This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-11-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Finally, we note that Mercury alleges that the trial court deviated from the issue identified during the pre-trial. Recall, however, that the parties entered into an express stipulation that the only issue to be resolved is whether Mercury was justified in suspending the rental payments. This issue is not limited to whether the building is structurally sound, but includes all other matters pertinent to whether Mercury's nonpayment was justified. A pre-trial order is not meant to be a detailed catalogue of each and every issue that is to be or may be taken up during the trial.[18] Issues that are impliedly included therein or may be inferable therefrom by necessary implication are as much integral parts of the pre-trial order as those that are expressly stipulated.[19] In this petition the condition of the building at the time of the contract's perfection was a material information to resolve the issue of Mercury's liability for rentals claimed by Surety. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Generally, pre-trial is primarily intended to make certain that all issues necessary to the disposition of a case are properly raised. Thus, to obviate the element of surprise, parties are expected to disclose at the pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact they intend to raise at the trial.[42] However, in cases in which the issue may involve privileged or impeaching matters,[43] or if the issues are impliedly included therein or may be inferable therefrom by necessary implication to be integral parts of the pre-trial order as much as those that are expressly stipulated, the general rule will not apply.[44] Thus, in Velasco v. Apostol,[45] this Court highlighted the aforesaid exception and ruled in this wise:A pre-trial order is not meant to be a detailed catalogue of each and every issue that is to be or may be taken up during the trial. Issues that are impliedly included therein or may be inferable therefrom by necessary implication are as much integral parts of the pre-trial order as those that are expressly stipulated. | |||||
|
2006-09-22 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| A: If it is part of the reservation it cannot be sold and it is already part of those government lands that has been assigned to other government agencies that is no longer within my jurisdiction. Meaning to say I have no more say on that because the proclamation to the effect was reserving this for particular purpose under the DND .....[32] (Words in bracket added.) At any rate, Palad's testimony drew nary an objection from private respondent SHAI. It even cross- examined said witness.[33] The rule obtains that the introduction of evidence bearing on an issue not otherwise included in the pre-trial order amounts to implied consent conferring jurisdiction on the court to try such issue.[34] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Pre-trial is primarily intended to insure that the parties properly raise all issues necessary to dispose of a case.[7] The parties must disclose during pre-trial all issues they intend to raise during the trial, except those involving privileged or impeaching matters.[8] Although a pre-trial order is not meant to catalogue each issue that the parties may take up during the trial, issues not included in the pre-trial order may be considered only if they are impliedly included in the issues raised or inferable from the issues raised by necessary implication.[9] The basis of the rule is simple. Petitioners are bound by the delimitation of the issues during the pre-trial because they themselves agreed to the same.[10] | |||||