Doctrines and Principles in Remedial Law

Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability

Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other‘s orders. Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or
enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another RTC. The principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering
with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review.

This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law provides for an appeal from the decision of an
administrative body to the SC or CA, it means that such body is coequal with the RTC in terms of rand and stature, and logically
beyond the control of the latter.

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially
where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and
services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.

The objective is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative
agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court (Omictin vs. CA,
GR 148004, January 22, 2007).

Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction/continuity of jurisdiction

In view of 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. This principle also means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by
subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first
instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.

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 vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96).

Neypes doctrine
If the motion is denied, the movants has a fresh period of 15 days from receipt or notice of the order denying or dismissing the
motion for reconsideration within which to file a notice to appeal. This new period becomes significant if either a motion for
reconsideration or a motion for new trial has been filed but was denied or dismissed. This fresh period rule applies only to Rule
41governing appeals from the RTC but also to Rule 40 governing appeals from MTC to RTC, Rule 42 on petitions for review from
the RTC to the CA, Rule 43 on appeal from quasi-judicial agencies to the CA, and Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the SC.
Accordingly, this rule was adopted to standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules to afford fair opportunity to review the
case and, in the process, minimize errors of judgment. Obviously, the new 15 day period may be availed of only if either motion is
filed; otherwise, the decision becomes final and executory after the lapse of the original appeal period provided in Rule 41 (Neypes
vs. CA, GR 141524, Sept. 14, 2005). The Neypes ruling shall not be applied where no motion for new trial or motion for
reconsideration has been filed in which case the 15-day period shall run from notice of the judgment.

The fresh period rule does not refer to the period within which to appeal from the order denying the motion for new trial because
the order is not appealable under Sec. 9, Rule 37. The nonappealability of the order of denial is also confirmed by Sec. 1(a), Rule
41, which provides that no appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion for new trial or a motion for reconsideration
Principle of Judicial Hierarchy
This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction, beginning from the lowest, on to the next
highest, and ultimately to the highest. This hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of the
proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established policy necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the
Court‘s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further
clogging of the Court‘s docket (Sec. 9[1], BP 129; Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII, Constitution of the Philippines).

A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts. The SC is a court
of last resort. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of deciding cases in the first instances. Its jurisdiction to issue
extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons exist.

Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed with the RTC and those against the latter
with the CA. a direct invocation of the SC‘s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only where there are special
and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.

The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if warranted by the nature and importance of the issues raised in the
interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations, or in cases of national interest and of serious implications. Under the
principle of liberal interpretations, for example, it may take cognizance of a petition for certiorari directly filed before it.

Precautionary Principle
Definition. Precautionary principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the
environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat (Sec. 4[f], Rule 1,
Part 1).

The adoption of the precautionary principle as part of these Rules, specifically relating to evidence, recognizes that exceptional
cases may require its application. the inclusion of a definition of this principle is an integral part of Part V, Rule on Evidence in
environmental cases in order to ease the burden of the part of ordinary plaintiffs to prove their cause of action. In its essence,
precautionary principle calls for the exercise of caution in the face of risk and uncertainty. While the principle can be applied in any
setting in which risk and uncertainty are found, it has evolved predominantly in and today remains most closely associated with the
environmental arena.

Applicability. When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a casual link between human activity and environmental
effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case before it. The constitutional right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of the doubt (Sec. 1, Rule 20, Part V).

The precautionary principle bridges the gap in cases where scientific certainty in factual findings cannot be achieved. By applying
this principle, the court may construe a set of facts as warranting either judicial action or inaction, with the goal of preserving and
protecting the environment. This may be further evinced from the second paragraph of Sec. 1, Rule 20, where bias is created in
favor of constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. In effect, this principle shifts the burden of evidence
of harm away from those likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to change the status quo. This principle should be treated as
a principle of last resort, where application of the regular Rules of Evidence would cause in an inequitable result for the
environmental plaintiff:
a. Settings in which the risks of harm are uncertain;
b. Settings in which harm might be irreversible and what is lost is irreplaceable; and
 c. Settings in which the harm that might result would be serious.

