This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to the above quoted provision, the general rule is that an assignment of error is essential to appellate review and only those errors assigned will be considered.[9] However, an appellate court has a broad discretionary power in waiving the lack of assignment of errors.[10] As exceptions to the general rule, the Court has considered grounds not raised or assigned as errors in the following instances: (1) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within the contemplation of the law; (3) matters not assigned as errors on appeal, whose consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; (4) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (5) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are closely related to the assigned error/s; and (6) matters not assigned as errors on appeal, whose determination is necessary to rule on the question/s properly assigned as errors.[11] The present case falls under the third, fifth and sixth exceptions. | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, the parties in their various pleadings discuss issues, although ostensibly legal, actually require the Court to make findings of fact. It is long settled, by law and jurisprudence, that the Court is not a trier of facts.[10] Therefore, the only relevant issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the remedy sought by the petitioner in the trial court is in violation of the legal principle of the exhaustion of administrative remedies. | |||||