Lawyerly

GR No. 181368

2012-02-22

GEORGE S. TOLENTINO v. PACIFICO S. LAUREL

PERALTA, J.

Petitioners' assertion that it was necessary to include the government, through the Department of Agriculture, as a party to the case, in order to have a complete determination of the case, is specious, as the same was never raised before the RTC and the CA. It is settled that 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 they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of due process impel this rule.[13]

GR No. 187926

2012-02-15

DR. EMMANUEL JARCIA v. PEOPLE

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]

GR No. 131481

2011-03-16

BUKLOD NANG MAGBUBUKID SA LUPAING RAMOS v. E. M. RAMOS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Indeed, there are exceptions to the aforecited rule that no question may be raised for the first time on appeal. Though not raised below, the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be considered by the reviewing court, as it may be raised at any stage. The said court may also consider an issue not properly raised during trial when there is plain error. Likewise, it may entertain such arguments when there are jurisprudential developments affecting the issues, or when the issues raised present a matter of public policy.[64] Buklod, however, did not allege, much less argue, that its case falls under any of these exceptions.

GR No. 152266

2010-07-02

HEIRS OF PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. ANGELINA PERONA

PERALTA, J.

Petitioners' allegation that their predecessor Pedro acquired the land covered by TCT No. 78181 by means of oral partition cannot be taken cognizance by this Court. This allegation was never raised before the RTC. In the trial court, Pedro's theory was that the property subject of this case was adjudicated to him by virtue of a document executed by Andrea in his favor. Well settled is the rule that issues and arguments not brought before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Basic considerations of due process impel this rule.[19]

GR No. 161074

2010-03-22

MANUEL T. DE GUIA v. PRESIDING JUDGE

PERALTA, J.

Finally, petitioner De Guia's claim that he was an innocent purchaser for value, who bought the subject property without notice of the mortgage on the subject property, was not raised in the trial court. As a rule, no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the court below. 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 they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of due process impel this rule.[24]

GR NO. 162927

2007-03-06

MARCELINO B. AGOY v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

We note that these are not the same issues passed upon by the Court of Appeals. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioners raised only the issues of (a) whether the trial court properly disposed of the case, and (b) whether PNB could be legally represented by its legal department instead of the OGCC. A party cannot raise new issues or change his theory on appeal.[15] Thus, we shall address only two proper issues: (1) Did the trial court properly dismiss the complaint? and (2) Does PNB have to be represented by the OGCC?

GR NO. 154975

2007-01-29

GENERAL CREDIT CORPORATION v. ALSONS DEVELOPMENT

GARCIA, J.

There are, to be sure, exceptions to the rule respecting what may be raised for the first time on appeal. Lack of jurisdiction over when the issues raised present a matter of public policy[16] comes immediately to mind. None of the well-recognized exceptions obtain in this case, however.

GR NO. 167959

2006-04-19

FILIPINAS SYSTEMS 'FILSYSTEMS v. ERNESTO GATLABAYAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

As a rule, no questions will be entertained on appeal unless they have been raised below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court or agency need not be, and ordinarily, will not be considered by the reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time at the later stage. Neither consideration of due process impels this rule.[21] Understandably then, the appellate court opted not to resolve this issue in its decision and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration of said decision.

GR NO. 166647

2006-03-31

PAG-ASA STEEL WORKS v. SIXTH DIVISION

CALLEJO, SR., J.

On the procedural issue, well-settled is the rule, also applicable in labor cases, that issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. [34] 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 the reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of due process impel this rule. [35]

GR NO. 165501

2006-03-28

SPS. JESUS AND EVANGELINE PASCO v. PISON-ARCEO AGRICULTURAL

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The aforecited rule is not without exception, however. As correctly argued by petitioners, though not raised below, the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be considered by the reviewing court as it may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.[22]

GR NO. 158149

2006-02-09

BOSTON BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PERLA P. MANALO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It must be stressed that the Court may consider an issue not raised during the trial when there is plain error.[51] Although a factual issue was not raised in the trial court, such issue may still be considered and resolved by the Court in the interest of substantial justice, if it finds that to do so is necessary to arrive at a just decision,[52] or when an issue is closely related to an issue raised in the trial court and the Court of Appeals and is necessary for a just and complete resolution of the case.[53] When the trial court decides a case in favor of a party on certain grounds, the Court may base its decision upon some other points, which the trial court or appellate court ignored or erroneously decided in favor of a party.[54]

GR No. 153447

2004-02-23

VICENTE G. VILLARANDA v. SPS. HONORIO G. VILLARANDA AND ANA MARIA Y. VILLARANDA

PANGANIBAN, J.

