This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Since the said Affidavit was not formally offered before the COMELEC, respondent had no opportunity to examine and controvert it. To admit this document would be contrary to due process.[29] Additionally, the piecemeal presentation of evidence is not in accord with orderly justice.[30] | |||||
|
2008-11-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Purefoods argues that the Court of Appeals erred in denying the affidavits it attached to its motion for reconsideration on the ground that these were presented for the first time, and additionally states that the affidavits are just corroboration, clarification and/or explanation of what it had already argued in its previous pleadings. The point is not pivotal.[47] After all, there is no need for such supporting affidavits. Purefoods had already disputed the authenticity and veracity of the pieces of evidence presented by Neri in the earlier proceedings, plausibly and successfully as it turned out ultimately. Verily, this Court earlier debunked the documents as not sufficient to establish the purported employer-employee relationship. | |||||
|
2007-01-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Courts have the inherent power to amend their decisions to make them conformable to law and justice. This prerogative, however, is not absolute. The rules do not contemplate amendments that are substantial in nature.[22] They merely cover formal changes or such that will not affect the crux of the decision, like the correction of typographical or clerical errors. Courts will violate due process if they make substantial amendments in their decisions without affording the other party the right to contest the new evidence presented in a motion for reconsideration.[23] The Court finds that the change in the penalty by the RTC in the instant case did not involve the consideration of any new evidence but a mere "correction" of the penalty imposed to conform with the Revised Penal Code and The Indeterminate Sentence Law. | |||||
|
2006-10-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The fact that petitioner does not have a tax declaration over the property was taken against him. This is erroneous. As pointed out earlier, petitioner is yet to become the owner of the property. Obviously, he cannot declare the property as his own for tax purposes since it is still owned by the Bank of Commerce. Moreover, the RTC should not have permitted respondent's belated submission in evidence of the tax declarations. In the first place, possession is the only issue in a case for forcible entry. Also, there is no justification for the delay in presenting said evidence.[34] | |||||
|
2005-04-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Undeniably, the action of the respondent against the petitioners in the MTC is one for unlawful detainer. He sought to exercise his possessory rights over his property, Lot 6, Block LCH-28 covered by TCT No. RT-120464. The only issue in the said case is the physical and natural possession of the property subject of his complaint[27] and not that of any other property, including Lot 13. The respondent, as plaintiff, was burdened to prove prior physical possession of the property before 1966 when the petitioners' grandparents occupied a portion of his property and constructed a house thereon.[28] The respondent adduced evidence that, indeed, the petitioners occupied a portion of his property with an area of 18 square meters where the 1/3 portion of their house is located. Hence, as declared by the RTC in its January 29, 2001 Decision, the petitioners were obliged to vacate that portion of the property. | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The rule in appellate procedure is that a factual question may not be raised for the first time on appeal,[17] and documents forming no part of the proofs before the appellate court will not be considered in disposing of the issues of an action.[18] This is true whether the decision elevated for review originated from a regular court[19] or an administrative agency or quasi-judicial body,[20] and whether it was rendered in a civil case,[21] a special proceeding,[22] or a criminal case.[23] Piecemeal presentation of evidence is simply not in accord with orderly justice.[24] | |||||