Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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
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.
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).
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]).
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.
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.
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)
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)
Hornbook Doctrine
An accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the
complaint or information.
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.
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.
• 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.
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.
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