This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-03-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction was raised by SRRDC only before the CA. It was never presented or discussed before the DARAB for obvious reasons, i.e., it was SRRDC itself that invoked the latter's jurisdiction. As a rule, when a party adopts a certain theory, and the case is tried and decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal.[95] Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such late stage.[96] To permit SRRDC to change its theory on appeal would not only be unfair to Amante, et al. but would also be offensive to the basic scales of fair play, justice and due process.[97] | |||||