This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-02-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| And finally, by such admission, PSI barred itself from arguing in its second motion for reconsideration that the concept of corporate responsibility was not yet in existence at the time Natividad underwent treatment;[58] and that if it had any corporate responsibility, the same was limited to reporting the missing gauzes and did not include "taking an active step in fixing the negligence committed."[59] An admission made in the pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and is conclusive as to him, and all proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether or not objection is interposed by a party.[60] | |||||
|
2009-10-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In fact, we note that respondent has offered as evidence, Exh. "B", the same deed of pledge, as a further security to the loan agreement obtained by Marcopper from RCBC. With respondent's own admission in its pleading of the execution of the subject Deed of Pledge, it cannot now be allowed to contradict its statement and claim that the same document had been falsified without violating the rules on fair play and due process. An admission made in the pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and is conclusive as to him, and all proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored.[16] Moreover, issues and arguments which are not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court ordinarily will not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. If an issue is raised only in the motion for reconsideration of the appellate court's decision, it is as if it was never raised in that court at all.[17] Respondent by its own previous admission is bound as to the due execution of the deed of pledge. | |||||