When these features—uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious harm—coincide, the case for the
precautionary principle is strongest. When in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology. Parenthetically, judicial adjudication is one of the strongest for a in which the precautionary principle may find
applicability.

Standards for application. In applying the precautionary principle, the following factors, among others, may be considered:
a. threats to human life or health;
b. inequity to present or future generations; or
c. prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of the environmental rights of those affected (Sec. 2, Rule 20).

Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies means that when an adequate remedy is available within the Executive
Department, a litigant must first exhaust this remedy before he can resort to the courts. The purpose of the doctrine is to enable
the administrative agencies to correct themselves if they have committed an error. (Rosales v. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 344
[19881)

The following are the exceptions to the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies:
1. The question involved is purely legal;
2. The administrative body is in estoppel;
3. The act complained of is patently illegal;
4. There is an urgent need for Judicial intervention;
5. The claim involved is small;
6. Grave and irreparable injury will be suffered;
7. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
8. Strong public interest is involved;
9. The subject of the controversy is private law;
10. The case involves a quo warranto proceeding (Sunville Timber Products, Inc. v. Abad. 206 SCRA 482 {1992);
11. The party was denied due process (Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 147
[1999]);
12. The decision is that of a Department Secretary. (Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131641, February 23. 2000);
13. Resort to administrative remedies would be futile (University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Rasul 200 SCRA 685
[1991]);
14. There is unreasonable delay (Republic v, Sandiganbayan, 301 SCRA 237 [1999]);
15. “The action involves recovery of physical possession of public land (Gabrito u. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 771 [1988]);
16. The party is poor (Sabello v. Department of Education, Culture and Sports, 180 SCRA 623 [1989]); and
17. The law provides for immediate resort to the court (Rulian v Valdez, 12 SCRA 501 [1964]).

Doctrine of estoppel by laches

The active participation of a party in a case is tantamount to recognition of that court‘s jurisdiction and will bar a party from
impugning the court‘s jurisdiction. Jurisprudence however, did not intend this statement to lay down the general rule. (Lapanday
Agricultural & Development Corp. v. Estita, 449 SCRA 240; Mangaiag v. Catubig-Pastoral, 474 SCRA 153). The Sibonghanoy applies
only to exceptional circumstances. The general rule remains: a court‘s lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings even on appeal (Francel Realty Corp. v. Sycip, 469 SCRA 424; Concepcion v. Regalado, GR 167988, Feb. 6, 2007).
The doctrine of estoppels by laches in relation to objections to jurisdiction first appeared in the landmark case of Tijam vs.
Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29, where the SC barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised only after an adverse decision
was rendered by the court against the party raising the issue of jurisdiction and after seeking affirmative relief from the court and
after participating in all stages of the proceedings. This doctrine is based upon grounds of public policy and is principally a question
of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.

The SC frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting one‘s case for decision, and then accepting the judgment only if
favorable, but attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if it is not (BPI v. ALS Mgt. & Devt. Corp., 427 SCRA 564)

Supervening fact doctrine

If, after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes on which the defendant may be held liable, altering the character of the crime
and giving rise to a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense.

Plain view doctrine

The plain view doctrine recognizes that objects inadvertently falling in plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position
to have that view, are subject to seizure without warrant (Harris vs. US, 390 US 324). It may not, however, be used to launch
unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures, nor to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of a
defendant‘s guilt. It is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless
inadvertently comes across an incriminating object (Coolidge vs. New Hampshire, 403 US 443). It is also been suggested that even
if an object is observed in plain view, the seizure of the subject will not be justified where the incriminating nature of the object is
not apparent. Stated differently, it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of
a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure (People vs. Musa, 217 SCRA 597) The elements of ―plain view‖ seizure are:
a. prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their
official duties;
b. the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are;
c. the evidence must be immediately apparent; and
d. ―plain view‖ justified mere seizure of evidence without further search (People vs. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626).

