This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-03-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that, in this jurisdiction, a party cannot change his theory of the case or his cause of action on appeal.[31] It affirms that courts of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a question not in issue.[32] Thus, a judgment that goes beyond the issues and purports to adjudicate something on which the court did not hear the parties, is not only irregular but also extrajudicial and invalid.[33] The rule rests on the fundamental tenets of fair play.[34] The exception to this rule is when the factual bases thereof would not require presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable it to properly meet the issue raised in the new theory.[35] In such a case, the court may give due course to the petition and resolve the principal issues raised therein.[36] The instant case does not fall under this exception. To stress, the issue of whether or not Padrones or respondents, as his heirs, are entitled to disability benefits is a factual question that was never alleged, let alone proven before the LA, the NLRC and the CA. Understandably, petitioners did not present evidence before the lower tribunals to refute respondents' alleged entitlement to disability benefits because this was never an issue. It was only after the CA has awarded them disability benefits that respondents changed their theory by claiming that they are indeed entitled to such benefits instead of death benefits. Thus, respondents' belated change of their theory of the case should be disallowed and the instant petition granted. | |||||
|
2014-07-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Procedural rules forbid parties to change the theory of the case on appeal. In Bote v. Spouses Veloso,[36] we defined the theory of the case as: [a] comprehensive and orderly mental arrangement of principle and facts, conceived and constructed for the purpose of securing a judgment or decree of a court in favor of a litigant; the particular line of reasoning of either party to a suit, the purpose being to bring together certain facts of the case in a logical sequence and to correlate them in a way that produces in the decision maker's mind a definite result or conclusion favored by the advocate. | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that a party who adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and decided by the lower courts or tribunals will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal,[30] not because of the strict application of procedural rules, but as a matter of fairness.[31] Basic considerations of due process dictate that theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court would not ordinarily be considered by a reviewing court,[32] except when their factual bases would not require presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable him to properly meet the issue raised,[33] such as when the factual bases of such novel theory, issue or argument is (a) subject of judicial notice; or (b) had already been judicially admitted,[34] which do not obtain in this case. | |||||