Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ENGR. JOB Y. BESANA v. RODSON F. MAYOR

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 196117 2014-08-13	KRYSTLE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. DOMINGO ALIBIN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The Court likewise rejects the belated claim of res judicata anchored on the dismissal of the petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 127995 filed by Domingo as per its Resolution dated April 28, 1997, which became final and executory on June 16, 1997.[43] As the records disclose, petitioners never raised this issue in the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 54912 before the CA, and even in the subsequent proceedings before the RTC and the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 92765.[44] Settled is the rule that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule.[45]
	GR No. 183804 2013-09-11	S.C. MEGAWORLD CONSTRUCTION v. ENGR. LUIS U. PARADA REYES, J.
"It is well-settled that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule. Any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel."[14]
	GR No. 178909 2012-10-10	SUPERIOR PACKAGING CORPORATION v. ARNEL BALAGSAY REYES, J.
To begin with, the Court will not resolve or dwell on the petitioner's argument on the doubling of respondents' underpayment of wages and regular holiday pay by the DOLE for the simple reason that this is the first time that the petitioner raised such contention. From its pleadings filed in the DOLE and all the way up to the CA, the petitioner never questioned nor discussed such issue. It is only now before the Court that the petitioner belatedly presented such argument. It is well-settled that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage.[15] To consider the alleged facts and arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.[16]
	GR No. 175851 2012-07-04	EMILIA LIM v. MINDANAO WINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is well-settled that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule. Any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel.[26]
	GR No. 189647 2012-02-06	NANCY T. LORZANO v. JUAN TABAYAG REYES, J.
This Court notes that the foregoing argument is being raised by the petitioner for the first time in the instant petition. It is well-settled that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule. Any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel.[18]
	GR No. 169331 2011-09-05	AGAPITO ROM v. ROXAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
A careful review of the records reveals that petitioners raised the issues of respondent's non-posting of bond pursuant to Section IV, paragraph 4.5 of DAR AO No. 4, Series of 2003 and its non-compliance with Section VIII thereof only in their Motion for Reconsideration of the CA's assailed Decision. While petitioners themselves alleged that DAR AO No. 4, Series of 2003 was already in effect during the pendency of their Motions for Reconsideration before the DAR, there is no showing that they raised these points therein. "It is well-settled that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule. Any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel."[60] Thus, petitioners cannot now be allowed to challenge the assailed Orders of the DAR on grounds of technicalities belatedly raised as an afterthought.