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein
are too unsubstantial to require consideration. (3a)

Section 1. When allowed. At its own instance or upon motion of a party, the court
may hear the parties in oral argument on the merits of a case, or on any material incident in
connection therewith. (n)

The oral argument shall be limited to such matters as the court may specify in its order or
resolution. (1a, R48)


Section 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. The appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or
on motion of the respondent on the following grounds:

(a) Failure to take the appeal within the reglementary period;

(b) Lack of merit in the petition;

(c) Failure to pay the requisite docket fee and other lawful fees or to make a deposit for

(d) Failure to comply with the requirements regarding proof of service and contents of
and the documents which should accompany the petition;

(e) Failure to comply with any circular, directive or order of the Supreme Court without
justifiable cause;

(f) Error in the choice or mode of appeal; and

(g) The fact that the case is not appealable to the Supreme Court. (n)


Section 2. Bond on appointment of receiver. Before issuing the order appointing a

receiver the court shall require the applicant to file a bond executed to the party against whom
the application is presented, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant
will pay such party all damages he may sustain by reason of the appointment of such receiver in
case the applicant shall have procured such appointment without sufficient cause; and the court
may, in its discretion, at any time after the appointment, require an additional bond as
further security for such damages. (3a)

Section 8. Termination of receivership; compensation of receiver. Whenever the

court, motu proprio or on motion of either party, shall determine that the necessity for a receiver
no longer exists, it shall, after due notice to all interested parties and hearing, settle the accounts
of the receiver, direct the delivery of the funds and other property in his possession to the person
adjudged to be entitled to receive them and order the discharge of the receiver from further duty
as such. The court shall allow the receiver such reasonable compensation as the circumstances of
the case warrant, to be taxed as costs against the defeated party, or apportioned, as justice
requires. (8a)


Section 5. Enforcement of order. If the adverse party fails to comply with an order
granting support pendente lite, the court shall, motu proprio or upon motion; issue an order of
execution against him, without prejudice to his liability for contempt. (6a)

When the person ordered to give support pendente lite refuses or fails to do so, any third
person who furnished that support to the applicant may, after due notice and hearing in the same
case obtain a writ of execution to enforce his right of reimbursement against the person ordered
to provide such support. (h)


Section 5. Court action discretionary. Except in actions falling under the second
paragraph of section 1 of this Rule, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may refuse to
exercise the power to declare rights and to construe instruments in any case where a
decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action,
or in any case where the declaration or construction is not necessary and proper under the
circumstances. (5a, R64)


Section 7. Effect of failure to answer. Should the defendant fail to answer the
complaint within the period above provided, the court, motu proprio or on motion of the
plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and
limited to what is prayed for therein. The court may in its discretion reduce the amount of
damages and attorney's fees claimed for being excessive or otherwise unconscionable,
without prejudice to the applicability of section 3 (c), Rule 9 if there are two or more
(6, RSP)


Section 4. How proceedings commenced. Proceedings for indirect contempt may be

initiated motu propio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any
other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition
with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and
upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the
court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending
in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed,
heard and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the
contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision. (n)



Section 15. Effect of failure to answer. - Should the defendant fail to answer the
complaint within the period provided, the court shall declare defendant in default and upon
motion of the plaintiff, shall receive evidence ex parte and render judgment based thereon and
the reliefs prayed for.


Section 7. Effect of failure to appear at pre-trial. - The court shall not dismiss the
complaint, except upon repeated and unjustified failure of the plaintiff to appear. The dismissal
shall be without prejudice, and the court may proceed with the counterclaim.

If the defendant fails to appear at the pre-trial, the court shall receive evidence ex parte.


Section 3. Permanent EPO; writ of continuing mandamus. - In the judgment, the court
may convert the TEPO to a permanent EPO or issue a writ of continuing mandamus directing the
performance of acts which shall be effective until the judgment is fully satisfied.

The court may, by itself or through the appropriate government agency, monitor the execution of
the judgment and require the party concerned to submit written reports on a quarterly basis or
sooner as may be necessary, detailing the progress of the execution and satisfaction of the
judgment. The other party may, at its option, submit its comments or observations on the
execution of the judgment.

Section 4. Monitoring of compliance with judgment and orders of the court by a

commissioner. - The court may motu proprio, or upon motion of the prevailing party, order
that the enforcement of the judgment or order be referred to a commissioner to be appointed by
the court. The commissioner shall file with the court written progress reports on a quarterly basis
or more frequently when necessary.