Doctrine of Processual Presumption

It is that doctrine which lays down the presumption that the foreign law is the same as the law of the forum. It arises if the foreign
law, though properly applicable, is either not alleged, or if alleged, is not duly proved before a competent court.
Principle of Liberal Interpretations
The cases should be determined on the merits in order to give the parties full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses,
rather than on technicalities of procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be served better. Rules of
procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and
rigid application of rules, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided.
In fact, section 6 of Rule 1 states that the Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of ensuring the just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

Omnibus Motion Rule

The rule is a procedural principle which requires that every motion that attacks a pleading, judgment, order or proceeding shall
include all grounds then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived (Sec. 8). Since the rule is subject to
the provisions of Sec. 1, Rule 9, the objections mentioned therein are not deemed waived even if not included in the motion. These
objections are:
 a. that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
b. that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause (litis pendencia),
c. that the action is barred by a prior judgment (res judicata), and
d. that the action is barred by the statute of limitations (prescription) (Sec. 1, par. 2, Rule 9).

A motion to dismiss is a typical example of a motion subject to omnibus motion rule, since a motion to dismiss attacks a complaint
which is a pleading. Following the omnibus motion rule, if a motion to dismiss is filed, then the motion must invoke all objections
which are available at the time of the filing of said motion. If the objection which is available at the time is not included in the
motion, that ground is deemed waived. It can no longer be invoked as affirmative defense in the answer which the movant may file
following the denial of his motion to dismiss.

Hearsay Rule
The basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. Because the person who
supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of
the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her.

However, as significant as the hearsay rule itself are the exceptions to the rule which allow hearsay testimony such as:
a. a statement by the opposing party in the lawsuit which is inconsistent with what he/she has said in court (called an
"admission against interest");
b. business entries made in the regular course of business, when a qualified witness can identify the records and tell how
they were kept;
c. official government records which can be shown to be properly kept;
d. a writing about an event made close to the time it occurred, which may be used during trial to refresh a witness's
memory about the event;
e. a "learned treatise" which means historical works, scientific books, published art works, maps and charts;
f. judgments in other cases;
g. a spontaneous excited or startled utterance ("oh, God, the bus hit the little girl");
h. contemporaneous statement which explains the meaning of conduct if the conduct was ambiguous;
i. a statement which explains a person's state of mind at the time of an event;
j. a statement which explains a person's future intentions ("I plan to….") if that person's state of mind is in question;
k. prior testimony, such as in deposition (taken under oath outside of court), or at a hearing, if the witness is not available
(including being dead);
l. a declaration by the opposing party in the lawsuit which was contrary to his/her best interest if the party is not available
at trial (this differs from an admission against interest, which is admissible in trial if it differs from testimony at trial);
m. a dying declaration by a person believing he/she is dying;
n. a statement made about one's mental set, feeling, pain or health, if the person is not available-most often applied if the
declarant is dead ("my back hurts horribly," and then dies);
o. a statement about one's own will when the person is not available;
p. other exceptions based on a judge's discretion that the hearsay testimony in the circumstances must be reliable.

Principle of Prior or Contemporary Jurisdiction

Enforcement of writ of preliminary attachment must be preceded by or simultaneously accompanied by service of summons, copy of
complaint, application and affidavits for the attachment and the bond upon the adverse party; BUT the requirement of prior or
contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply where the summons could not be served despite diligent efforts, or the
defendant is a resident of the Phils temporarily absent therefrom, or the defendant is a non-resident of the Phils or the action is in
rem or quasi in rem.

Doctrine of Res Judicata

A specific doctrine that precludes relitigation of claims and issues arising from the same cause of action between the same parties
and their privies after a final judgment on the merits by a competent tribunal or after some other final determination having the
same effect <res judicata precludes only subsequent suits on the same cause of action; collateral estoppel may preclude relitigation
of issues in later suits on any cause of action

Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

The executive power is vested in the Chief Executive. However, he also acts through his Cabinet Secretaries.

Doctrine of Finality of Judgment/ Immutability of Judgment/ Conclusiveness of Judgment

Fundamental is the rule that where the judgment of a higher court has become final and executory and has been returned to the
lower court, the only function of the latter is the ministerial act of carrying out the decision and issuing the writ of execution. In
addition, a final and executory judgment can no longer be amended by adding thereto a relief not originally included. In short, once
a judgment becomes final, the winning party is entitled to a writ of execution and the issuance thereof becomes a court’s ministerial
duty. The lower court cannot vary the mandate of the superior court or reexamine it for any other purpose other than execution;
much less may it review the same upon any matter decided on appeal or error apparent; nor intermeddle with it further than to
settle so much as has been demanded.

Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, 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. Any act which violates this
principle must immediately be struck down.

But like any other rule, it has exceptions, namely:

1. the correction of clerical errors;
2. the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which 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. The
exception to the doctrine of immutability of judgment has been applied in several cases in order to serve substantial
justice.

Totality Rule
Under this rule, where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the
causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions.

Two-Dismissal Rule
The two-dismissal rule applies when the plaintiff has
a. twice dismissed actions,
b. based on or including the same claim,
c. in a court of competent jurisdiction.
The second notice of dismissal will bar the refilling of the action because it will operate as an adjudication of the claim upon the
merits. In other words, the claim may only be filed twice, the first being the claim embodied in the original complaint. Since as a
rule, the dismissal is without prejudice, the same claim may be refiled. If the refiled claim or complaint is dismissed again through a
second notice of dismissal, that second notice triggers the application of the two-dismissal rule and the dismissal is to be deemed
one with prejudice because it is considered as an adjudication upon the merits.

Stare Decisis
This principle enjoins adherence to judicial precedents and requires courts to follow the rule established in a decision of the
Supreme Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. It is
based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to
further argument.

Doctrine of Law of the Case

According to this principle, whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same
parties in the case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which
such was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. This principle generally finds application in cases where
an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings. The question there
settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal. Consequently, the court reviewing the succeeding appeal will not re-
litigate the case but instead apply the ruling in the previous appeal. This enables the appellate court to perform its duties
satisfactorily and efficiently which would be impossible if a question, one considered and decided by it, were to be litigated anew in
the same case and upon any and subsequent appeal.

Single Motion Rule

A party shall not be allowed to file a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or a final order. The rule states: “No party
shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order”. Be reminded that the prohibition on a second
motion applies only when the motion is directed against a judgment or a final order. The rule does not apply to a motion for
reconsideration of an interlocutory order.

Doctrine of Residual Jurisdiction

The RTC loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to
appeal of the other parties. However, the TRC despite the perfection of the appeals may still issue orders of the protection and
preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit
appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with Sec.2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the
appeal provided these are done before the Court of Appeals gives due course to the petition. Recall that in an ordinary appeal the
residual jurisdiction of the RTC may be exercised prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record of appeal. This doctrine
also applies to Rule 42.

Material Data (date) Rule

Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court provides that there are three material dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari
brought under Rule 65:
a. the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received;
b. the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration when one such was filed; and
c. the date when notice of the denial thereof was received. This requirement is for the purpose of determining the
timeliness of the petition.
Doctrine of Anticipatory Breach
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 obligations, “the contract is entire and the breach total,” hence there can
only be one action for damages (Blossom & Co. vs. Manila Gas Corp., 55 Phil. 226)

Doctrine of Adherence to Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction, once attached, cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events although of a character which would have
prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, and the court retains jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.

Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction

In an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount (Sec. 7, Rule 6).

Principle of Exclusionary Rule

The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of the decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all
other courts.

EXCEPTIONS: Estoppel by LACHES - NOTE: Jurisdiction under Rule 73 Sec. 1 does NOT relate to jurisdiction per se but
to venue. It is NOT an element of jurisdiction but of procedure, hence institution in the court where the decedent is
neither an inhabitant or have his estate may be waived. (Uriarte vs. CFI)

The Doctrine of Non-interference in Associations

Rule: The Courts will not interfere with the internal affairs of an unincorporated association so as to settle disputes between the
members on question of policy, discipline, or internal government, so long as the government of the society is fairly and honestly
administered in conformity with laws and the law of the land no property or civil rights are invaded.

Exceptions:
1. Where law and justice so require, and the proceeding of the association are subject to judicial review, where there is
fraud, oppression, or bad faith, or where the action complained of is capricious, arbitrary or unjustly discriminating.
(Fortunato vs. Palma, GRN 70203, Dec. 18, 1987, 156 SCRA 691)

2. If it is shown that the Church authorities have acted outside the scope of their authorities or in a manner contrary to
their organic law and rules and the Court’s interference is necessary for the protection of Civil and Property rights.
(Negros District Conference, Inc. vs. CA, 108 Scra 458, 1981)

3. Where the proceedings in question are violative of the laws of society, or the law of the land, as by depriving a person of
due process of law.

