This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The rule on formal offer of evidence is intertwined with the constitutional guarantee of due process. Parties must be given the opportunity to review the evidence submitted against them and take the necessary actions to secure their case.[89] Hence, any document or object that was marked for identification is not evidence unless it was "formally offered and the opposing counsel [was] given an opportunity to object to it or cross-examine the witness called upon to prove or identify it."[90] | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Fourth. Anent the documents appended to the appellees' brief, we find that the same should not have been considered by the Court of Appeals, having been presented therein for the first time. To rule otherwise would be to deny due process of law to the Republic because these were introduced by the heirs for the first time on appeal, and the OSG had no opportunity to examine the said documents. To allow a party to attach any document to his pleading and expect the court to consider it as evidence may draw unwarranted consequences. The opposing party would be deprived of a chance to examine the document and object to its admissibility. The appellate court would also have difficulty reviewing the documents not previously scrutinized by the court below. Indeed, the pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Court on the inclusion on appeal of documentary evidence or exhibits in the records cannot be stretched as to include such pleadings or documents not offered at the hearing of the case.[41] Piecemeal presentation of evidence is simply not in accord with orderly justice.[42] | |||||
|
2007-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that the essence of due process is that a party is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. Where the opportunity to be heard, either through verbal arguments or pleadings, is accorded and the party can present its side or defend its interest in due course, there is no denial of due process. Indeed, where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process.[34] | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, although forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion, other than by appeal or certiorari, in another, or when a party institutes two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition or increase a party's chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action,[67] the peculiar circumstances attendant in this case bate out a situation akin to forum shopping - there is only one court involved, RTC Pasig City, but the issue of prescription was ultimately resolved by two different branches thereof - Branches 165 and 167. | |||||
|
2006-08-03 |
TINGA J. |
||||
| Any violation of this revised Circular will entail the following sanctions; (a) it shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of the multiple petitions or complaints; (b) any willful and deliberate forum shopping by any party and his counsel through the filing of multiple petitions or complaints to ensure favorable action shall constitute direct contempt of court; and (c) the submission of a false certification shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the filing of criminal action against the guilty party and the institution of disciplinary proceedings against the counsel. [6] Villaluz v. Ligon, G.R. No. 143721, August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 486, 498. | |||||
|
2006-02-16 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Litigants who are represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their cases.[12] Relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence.[13] The circumstances of this case plainly show that petitioner only has himself to blame. Neither can he invoke due process. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.[14] Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy.[15] Where a party, such as petitioner, was afforded this opportunity to participate but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. If said opportunity is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.[16] | |||||