Section 7. Judgment. - If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ of
continuing mandamus requiring respondent to perform an act or series of acts until the judgment
is fully satisfied and to grant such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from the wrongful
or illegal acts of the respondent. The court shall require the respondent to submit periodic reports
detailing the progress and execution of the judgment, and the court may, by itself or through a
commissioner or the appropriate government agency, evaluate and monitor compliance. The
petitioner may submit its comments or observations on the execution of the judgment.


SEC. 11. Dismissal of the Claim. After the court determines that the case falls under
this Rule, it may, from an examination of the allegations of the Statement of Claim/s and such
evidence attached thereto, by itself, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the
dismissal of the case.

The order of dismissal shall state if it is with or without prejudice. If, during the hearing,
the court is able to determine that there exists a ground for dismissal of the Statement of
Claim/s, the court may, by itself, dismiss the case even if such ground is not pleaded in the
defendants Response.

If plaintiff misrepresents that he/she/ it is not engaged in the business of banking, lending
or similar activities when in fact he/she/it is so engaged, the Statement of Claim/s shall be
dismissed with prejudice and plaintiff shall be meted the appropriate sanctions, such as
direct contempt.

However, if the case does not fall under this Rule, but falls under summary or regular
procedure, the case shall not be dismissed. Instead, the case shall be re-docketed under the
appropriate procedure, and returned to the court where it was assigned, subject to
payment of any deficiency in the applicable regular rate of filing fees. If a case is filed
under the regular or summary procedure, but actually falls under this Rule, the case shall
be referred to the Executive Judge for appropriate assignment.

SEC. 20. Non-appearance of Parties. Failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause
for the dismissal of the claim without prejudice.

Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer. Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint
within the period above provided, the court, motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall
render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to
what is prayed for therein: Provided, however, that the court may in its discretion reduce the
amount of damages and attorney's fees claimed for being excessive or otherwise unconscionable.
This is without prejudice to the applicability of Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, if there
are two or more defendants.

Sec. 4. Duty of court. After the court determines that the case falls under summary
procedure, it may, from an examination of the allegations therein and such evidence as may be
attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds apparent therefrom for the
dismissal of a civil action. If no ground for dismissal is found it shall forthwith issue summons
which shall state that the summary procedure under this Rule shall apply.

Sec. 11. How commenced. The filing of criminal cases falling within the scope of
this Rule shall be either by complaint or by information: Provided, however, that in Metropolitan
Manila and in Chartered Cities. such cases shall be commenced only by information, except
when the offense cannot be prosecuted de oficio.

The complaint or information shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the compliant and
of his witnesses in such number of copies as there are accused plus two (2) copies for the court's
files. If this requirement is not complied with within five (5) days from date of filing, the
action may be dismissed.

Sec. 13. Arraignment and trial. Should the court, upon a consideration of the
complaint or information and the affidavits submitted by both parties, find no cause or ground to
hold the accused for trial, it shall order the dismissal of the case; otherwise, the court shall
set the case for arraignment and trial.

Sec. 18. Referral to Lupon. Cases requiring referral to the Lupon for conciliation
under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1508 where there is no showing of compliance
with such requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice and may be revived only after
such requirement shall have been complied with. This provision shall not apply to criminal
cases where the accused was arrested without a warrant.


RULE 112

Section 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review. If the investigating

prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and
information. He shall certify under oath in the information that he, or as shown by the record, an
authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses; that there is
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably
guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted
against him; and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise,
he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint.

Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward the record of the case to the
provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in
cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
They shall act on the resolution within ten (10) days from their receipt thereof and shall
immediately inform the parties of such action.

No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor

without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state
prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.

Where the investigating prosecutor recommends the dismissal of the complaint but his
recommendation is disapproved by the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or
the Ombudsman or his deputy on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by
himself, file the information against the respondent, or direct any other assistant prosecutor or
state prosecutor to do so without conducting another preliminary investigation.

If upon petition by a proper party under such rules as the Department of Justice may
prescribe or motu proprio, the Secretary of Justice reverses or modifies the resolution of the
provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the prosecutor
concerned either to file the corresponding information without conducting another
preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or
information with notice to the parties. The same rule shall apply in preliminary
investigations conducted by the officers of the Office of the Ombudsman. (4a)
RULE 119

Section 3. Exclusions. The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing

the time within which trial must commence:

Sec. 3 (f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any
court motu proprio, or on motion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution,
if the court granted the continuance on the basis of its findings set forth in the order that
the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public
and the accused in a speedy trial.

