This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-12-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is evident from petitioner's Complaint and from her open court testimony that the reliance was on the alleged tortious acts committed against her by respondents PHI and DTPCI, through their management and staff. It is now too late in the day to raise the said argument for the first time before this Court.[71] | |||||
|
2009-10-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As aptly pointed out by petitioner RCBC in its Comment, not once did Marcopper question the validity of the chattel mortgage on the Rig Haul Trucks and the Demag Shovel. But now, Marcopper is asserting that the deed of chattel mortgage on these equipment was executed for a consideration that did not materialize and RCBC should have released the mortgage. It is now too late for respondent to contradict its previous judicial admissions in the prior proceedings of the case. It would appear that in Marcopper's attempt to seek reversal of the Court's Decision, it is in effect changing its theory of the case. Well-settled is the rule that a party is not allowed to change the theory of the case or the cause of action on appeal.[18] We have consistently rejected the pernicious practice of shifting to a new theory on appeal in the hope of a favorable result.[19] Issues not raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of justice and fair play.[20] Matters, theories or arguments not brought out in the proceedings below will not ordinarily be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[21] | |||||