Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ABDUSAKUR M. TAN v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 186359 2010-03-05	JESUS O. TYPOCO v. COMELEC
D E C I S I O N In Tan v. Commission on Elections[1] (COMELEC), this Court emphasized that the factual findings of the poll body, which has the expertise in the enforcement and administration of all election laws and regulations, are binding on this Court and must be respected because this Court is not a trier of facts[2] and is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the truth of factual allegations.[3] While this principle may admit of rare exceptions, it should apply with full force to the instant case.
	GR No. 180302 2010-02-05	JIMMY ARENO v. SKYCABLE PCC-BAGUIO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioner also challenges the validity of the suspension order for being unsigned. The same has no merit. Upon careful examination, it appears that the contention was raised for the first time in petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Decision of the CA. In Arceno v. Government Service Insurance System,[39] the hornbook principle that new issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal was reiterated. We emphasized therein that the rule is based on principles of fairness and due process and is applicable to appealed decisions originating from regular courts, administrative agencies or quasi-judicial bodies, whether rendered in a civil case, a special proceeding or a criminal case, citing the case of Tan v. Commission on Elections.[40] Even assuming that it was raised, the same would be without merit because the suspension order bears the signature of respondent's engineering manager and petitioner's immediate superior, Al Luzano, who, in fact, is a member of the panel committee that conducted an investigation on the complaint of Soriano against petitioner.
	GR No. 162374 2009-06-18	RODOLFO B. ARCEÑO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM PERALTA, J.
Verily, therefore, the CA was correct in not addressing the issue of whether petitioner should be compensated for his alleged cardiovascular disease, as it is hornbook principle that new issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court emphasized this rule in Tan v. Commission on Elections,[10] explaining that the rule is based on principles of fairness and due process, and is applicable to appealed decisions originating from regular courts, administrative agencies or quasi-judicial bodies, whether rendered in a civil case, a special proceeding, or a criminal case.[11] Thus, in Otilia Sta. Ana v. Spouses Leon and Aurora Carpo,[12] it was stated that courts must refrain from entertaining an issue raised by a petitioner for the first time on appeal.
	GR No. 181295 2009-04-02	HARLIN CASTILLO ABAYON v. COMELEC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 21 May 2007, Abayon filed with the COMELEC SPC NO. 07-069, entitled, "PETITION TO EXCLUDE CERTIFICATE OF CANVAS (COC) OF MUNICIPALITY OF CATUBIG, NORTHERN SAMAR WHICH WAS PREPARED UNDER DURESS, THREATS, COERCION OR INTIMIDATION."[6]
	GR No. 164340 2008-11-28	OTILIA STA. ANA v. SPS. LEON G. CARPO AND AURORA CARPO NACHURA, J.
Likewise, we refrain from entertaining the issue raised by respondents that petitioner and her family are not landless tenants and are therefore not deserving of any protection under our laws on agrarian reform, because fairness and due process dictate that issues not raised in the proceedings below should not be raised for the first time on appeal.[39]
	GR No. 179848 2008-11-27	NESTOR A. JACOT v. ROGEN T. DAL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a rule, no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule.[26] Courts have neither the time nor the resources to accommodate parties who chose to go to trial haphazardly.[27]
	GR No. 178884 2008-06-30	RICARDO P. PRESBITERO v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
Stressed repeatedly in our prior decisions is that a failure of election may be declared only in the three instances[14] stated in Section 6[15] of the OEC: the election has not been held; the election has been suspended before the hour fixed by law; and the preparation and the transmission of the election returns have given rise to the consequent failure to elect, meaning nobody emerged as the winner.[16] Furthermore, the reason for such failure of election should be force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes.[17] Finally, before the COMELEC can grant a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, the concurrence of 2 conditions must be established, namely: (1) no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect; and (2) the votes cast would affect the result of the election.[18]