Section 21. Exclusion of the public. The judge may, motu proprio, exclude the public
from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during the trial is offensive to decency or
public morals. He may also, on motion of the accused, exclude the public from the trial, except
court personnel and the counsel of the parties. (13a)

Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution rests its case, the court
may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative
after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence
filed by the accused with or without leave of court.

Section 24. Reopening. At any time before finality of the judgment of conviction,
the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case, reopen the
proceedings to avoid a miscarrage of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within thirty
(30) days from the order grating it. (n)

RULE 121

Section 1. New trial or reconsideration. At any time before a judgment of conviction

becomes final, the court may, on motion of the accused or at its own instance but with the
consent of the accused, grant a new trial or reconsideration.

RULE 124

Section 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. The Court

of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in
either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by
this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.

The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the
appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign
country during the pendency of the appeal. (8a)


RULE 129

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. During the trial, the court, on its
own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of
any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.

After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative
or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be
heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n)




Section 3. Hearing and judgment. Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date
fixed in the order that such order has been published as directed and that the person died
intestate, seized of real or personal property in the Philippines, leaving no heir or person entitled
to the same, and no sufficient cause being shown to the contrary, the court shall adjudge that the
estate of the estate of the deceased in the Philippines, after the payment of just debts and charges,
shall escheat; and shall, pursuant to law, assign the personal estate to the municipality or city
where he last resided in the Philippines, and the real estate to the municipalities or cities,
respectively, in which the same is situated. If the deceased never resided in the Philippines, the
whole estate may be assigned to the respective municipalities or cities where the same is located.
Shall estate shall be for the benefit of public schools, and public charitable institutions and
centers in said municipalities or cities.

The court, at the instance of an interested party, or on its own motion, may order the
establishment of a permanent trust, so that the only income from the property shall be

Section 1. Petition that competency of ward be adjudged, and proceedings thereupon.
A person who has been declared incompetent for any reason, or his guardian, relative, or
friend, may petition the court to have his present competency judicially determined. The petition
shall be verified by oath, and shall state that such person is then competent. Upon receiving the
petition, the court shall fix a time for hearing the questions raised thereby, and cause reasonable
notice thereof to be given to the guardian of the person so declared incompetent, and to the ward.
On the trial, the guardian or relatives of the ward, and, in the discretion of the court, any other
person, may contest the right to the relief demanded, and witnesses may be called and
examined by the parties or by the court on its own motion. If it be found that the person is no
longer incompetent, his competency shall be adjudged and the guardianship shall cease.

1. Doctrine of Vicarious Appeal. A partys appeal from a judgment will not inure to the
benefit of a co-party who failed to appeal and as against the latter the judgment will
continue to run its course until it become final and executory. The exception is where
both parties have a commonality of interests the appeal of one is deemed to be the
vicarious appeal of the other.This is different from appeal in criminal actions.

2. Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars). Is a Latin phrase meaning "listen to the
other side", or "let the other side be heard as well". It is the principle that no person
should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to
respond to the evidence against them.

3. Abstention Doctrine. Is any of several doctrines that a court of law may (or in some
cases must) apply to refuse to hear a case if hearing the case would potentially intrude
upon the powers of another court. Such doctrines are usually invoked
where lawsuits involving the same issues are brought in two different court systems at the
same time (such as federal and state courts within a federal system).

4. Ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be
unable to pursue legal remedy if it arises in connection with his own illegal act.

5. Doctrine of Judicial deference. Is the condition of a court yielding or submitting its

judgment to that of another legitimate party, such as the executive in the case of national

6. Jurisprudence constant. Is a legal doctrine according to which a long series of previous

decisions applying a particular legal principle or rule is highly persuasive but not
controlling in subsequent cases dealing with similar or identical issues of law. This
doctrine is recognized in most civil law jurisdictions as well as in certain mixed
jurisdictions, e.g. Louisiana.

7. Nulla poena sine lege (Latin for "no penalty without a law") is a legal principle,
requiring that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law.
This principle is accepted and codified in modern democratic states as a basic
requirement of the rule of law.[1] It has been described as "one of the most 'widely held
value-judgement in the entire history of human thought'".

8. Doctrine of Universal jurisdiction allows states or international organizations to claim

criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was
committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other
relation with the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are
considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.

9. Second motion for new trial principle. Rule 37 Section 5. Second motion for new trial.
A motion for new trial shall include all grounds then available and those not so
included shall be deemed waived. A second motion for new trial, based on a ground not
existing nor available when the first motion was made, may be filed within the time
herein provided excluding the time during which the first motion had been pending. No
party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order.