Petitioner's contentions must fail. It is well-settled that 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 they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage.[37] Basic rules of fair play, justice and due process impel this rule. Any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel.[38]

GR No. 142974

2003-09-22

SPS. SHEM G. ALFARERO AND AURELIA TAGALOG v. SPS. PETRA AND SANCHO SEVILLA

QUISUMBING, J.

Moreover, the record clearly and categorically shows that petitioners' second query was not raised in the proceedings at the first instance. As a rule, basic considerations of due process dictate that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the court below.[16] Points of law, theories of the case, questions of fact and law, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not and ordinarily will not be considered by the reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage.

GR No. 142501

2001-12-07

LEONARDA L. MONSANTO v. JESUS

PANGANIBAN, J.

We disagree. As a general rule, an appeal is limited to a review of the specific legal issues raised in the petition by the parties. However, even if not raised, an error in jurisdiction may be taken up.[27] Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings -- even on appeal.[28] In Del Rosario v. Mendoza,[29] we have ruled as follows:"Indeed there are exceptions to the aforecited rule that no question may be raised for the first time on appeal. Though not raised below, the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be considered by the reviewing court, as it may be raised at any stage." The reason is that jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by law, not by the courts or the parties themselves. "Where the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action, the invocation of this defense may be done at any time. It is neither for the courts nor the parties to violate or disregard that rule, let alone to confer that jurisdiction, this matter being legislative in character. x x x."[30]

