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. CatubigPastoral, 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
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.