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

11. Doctrine of absorption of common crimes. Also called Hernandez doctrine. The rule
enunciated in People v. Hernandez [99 Phil. Rep 515 (1956)] that the ingredients of a
crime form part and parcel thereof, and hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be
punished either separately therefrom or by the application of Art. 48 of the Rev. Penal
Code. [Enrile v. Amin, GR 93335, Sept. 13, 1990]. It held that the crime of rebellion
under the Rev. Penal Code of the Phils. is charged as a single offense, and that it cannot
be made into a complex crime.
12. Doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona. Lat. The doctrine that]personal action
terminates or dies with the person. [Santos v. Sec. of Labor, L-21624, 27 Feb. 1968].

13. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction. The principle that once a court has acquired
jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can do in the
exercise of that jurisdiction. 2. The doctrine holding that even the finality of the judgment
does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses is the
power to amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after the judgment has become final,
the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it [Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, 301
SCRA 96]. Also called Doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction.

14. Doctrine of adherence to judicial precedents. Also called the Doctrine of stare
decisis. The doctrine that enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a
country to follow the rule established in a decision of its Sup. Court. That decision
becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land.
[Phil. Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v. Comelec, GR 190529, Apr. 29, 2010].
15. Doctrine of agency by estoppel. Also known as the Doctrine of holding out. The doctrine
where the principal will be estopped from denying the grant of authority if 3rd parties
have changed their positions to their detriment in reliance on the representations made.

16. Doctrine of bar by prior judgment. A concept of res judicata holding that When, as
between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is
sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In
this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second
action. [Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de Monje, GR 149624, 29 Sept. 2010, 631 SCRA 471,

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

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

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

20. Doctrine of condonation. The doctrine that a public official cannot be removed for
administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office
operates as a condonation of the officers previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off
the right to remove him therefor. The foregoing rule, however, finds no application to
criminal cases pending against petitioner. [Aguinaldo v. Santos, 212 SCRA 768, 773
(1992)]. Also called Doctrine of forgiveness.
21. Doctrine of constitutional supremacy. The doctrine that if a law or contract violates any
norm of the constitution, that law or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or
by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null
and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the
fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every
statute and contract. [Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, 335 Phil. 101 (1997].

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

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

24. Doctrine of deference and non-disturbance on appeal. The doctrine that the Supreme
Court on appeal would not disturb the findings of the trial court on the credibility of
witnesses in view of the latters advantage of observing at first hand their demeanor in
giving their testimony. [Tehankee, concurring op., Llamoso v Sandiganbayan, GR L-
63408 & 64026 Aug. 7, 1985].

25. Doctrine of election of remedies. A doctrine developed to prevent a plaintiff from a

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

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

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

28. Doctrine of equivalents test. A test established to determine infringement which

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Doctrine of governmental immunity from suit. The doctrine that no governmental body
can be sued unless it gives permission.
36. Doctrine of hierarchy of courts. An established policy that parties must observe the
hierarchy of courts before they can seek relief directly from th[e Sup.] Court.
Therationale for this rule is twofold: (a) it would be an imposition upon the limited time
of th[e Sup.] Court; and (b) it would inevitably result in a delay, intended or otherwise, in
the adjudication of cases, which in some instances, had to be remanded or referred to the
lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to
resolve the issues because th[e Sup.] Court is not a trier of facts. [Heirs of Hinog v.
Melicor, GR 140954, 12 Apr. 2005, 455 SCRA 460].

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

38. Doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment. The doctrine that has a
two-fold purpose: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus,
procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business and (2) to put an end to
judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist.
[SSS v. Isip, GR 165417, Apr. 3, 2007].

39. Doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment. Exceptions: (1) the
correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no
prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire
after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. [Temic
Semiconductors, Inc. Employees Union (TSIEU)-FFW v. Federation of Free Workers
(FFW), GR 160993, May 20, 2008, 554 SCRA 122, 134].

40. Doctrine of immutability of judgment. A fundamental legal principle that a decision that
has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified
in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact
and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of
the land. The only exceptions to the general rule on finality of judgments are the so-called
nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and
whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render its
execution unjust and inequitable. [Sacdalan v. CA, GR 128967, May 20, 2004, 428
SCRA 586, 599].