4. Where there is lack of jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal conducting the proceedings, where the organization exceeds
its powers, or where the proceedings are otherwise illegal. (Lions Club International vs. Amores, 121 SCRA 621, 1983)

The La Naval Doctrines on Jurisdiction

 1. Jurisdiction over the person must be seasonably raised, that is, pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by way of an affirmative
defense in an answer. Voluntary appearance shall be deemed a waiver of this defense. The assertion, however, of
affirmative defenses shall not be construed as an estoppel or as a waiver of such defense.

2. Where the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action, the invocation of this
defense may be done at any time. It is neither for the courts nor the parties to violate or disregard that rule, let alone to
confer that jurisdiction, this matter being legislative in character. (La Naval vs. CA, 236 SCRA 78)

Doctrine of Immutability of Judgment

The jurisdiction of the court to amend, modify or alter its judgment terminates when the judgment becomes final.
Doctrine of Hot Pursuit
When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of fact
and circumstance that the person to be arrested has committed it.

Hornbook Doctrine
An accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information.

Doctrine of Adoptive Admission

An adoptive admission is 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 vs. DESIERTO 356 SCRA 108).

Principle of “Falsa Demonstratio non nocet cum de corpore constat”

False description does not injure or vitiate a document, provided that the thing or person intended has once been sufficiently
described.

Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony

When cross-examination 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.

Principle of Res Inter Alios Acta

1ST PART: The rights of a party CANNOT be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter
provided (Sec. 28);

2nd PART: Similar acts as evidence (Sec. 34).

Principle of Negativing Averments

Is a party required to prove negative allegations?

GENERAL RULE: NO. They need not be proved, whether in a civil or criminal action.

EXCEPTION: Where such negative allegations are essential parts of the cause of action or defense in a civil case, or are
essential ingredients of the offense in a criminal case or defenses thereto.
 HOWEVER, in civil cases, even if the negative allegation is an essential part of the cause of action or defense, such
negative allegation does not have to be proved if it is only for the purpose of denying the existence of a document which
should properly be in the custody of the adverse party.

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree / But For/ Taint Doctrine

posits that all evidence (the fruit) derived from an illegal search (the poisonous tree) must be suppressed, whether it was obtained
directly through the illegal search itself or indirectly using information obtained din the illegal search.

Doctrine of Interlocking Confessions

It states that extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion which are identical with each other in their essential
details and corroborated by other evidence against the persons implicated, are admissible to show the probability of the latter’s
actual participation in the commission of the crime.

Doctrine of Supervening Act

If, after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes on which the defendant may be held liable, altering the character of the crime
and giving rise to a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense.

Doctrine of Completeness
The statement as offered must not be merely part of the whole as it was expressed by the declarant; it must be complete as far as
it goes. To be complete does not mean that it should contain everything that constitutes the res gestae of the subject of his
statement, but it should express in full all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such fact.

GENERAL RULE: When cross-examination cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who
offered the witness, the incomplete testimony is rendered incompetent should be stricken out of the record.

EXCEPTION: Where prosecution witness was extensively cross- examined on the material points and thereafter failed to
appear and cannot be produced despite a warrant for his arrest.

• A party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness in the case is bound by the testimony of said witness,
EXCEPT:
(1) adverse party;
(2) hostile witness;
(3) unwilling witness;
(4) witness required by law to be presented.

Law of the Case Doctrine

It means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the
same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. As a general rule, a decision on a prior appeal of the
same case is held to be the law of the case whether that question is right or wrong, the remedy of the party deeming himself
aggrieved being to seek a rehearing.

Liberal Construction Principle

The cases should be determined on the merits in order to give the parties full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses,
rather than on technicalities or procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be served better. Rules of
procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and
rigid application of rules, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided.
In fact, Section 6 of Rule 1 states that the Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of ensuring the just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding (DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FAMILY FOODS
MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. G.R. No. 180458, July 30, 2009, Third Division, Nachura, J.).