	GR No. 181368 2012-02-22	GEORGE S. TOLENTINO v. PACIFICO S. LAUREL PERALTA, J.
Petitioners' assertion that it was necessary to include the government, through the Department of Agriculture, as a party to the case, in order to have a complete determination of the case, is specious, as the same was never raised before the RTC and the CA. It is settled that 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 they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of due process impel this rule.[13]
	GR No. 187926 2012-02-15	DR. EMMANUEL JARCIA v. PEOPLE 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]
	GR No. 131481 2011-03-16	BUKLOD NANG MAGBUBUKID SA LUPAING RAMOS v. E. M. RAMOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Indeed, there are exceptions to the aforecited rule that no question may be raised for the first time on appeal. Though not raised below, the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be considered by the reviewing court, as it may be raised at any stage. The said court may also consider an issue not properly raised during trial when there is plain error. Likewise, it may entertain such arguments when there are jurisprudential developments affecting the issues, or when the issues raised present a matter of public policy.[64] Buklod, however, did not allege, much less argue, that its case falls under any of these exceptions.
	GR No. 152266 2010-07-02	HEIRS OF PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. ANGELINA PERONA PERALTA, J.
Petitioners' allegation that their predecessor Pedro acquired the land covered by TCT No. 78181 by means of oral partition cannot be taken cognizance by this Court. This allegation was never raised before the RTC. In the trial court, Pedro's theory was that the property subject of this case was adjudicated to him by virtue of a document executed by Andrea in his favor. Well settled is the rule that issues and arguments not brought before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Basic considerations of due process impel this rule.[19]
	GR No. 161074 2010-03-22	MANUEL T. DE GUIA v. PRESIDING JUDGE PERALTA, J.
Finally, petitioner De Guia's claim that he was an innocent purchaser for value, who bought the subject property without notice of the mortgage on the subject property, was not raised in the trial court. As a rule, no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the court below. 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 they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of due process impel this rule.[24]
	GR NO. 162927 2007-03-06	MARCELINO B. AGOY v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
We note that these are not the same issues passed upon by the Court of Appeals. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioners raised only the issues of (a) whether the trial court properly disposed of the case, and (b) whether PNB could be legally represented by its legal department instead of the OGCC. A party cannot raise new issues or change his theory on appeal.[15] Thus, we shall address only two proper issues: (1) Did the trial court properly dismiss the complaint? and (2) Does PNB have to be represented by the OGCC?
	GR NO. 154975 2007-01-29	GENERAL CREDIT CORPORATION v. ALSONS DEVELOPMENT GARCIA, J.
There are, to be sure, exceptions to the rule respecting what may be raised for the first time on appeal. Lack of jurisdiction over when the issues raised present a matter of public policy[16] comes immediately to mind. None of the well-recognized exceptions obtain in this case, however.
	GR NO. 167959 2006-04-19	FILIPINAS SYSTEMS 'FILSYSTEMS v. ERNESTO GATLABAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
As a rule, no questions will be entertained on appeal unless they have been raised below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court or agency need not be, and ordinarily, will not be considered by the reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time at the later stage. Neither consideration of due process impels this rule.[21] Understandably then, the appellate court opted not to resolve this issue in its decision and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration of said decision.
	GR NO. 166647 2006-03-31	PAG-ASA STEEL WORKS v. SIXTH DIVISION CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the procedural issue, well-settled is the rule, also applicable in labor cases, that issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. [34] 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 the reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of due process impel this rule. [35]
	GR NO. 165501 2006-03-28	SPS. JESUS AND EVANGELINE PASCO v. PISON-ARCEO AGRICULTURAL CARPIO MORALES, J.
The aforecited rule is not without exception, however. As correctly argued by petitioners, though not raised below, the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be considered by the reviewing court as it may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.[22]
	GR NO. 158149 2006-02-09	BOSTON BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PERLA P. MANALO CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that the Court may consider an issue not raised during the trial when there is plain error.[51] Although a factual issue was not raised in the trial court, such issue may still be considered and resolved by the Court in the interest of substantial justice, if it finds that to do so is necessary to arrive at a just decision,[52] or when an issue is closely related to an issue raised in the trial court and the Court of Appeals and is necessary for a just and complete resolution of the case.[53] When the trial court decides a case in favor of a party on certain grounds, the Court may base its decision upon some other points, which the trial court or appellate court ignored or erroneously decided in favor of a party.[54]
	GR No. 153447 2004-02-23	VICENTE G. VILLARANDA v. SPS. HONORIO G. VILLARANDA AND ANA MARIA Y. VILLARANDA PANGANIBAN, J.
Petitioner's contentions must fail. It is well-settled that 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 they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage.[37] Basic rules of fair play, justice and due process impel this rule. Any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel.[38]
	GR No. 142974 2003-09-22	SPS. SHEM G. ALFARERO AND AURELIA TAGALOG v. SPS. PETRA AND SANCHO SEVILLA QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, the record clearly and categorically shows that petitioners' second query was not raised in the proceedings at the first instance. As a rule, basic considerations of due process dictate that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the court below.[16] Points of law, theories of the case, questions of fact and law, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not and ordinarily will not be considered by the reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage.
	GR No. 142501 2001-12-07	LEONARDA L. MONSANTO v. JESUS PANGANIBAN, J.
We disagree. As a general rule, an appeal is limited to a review of the specific legal issues raised in the petition by the parties. However, even if not raised, an error in jurisdiction may be taken up.[27] Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings -- even on appeal.[28] In Del Rosario v. Mendoza,[29] we have ruled as follows:"Indeed there are exceptions to the aforecited rule that no question may be raised for the first time on appeal. Though not raised below, the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be considered by the reviewing court, as it may be raised at any stage." The reason is that jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by law, not by the courts or the parties themselves. "Where the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action, the invocation of this defense may be done at any time. It is neither for the courts nor the parties to violate or disregard that rule, let alone to confer that jurisdiction, this matter being legislative in character. x x x."[30]

ELAINE A. DEL ROSARIO v. MELINDA F. BONGA