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

42. Doctrine of in pari delicto. Legal principle that if two parties in a dispute are equally at
fault, then the party in possession of the contested property gets to retain it and
the courts will not interfere with the status quo. It implies that if a party
whose action or failure to act precipitates breach of a contract, or who fails to take
appropriate action or takes inappropriate action to limit or recoup a loss, such party may
not claim nor be awarded damages.
43. Doctrine of interlocking confessions. The doctrine under which extra-judicial
confessions independently made without collusion which are identical with each other in
their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on record are admissible, as
circumstantial evidence, against the person implicated to show the probability of the
latters actual participation in the commission of the crime. [People v. Molleda, 86 SCRA
667, 701 (1978)].

44. Doctrine of judicial admissions. The well-settled doctrine that judicial admissions cannot
be contradicted by the admitter who is the party himself and binds the person who makes
the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of
rationalization can offset it. [Binarao v. Plus Builders, Inc., GR 154430, June 16, 2006,
491 SCRA 49, 54].

45. Doctrine of judicial stability. The doctrine that no court can interfere by injunction with
the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to
grant the relief sought by the injunction. [Cabili v. Balindong, AM RTJ-10-2225, Sept. 6,

46. Doctrine of laches. 1. A doctrine based upon grounds of public policy which requires,
for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and x x x is principally a
question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or
asserted. [Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 (1968)]. 2. The time-honored rule
anchored on public policy that relief will be denied to a litigant whose claim or demand
has become stale, or who has acquiesced for an unreasonable length of time, or who
has not been vigilant or who has slept on his rights either by negligence, folly or
inattention. [Arradaza v. CA, 170 SCRA 12, 20 (1989)].

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

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

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

50. Doctrine of non-interference. An elementary principle of higher importance in the

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

51. Doctrine of non-suability. The basic postulate enshrined in the constitution that (t)he
State may not be sued without its consent, [which] reflects nothing less than a
recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an express affirmation of the
unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the
very essence of sovereignty. [DA v. NLRC, GR 104269, Nov. 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 693].

52. Doctrine of operative fact. The doctrine that nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional
law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of
unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always
be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. [It] is
applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on
those who have relied on the invalid law. [Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corp., GR
166006, 14 Mar. 2008]. See also Operative fact doctrine.

53. Doctrine of prejudicial question. The doctrine that comes into play generally in a
situation where civil and criminal actions are pending and the issues involved in both
cases are similar or so closely related that an issue must be pre-emptively resolved in the
civil case before the criminal action can proceed. Thus, the existence of a prejudicial
question in a civil case is alleged in the criminal case to cause the suspension of the latter
pending final determination of the former. [Quiambao v. Osorio, GR L-48157 Mar. 16,

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

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

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

57. Doctrine of privity of contract. Doctrine that provides that a contract cannot confer rights
or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it. The
basic premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights
or claim damages as such.
58. Doctrine of pro reo. The doctrine that where the evidence on an issue of fact is in
question or there is doubt on which side the evidence weighs, the doubt should be
resolved in favor of the accused. [People v. Abarquez, GR 150762, 20 Jan. 2006, 479
SCRA 225, 239]. See Pro reo doctrine.

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

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

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

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

63. Doctrine of res perit domino. Lat. The thing is lost to the owner. The doctrine that states
that when a thing is lost or destroyed, it is lost to the person who was the owner of it at
the time.
64. Doctrine of ripeness for judicial review. This doctrine determines the point at which
courts may review administrative action. The basic principle of ripeness is that the
judicial machinery should be conserved for problems which are real and present or
imminent and should not be squandered on problems which are future, imaginary or
remote. [Mamba v. Lara, GR 165109, Dec. 14, 2009].

65. Doctrine of secondary meaning. The doctrine under which a word or phrase originally
incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article in the market, because
geographical or otherwise descriptive might nevertheless have been used so long and so
exclusively by one producer with reference to this article that, in that trade and to that
group of the purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was
his produce. [Ang v. Teodoro, 74 Phil. 56].

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

67. Doctrine of waiver. A doctrine resting upon an equitable principle which courts of law
will recognize, 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, a
rule of judicial policy, the legal outgrowth of judicial abhorrence so to speak, of a
persons taking inconsistent positions and gaining advantages thereby through the aid of
courts. [Lopez v. Ochoa, GR L-7955, May 30, 1958].

68. Doctrine of waiver of double jeopardy. The doctrine that holds that when the case is
dismissed with the express consent of the defendant, the dismissal will not be a bar to
another prosecution for the same offense; because, his action in having the case dismissed
constitutes a waiver of his constitutional right or privilege, for the reason that he thereby
prevents the court from proceeding to the trial on the merits and rendering a judgment of
conviction against him. [People v. Salico, 84 Phil. 722 (1949)].