This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Notably, these issues are raised for the first time on appeal. In fact, it was only in his motion for reconsideration[28] before the CA where he belatedly insisted that assuming that he received the SSDs, his receipt thereof would not mean that he was not illegally dismissed as the new assignments embodied in the detail orders were only "reliever" or temporary positions meant to defeat his right to security of tenure. Needless to say, issues and arguments not raised before the original tribunal cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[29] To entertain this new theory for the first time on appeal is unfair to the other party[30] and is offensive to the rudimentary rules of fair play, justice and due process.[31] | |||||