Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CALTEX v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 177484 2014-07-18	SPS. ALEJANDRO MANZANILLA AND REMEDIOS VELASCO v. WATERFIELDS INDUSTRIES CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
Moreover, "[u]nder the doctrine of estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. A party may not go back on his own acts and representations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon them. In the law of evidence, whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing [to be] true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be permitted to falsify it."[38]
	GR No. 192371 2014-01-15	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL OÑATE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Last, during the pre-trial conference, the issue of the validity of undocumented withdrawals was properly put into issue. The parties also agreed, as a collateral issue, that should it appear that the bank was not authorized to make the undocumented withdrawals, the next issue for consideration would be whether the amount subject thereof should be credited back to Oñate's accounts.[88] The case of negative balances as alluded to by Land Bank, however, is different. It was never put into issue during the pre-trial conference. In Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[89] we held that "to obviate the element of surprise, parties are expected to disclose at a pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except such as may involve privileged or impeaching matters. The determination of issues at a pre-trial conference bars the consideration of other questions on appeal." Land Bank interposed its claim to the negative balances for the first time only when it filed its Memorandum with the RTC.
	GR No. 177526 2008-07-04	PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. CHOWKING FOOD CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
v. Court of Appeals:[24]
	GR No. 170606 2007-11-23	LCK INDUSTRIES INC. v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK 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.
	GR NO. 129928 2005-08-25	MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL II COOPERATIVE v. VIRGILIO S. DAVID TINGA, J.
The use of the word "may" in the aforequoted provision shows that such a hearing is not mandatory but discretionary. It is an auxiliary verb indicating liberty, opportunity, permission and possibility.[28]
	GR No. 143286 2004-04-14	PROCOPIO VILLANUEVA v. CA 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]
	GR No. 127469 2004-01-15	PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. CA CARPIO, J.
The BANK raises for the very first time the issue of judicial admission on the part of Marcos. The BANK even has the audacity to fault the Court of Appeals for not ruling on this issue when it never raised this matter before the appellate court or before the trial court. Obviously, this issue is only an afterthought. An issue raised for the first time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings in the lower court is barred by estoppel.[28]