This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-10-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The foregoing provision envisions two scenarios, namely, when evidence is introduced in an issue not alleged in the pleadings and no objection was interjected; and when evidence is offered on an issue not alleged in the pleadings but this time an objection was raised.[29] When the issue is tried without the objection of the parties, it should be treated in all respects as if it had been raised in the pleadings.[30] On the other hand, when there is an objection, the evidence may be admitted where its admission will not prejudice him.[31] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We have stressed that the rule on amendment need not be applied rigidly, particularly where no surprise or prejudice is caused the objecting party. Where there is a variance in defendant's pleadings and the evidence adduced at the trial, the Court may treat the pleading as if it had been amended to conform to the evidence.[10] In Royal Cargo Corporation v. DFS Sports Unlimited, Inc.,[11] the Court stated that: The failure of a party to amend a pleading to conform to the evidence adduced during trial does not preclude adjudication by the court on the basis of such evidence which may embody new issues not raised in the pleadings. x x x Although, the pleading may not have been amended to conform to the evidence submitted during trial, judgment may nonetheless be rendered, not simply on the basis of the issues alleged but also on the issues discussed and the assertions of fact proved in the course of the trial. The court may treat the pleading as if it had been amended to conform to the evidence, although it had not been actually amended. x x x Clearly, a court may rule and render judgment on the basis of the evidence before it even though the relevant pleading had not been previously amended, so long as no surprise or prejudice is thereby caused to the adverse party. Put a little differently, so long as the basic requirements of fair play had been met, as where the litigants were given full opportunity to support their respective contentions and to object to or refute each other's evidence, the court may validly treat the pleadings as if they had been amended to conform to the evidence and proceed to adjudicate on the basis of all the evidence before it. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| This principle is in consonance with the one enunciated by the Court in Sy v. Court of Appeals,[31] that where there is a variance in the defendant's pleadings and the evidence adduced at the trial, the court may treat the pleading as amended to conform to the evidence. | |||||