This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Notably, these issues are raised for the first time on appeal. In fact, it was only in his motion for reconsideration[28] before the CA where he belatedly insisted that assuming that he received the SSDs, his receipt thereof would not mean that he was not illegally dismissed as the new assignments embodied in the detail orders were only "reliever" or temporary positions meant to defeat his right to security of tenure. Needless to say, issues and arguments not raised before the original tribunal cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[29] To entertain this new theory for the first time on appeal is unfair to the other party[30] and is offensive to the rudimentary rules of fair play, justice and due process.[31] | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This Court cannot also stamp its imprimatur on the petitioners' contention that no physician-patient relationship existed between them and patient Roy Jr., since they were not his attending physicians at that time. They claim that they were merely requested by the ER nurse to see the patient while they were passing by the ER for their lunch. Firstly, this issue was never raised during the trial at the RTC or even before the CA. The petitioners, therefore, raise the want of doctor-patient relationship for the first time on appeal with this Court. It has been settled that "issues raised for the first time on appeal cannot be considered because a party is not permitted to change his theory on appeal. To allow him to do so is unfair to the other party and offensive to the rules of fair play, justice and due process."[18] Stated differently, basic considerations of due process dictate that theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court.[19] | |||||
|
2003-11-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As a rule, a party who deliberately adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and decided by the lower court will not be permitted to change theory on appeal. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such late stage. Basic considerations of due process underlie this rule. It would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no opportunity to present further evidence material to the new theory, which it could have done had it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial court. To permit petitioner in this case to change its theory on appeal would thus be unfair to respondent, and offend the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[5] | |||||