This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-09-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, the Court would like to highlight the fact that Cataquiz never raised this issue before the CA, despite having had ample time to do so. The records show that the Ombudsman promulgated its resolution on November 30, 2004, more than three months prior to the filing by the respondent of his petition before the CA on March 2, 2005.[33] Nevertheless, he only chose to mention this after the CA had rendered its decision and after the submission of his comment on the petition at bench. This is evidently a desperate effort on his part to strengthen his position and support the decision of the CA exonerating him from any administrative liability. The Court has consistently ruled that issues not previously ventilated cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[34] Otherwise, to consider such issues and arguments belatedly raised by a party would be tantamount to a blatant disregard of the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.[35] Therefore, this issue does not merit the attention of the Court. | |||||