Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TAY CHUN SUY v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 169227 2010-07-05	PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT v. VIRGILIO E. PULGAR BRION, J.
As a factual matter, this issue should have been raised at the earliest opportunity before the Labor Arbiter, to allow both parties to present their evidence. The rule is well-settled that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal[28] because this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[29]
	GR NO. 152483 2006-07-14	RURAL BANK OF SIATON v. FELIX MACAJILOS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This issue is being raised by RBSI for the first time on appeal and only belatedly in its memorandum before this Court. Well-settled is the rule that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[25] An issue which was neither averred in the complaint nor raised during the trial in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[26] Thus, we cannot bend backwards to examine this issue raised by RBSI at this late stage in the proceedings.
	GR NO. 145874 2005-09-30	SPS. SALVACION SERRANO LADANGA AND AGUSTIN LADANGA v. BERNARDO ASENETA CORONA, J.
Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Let the decision stand and disturb not what is already settled. The doctrine of stare decisis is a salutary and necessary rule. When a court lays down a principle of law applicable to a certain state of facts, it must adhere to such principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts sued upon are substantially the same.[21] Once a case is decided one way, then another case involving exactly the same point at issue should be decided the same way.[22] It proceeds from the principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike.[23]
	AM No. P-02-1560 2002-03-20	COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LIZA MARIE F. ABDULLAHI PER CURIAM
As to Clerk of Court Paul R. Attolba, Jr., we impose a fine of P2,000.00 instead of P5,000.00 as recommended by the OCA. He cannot escape administrative liability for signing respondent's falsified DTRs on the excuse that he, as a mere subordinate, could not question a memorandum issued by the Presiding Judge. Aside from the fact that court employees are supposed to know what is inherently right and inherently wrong,[29] it appears from his Letter of 31 October 1997[30] that he was not entirely helpless in the matter of respondent's detail in Baguio City. In that Letter he informed the Court Administrator of the reasons why an extension of respondent's detail in Baguio City would not be in the interest of public service. As evidenced by the Court Administrator's response dated 20 February 1998 denying the extension,[31] Clerk of Court Attolba, Jr. was in fact quite successful on the matter.