Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IBARRA P. ORTEGA v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 183367 2012-03-14	SECOND DIVISION AUSTRALIAN PROFESSIONAL REALTY v. MUNICIPALITY OF PADRE GARCIA BATANGAS PROVINCE SERENO, J.
While the Court may dismiss a petition outright for being an improper remedy, it may in certain instances proceed to review the substance of the petition.[11] Thus, this Court will treat this Petition as if it were filed under Rule 65.
	GR No. 194306 2012-02-06	SEBASTIAN F. OASAY v. PALACIO DEL GOBERNADOR CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION REYES, J.
Moreover, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but finality when affirmed by the CA.[32]
	GR No. 177995 2011-06-15	HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is settled that the Court is not a trier of facts and accords great weight to the factual findings of lower courts or agencies whose function is to resolve factual matters. It is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again. Moreover, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but finality when affirmed by the CA,[27] as in the case at bar.
	GR No. 146839 2011-03-23	ROLANDO T. CATUNGAL v. ANGEL S. RODRIGUEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Petitioners should be reminded that the object of pleadings is to draw the lines of battle between the litigants and to indicate fairly the nature of the claims or defenses of both parties.[56] In Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[57] we held that "[w]hen a party adopts a certain theory in the trial court, he will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal, for to permit him to do so would not only be unfair to the other party but it would also be offensive' to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process."
	GR No. 174725 2011-01-26	ALEXANDER B. GATUS v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The burden of proof is thus on petitioner to show that any of the above conditions have been met in his case. The required proof is further discussed in Ortega v. Social Security Commission[17]: The requisite quantum of proof in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies is neither proof beyond reasonable doubt nor preponderance of evidence. In this type of cases, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. In this case, substantial evidence abounds.[18]
	GR No. 171033 2010-08-03	CITY MAYOR v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
The issues in every case are limited to those presented in the pleadings. The object of the pleadings is to draw the lines of battle between the litigants and to indicate fairly the nature of the claims or defenses of both parties.[17] Points of law, theories, issues and arguments should be brought to the attention of the trial court to give the opposing party an opportunity to present further evidence material to these matters during judicial proceedings before the lower court. Otherwise, it would be too late to raise these issues during appeal. A party cannot, on appeal, change fundamentally the nature of the issue in the case. When a party deliberately adopts a certain theory and the case is decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change the same on appeal, because to permit him to do so would be unfair to the adverse party.[18]