Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. ENRIQUETA RASDAS v. JAIME ESTENOR

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 162291 2010-08-11	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SHEMBERG BIOTECH CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In addition, the challenge on the constitutionality of the Interim Rules is a new and belated theory that we should not even entertain. It was not raised before the CA. Well settled is the rule that issues not previously ventilated cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[27] Relatedly, the constitutional question was not raised at the earliest opportunity. The rule is that when issues of constitutionality are raised, the Court can exercise its power of judicial review only if the following requisites are present: (1) the existence of an actual and appropriate case; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.[28] In Umali v. Guingona, Jr.,[29] the constitutionality of the creation of the Presidential Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption was raised in the motion for reconsideration of the RTC's decision. This Court did not entertain the constitutional issue because it was belatedly raised at the RTC.
	GR No. 160265 2009-07-13	NELY T. CO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
The reasons for establishing the principle of "conclusiveness of judgment" are founded on sound public policy, and to grant this petition would have the effect of unsettling this well-settled doctrine. It is allowable to reason back from a judgment to the basis on which it stands, upon the obvious principle that where a conclusion is indisputable, and could have been drawn only from certain premises, the premises are equally indisputable with the conclusion. When a fact has been once determined in the course of a judicial proceeding, and a final judgment has been rendered in accordance therewith, it cannot be again litigated between the same parties without virtually impeaching the correctness of the former decision, which, from motives of public policy, the law does not permit to be done.[28]
	GR No. 182426 2009-02-13	ZENAIDA POLANCO v. CARMEN CRUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court of Appeals correctly noted that petitioners raised the matter of respondent's alleged forum shopping for the first time only in their Motion for Reconsideration. Issues not previously ventilated cannot be raised for the first time on appeal,[18] much less when first raised in the motion for reconsideration of a decision of the appellate court.
	GR No. 167426 2009-01-12	CHRIS GARMENTS CORPORATION v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS QUISUMBING, J.
Third. The matter of employer-employee relationship has been resolved with finality by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in the Resolution dated December 27, 2002. Since petitioner did not appeal this factual finding, then, it may be considered as the final resolution of such issue. To reiterate, "conclusiveness of judgment" has the effect of preclusion of issues.[27]
	GR No. 157592 2008-10-17	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN NACHURA, J.
The doctrine of res judicata has two aspects. The first, known as "bar by prior judgment," or "estoppel by verdict," is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. The second, known as "conclusiveness of judgment," otherwise known as the rule of auter action pendent, ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action.[24]