This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-11-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In G.R. No. 203930, J.M. Tuason and THI, in turn, take exception to the CA's finding that, as owners of the land, they were in bad faith for not opposing the construction of the structures and amenities thereon pursuant to Articles 454[54] and 447[55] of the Civil Code. Aside from the fact, however, that THI appears to have purchased the property long after said improvements were built on Block 494, the supposed bad faith of J.M. Tuason and THI is a matter that was neither litigated before the RTC nor raised as error before the CA. Necessitated by basic considerations of due process,[56] the rule is settled that, unless it affects the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the appealed judgment, no error will be considered unless assigned as such or is closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief.[57] Courts are, moreover, called upon to resolve actual cases and controversies, not to render advisory opinions[58] which are beyond the permissible scope of judicial power.[59] The CA contravened these rule when, simultaneous to its determination of bad faith on the part of J.M. Tuason and THI, it ruled that the resultant damages will have to be determined in a sparate proceeding specially commenced for the purpose. | |||||
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| First, breach of contract as a cause of action was never raised by petitioner in the labor tribunals and the appellate court below and, consequently, not one among the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC nor the CA addressed the same in their respective decisions. It is only being raised for the first time in the petition. Thus, this Court, likewise, will not discuss the same in respect of the well-settled rule, which also applies in labor cases, that issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; such 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.[78] | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| As a final point, we note that respondent Chua has raised with this Court the issue of the propriety of the partial summary judgment issued by the RTC. Notably, respondent Chua never raised this issue in his petition for certiorari before the CA. It is well settled that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below.[39] Basic considerations of due process impel the adoption of this rule.[40] | |||||