This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-03-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We find no error by the CA in resolving the issues on the nature and duration of the petitioners' possession and on the alienable character of the subject land. These issues were apparently not raised by the Republic in its appeal before the CA, but are crucial in determining whether the petitioners have registrable title over the subject land. In Mendoza v. Bautista,[10] the Court held that the appellate court reserves the right, resting on its public duty, to take cognizance of palpable error on the face of the record and proceedings, and to notice errors that are obvious upon inspection and are of a controlling character, in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice due to oversight. | |||||
|
2008-11-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We had also observed that PAL is also guilty of raising prohibited new matters[23] and in changing its theory of defense[24] since it is only in the present petition that it alleged the contributory negligence of Lopez. | |||||
|
2007-09-05 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Procedurally, it is well within the authority of the Court of Appeals to raise, if it deems proper under the circumstances obtaining, error/s not assigned on an appealed case. In Mendoza v. Bautista,[44] this Court recognized the broad discretionary power of an appellate court to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned, thus:As a rule, no issue may be raised on appeal unless it has been brought before the lower tribunal for its consideration. Higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below, but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration or on appeal. | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| However, in Mendoza v. Bautista,[9] this Court declared that:Indeed, our rules recognize the broad discretionary power of an appellate court to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned. Section 8 of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court provides: | |||||
|
2006-09-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| (a) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law; (c) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; (d) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (e) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and (f) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent.[17] This is in the interest of justice, to reserve to the appellate court the right, resting in public duty to take cognizance of palpable error on the face of the record and proceedings; to notice errors which are obvious upon inspection and of a controlling character, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice from oversight. Indeed, an appellate court has wide discretion to correct a fundamental error or one which lies at the base of the proceeding and affects the judgment necessarily.[18] | |||||
|
2006-02-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| [11] Mendoza v. Bautista, G.R. No. 143666, March 18, 2005, 453 SCRA 691, 702-703; Sumipat v. Banga, G.R. No. 155810, August 13, 2004, 436 SCRA 521, 532-533; Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals, 332 Phil. 206, 217-218 (1996). | |||||