This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "The purpose of a reply is to deny or allege facts in denial of new matters alleged by way of defense in the answer,"[46] or in this case, in the comment to the petition. "It is not the office or function of a reply to set up or introduce a new [issue] or to amend or amplify the [Petition]."[47] The issue of whether Section 6 of RA 9406 should be given retroactive application in order to exempt petitioners from payment of docket fees was therefore improperly introduced in petitioners' Reply. Moreover, "[t]he rule in pleadings and practice is that no new issue in a case can be raised in a pleading which by due diligence could have been raised in previous pleadings."[48] Here, petitioners at the outset could have very well raised the said issue in the Petition since at the time of its filing on June 7, 2007, RA 9406 was already in effect.[49] However, they failed to do so. Besides, for this Court to take cognizance of the same is to offend the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process since SLI had no chance to propound its argument in connection thereto. This is because even if it wanted to, SLI could not anymore do so in its Memorandum as no new issues or arguments may be raised in the said pleading, it being only the summation of the parties' previous pleadings.[50] For these reasons, the Court sees no need to belabor the issue of the retroactive application of Section 6 of RA 9406. | |||||