Res Gestae
Refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, or after its
commission. These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any
opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement.

Res Ipsa Loquitor

It literally means the thing speaks for itself. This doctrine provides that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the
surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff's prima facie case,
and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is
shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does
not happen if those who have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of
explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from or was caused by the defendant's want of care (Ramos v. CA, G.R. No.
124354, Dec. 29, 1999).

REQUISITES:
1. The occurrence of an injury;

2. The thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the defendant;

3. The occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have happened if those who had control
or management used proper care; and

4. The absence of explanation by the defendant (Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297, Jan. 31,
2007).

Lis Pendens/Litis Pendencia

This may refer to any pending lawsuit or to a specific situation with a public notice of litigation that has been recorded in the same
location where the title of real property has been recorded. This notice secures a plaintiff's claim on the property so that the sale,
mortgage, or encumbrance of the property will not diminish plaintiff's rights to the property, should the plaintiff prevail in its case.
In some jurisdictions, when the notice is properly recorded, lis pendens is considered constructive notice to the other litigants or
other unrecorded or subordinate lienholders.

ADDITIONAL DOCTRINES:
AUTER ACTION PENDANT
It refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them
becomes unnecessary and vexatious. It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits.
BERRY RULE
Filing of motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence which cannot be produced in court despite exercise of due
diligence, and if considered would probably alter the outcome of the case.

BUBBLE BURST THEORY

The rule on presumption of law shall not apply in case there is evidence to the contrary.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Is "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction." (see also: People vs. Alivio, G.R. No. 177771, May 30, 2011).

CONTINUING THREAT
In order that writ of amparo can be issued, the threat on the right to life liberty or security must be actual and continuing and not
merely imaginary, thereby depriving the petitioner of his said right from the inception up to the termination of the case.

FALSA DEMONSTRATIO NON NOCET

It is a rule which states that where there are two descriptions in a deed, the one as it were, super added to the other, and one
description being complete and sufficient in itself, and the other which is subordinate and super added is incorrect, the incorrect
description or feature or circumstance of the description is rejected as a surplusage, and the complete and correct description is
allowed to stand alone. (Please see: Myers vs. Ladd, 26 Ill, 515, 417)

FRESH PERIOD
It is a procedural law as it prescribes a fresh period of 15 days within which an appeal may be made in the event that the motion
for reconsideration is denied by the lower court. Following the rule on retroactivity of procedural laws, the “fresh period rule” should
be applied to pending actions, such as the present case. (Priscilla Alma Jose vs. Ramon Javellana, et al., G.R. No. 158239, January
25, 2012)

FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

The warrant issued by the judge did not comply with the requisites of the law, and therefore, void, or when the search made
without warrant is unjustifiable, whether it is found or discovered afterwards, cannot be used as evidence against the suspect. The
items or articles obtained are the “fruits of a poisoned tree.”(People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1; People vs. Montilla, 285 SCRA 703;
Manalili vs. CA, 280 SCRA 400)

HYPOTHETICAL ADMISSION or PRESUMPTION OF TRUTH

When a motion to dismiss is filed, the material allegations of the complaint are deemed to be hypothetically admitted. This
hypothetical admission, extends not only from the relevant and material facts well pleaded in the complaint, but also to inferences
that may be fairly deduced from them. (The Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulcan, et al. vs. Hon. Simeon Dumdum, Jr., G.R. No. 168289,
March 22, 2010)

IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT
Once the judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer be amended, set aside, or disturbed
INDEPENDENT RELEVANT STATEMENT
Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay
rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. (Jose Espinelia.k.aDaniloEspineli vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
179535, June 9, 2014)

INTERLOCKING CONFESSION
These are extrajudicial confessions which were independently made without collusion, are identical with each other in their material
respects and confirmatory of the other. They are, therefore, also admissible as circumstantial evidence against their co-accused
implicated therein to show the probability of the latter’s actual participation in the commission of the crime.

