This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-01-27 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As a rule, a party who does not appeal from the decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he has obtained from the lower tribunal, if any, whose decision is brought up on appeal.[26] Due process prevents the grant of additional awards to parties who did not appeal.[27] As an exception, he may assign an error where the purpose is to maintain the judgment on other grounds, but he cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or affirmative relief unless he has also appealed or filed a separate petition.[28] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it did not appeal the CA Decision dated May 15, 2003 and Resolution dated October 6, 2003, which affirmed the RTC Decision dated November 29, 1996. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the RTC's finding that the Rural Bank was a mortgagee in bad faith is final and binding upon it.[23] | |||||
|
2003-10-24 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court -- as distinguished from an ordinary appeal of a criminal case in which the whole case is opened for review -- the appeal is limited to the errors assigned by petitioner.[14] Since respondents did not contest the Decision of the CA, no affirmative relief can be sought by or given to them.[15] Thus, not all the issues raised before the appellate court need to be considered by this Court. The sole issue in the present Petition is the question of inhibition of respondent judge. | |||||