Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. WEST NEGROS COLLEGE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 158920 2012-11-28	REPUBLIC v. MARAWI-MARANTAO GENERAL HOSPITAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The alleged nullity of the deed of conditional sale because the period of redemption had expired is wrong. When SSC Resolution No. 984-s.96 dated December 10, 1996 approved the proposal of Atty. Mangondato to "redeem/repurchase" the property, the SSC is deemed to have waived, or even agreed to extend, the original limited period of redemption.[31] As this Court held in Development Bank of the Philippines v. West Negros College, Inc.[32]: The right of legal redemption must be exercised within specified time limits. However, the statutory period of redemption can be extended by agreement of the parties. x x x. (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 150305 2007-11-22	HONOFRE FUENTES v. FELOMINO CAGUIMBAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Finally, petitioner laments the award of attorney's fees by the RTC which was affirmed by the CA despite the fact that it was not assigned as an error by respondent in his Memorandum on Appeal.[22] The fundamental rule of procedure is that higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below, but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration or on appeal. On appeal, only errors specifically assigned and properly argued in the brief will be considered, with the exception of those affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter as well as plain and clerical errors.[23] Inasmuch as attorney's fees were never sought or raised by respondent, its award was therefore uncalled for.
	GR NO. 145271 2005-08-14	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ROGELIO BENAMIRA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, it is a fundamental rule of procedure that higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below, but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration or on appeal.[20] The individual respondents are bound by their submissions that AFSISI is their employer and they should not be permitted to change their theory. Such a change of theory cannot be tolerated on appeal, not due to the strict application of procedural rules but as a matter of fairness. A change of theory on appeal is objectionable because it is contrary to the rules of fair play, justice and due process.[21]
	GR No. 145271 2005-07-14	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ROGELIO BENAMIRA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, it is a fundamental rule of procedure that higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below, but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration or on appeal.[20] The individual respondents are bound by their submissions that AFSISI is their employer and they should not be permitted to change their theory. Such a change of theory cannot be tolerated on appeal, not due to the strict application of procedural rules but as a matter of fairness. A change of theory on appeal is objectionable because it is contrary to the rules of fair play, justice and due process.[21]