JUDICIAL COURTESY
“[d]ue respect for the Supreme Court and practical and ethical considerations should have prompted the appellate court wait for the
final determination of the petition [for certiorari] before taking cognizance of the case and trying to render moot exactly what was
before this [C]ourt.” The principle of judicial courtesy applies only “if there is a strong probability that the issues before the higher
court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court.”(Juan Trajano
aka Johnny vs. Uniwide Sales Warehouse ClubG.R. 190253, June 11, 2014)

LAW OF THE CASE

It has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal, and means, more specifically, that whatever is once irrevocably
established as the controlling legal rule of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case,
whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of
the case before the court.

MATERIAL DATES
Under the material dates rule, a petition must alleged three (3) material dates which is necessary which are as follows: 1) The date
when the judgment or final order or resolution was received; 2) The date when the motion for reconsideration or new trial was
filed; and 3) The date when the notice of the denial thereof was received. (Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation vs. Acuna,
452 SCRA 422, February 28, 2005)

NON-PROSEQUITUR
Once a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute, the dismissal has the effect of an adjudication on the merits and is understood to
be with prejudice to the filing of another action unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal.

NON-SUITED
Failure of the plaintiff to appear on the scheduled pre-trial conference would result to the dismissal of the case with prejudice,
unless otherwise ordered by the court to be without prejudice.

PARTY AUTONOMY
Parties have the freedom to expressly stipulate or agree by virtue of written agreement on how their disputes will be settled by
submitting their differences to an arbitrator before an action may be commenced in court.

PRESUMED IDENTITY APPROACH

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 Corporation, Amalia G. Ikdal And Ministry Of Public Health-Kuwait Vs. Ma. JosefaEchin, G.R. No. 178551, October
11, 2010)
PRIMARY JURISDICTION
When an administrative body is clothed with original and exclusive jurisdiction, courts are utterly without power and authority to
exercise concurrently such jurisdiction. Accordingly, all the proceedings of the court in violation of that doctrine and all orders and
decisions reached are null and void. (Manolito Agra, et al., vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 167807, December 6, 2011)

RECOUPMENT
A compulsory counterclaim arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the
opposing party’s claim which does not require the presence of a third person over whom the court cannot acquired jurisdiction;

RELAXED ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

In the proper resolution of the case, the court has the discretion to admit a rather inadmissible evidence provided it has a relation
to other evidence already presented which is relevant to the fact in issue in the case.

RES JUDICATA IN PRISON GREY

Accused cannot be twice put in jeopardy of an offense, acquittal or conviction in either one will bar the prosecution for another
offense, or his was terminated without the express consent of the accused.

SET-OFF
A permissive counterclaim does not arise out of and is not connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject
matter of the opposing party’s claim which required the presence of a third person for its adjudication;

SEXUAL ABUSE SHIELD

The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse: (1) Evidence offered to
prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the
alleged victim. (b) Exception.— Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other
than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be admissible.

STATUTE OF NON-CLAIMS
Immediately after granting letters testamentary or administration, the court shall issue a notice requiring all persons having money
claims against the decedent to file them in the office of the clerk of court which shall state the time of the filing of the claim against
estate, which shall not be more than twelve (12) months but less than six (6) months after the date of first publication of the
notice, but before distribution is entered, upon application of an unpaid creditor who failed to file his claim, the court on cause
shown may allow the claim to be filed within the time not exceeding one (10 month.

STRONG ARM OF EQUITY

At times referred to as the “Strong Arm of Equity,” [the Court has] consistently ruled that there is no power the exercise of which is
more delicate and which calls for greater circumspection than the issuance of an injunction. It should only be extended in cases of
great injury where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages; “in cases of extreme urgency;
where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant’s favor; where there is a
willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff’s right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one, and where
the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing continuing relation between the parties,
recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation.”(Thunder Security and Investigation Agency
vs. National Food Authority, supra)
TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE
Suspension of the rules of procedure in case the subject matter of the action is of great importance/involving national interest;

TWO-DISMISSAL
When the notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court
an action based on or including the same claim.

VIATORY RIGHT OF WITNESS

If the witness resides more than 100 km from the place where he is to travel by the ordinary course of travel, or if he is a detention
prisoner and no permission is obtained from the court in which his case is pending, then he cannot be compelled to attend the trial.
The right is available only in CIVIL cases.