Lawyerly

GR No. 197204

2014-03-26

CARPIO, J.

The settled rule is that issues not raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal[23] in this case, in a motion for reconsideration for being offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[24] Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court are barred by estoppel and cannot be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Also, in United Special Watchman Agency v. Court of Appeals,[25] we held that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court.[26] The effect of filing a second motion for reconsideration is to make the questioned decision final and executory.

GR No. 172139

2010-12-08

JOCELYN M. TOLEDO v. MARILOU M. HYDEN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Clearly, by her own acts, Jocelyn is estopped from impugning the validity of the "Acknowledgment of Debt." "[A] party to a contract cannot deny the validity thereof after enjoying its benefits without outrage to one's sense of justice and fairness."[21] "It is a long established doctrine that the law does not relieve a party from the effects of an unwise, foolish or disastrous contract, entered into with all the required formalities and with full awareness of what she was doing. Courts have no power to relieve parties from obligations voluntarily assumed, simply because their contracts turned out to be disastrous or unwise investments."[22]

GR No. 165938

2009-11-25

ROGELIO DIZON v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK

PERALTA, J.

The essential elements of estoppel are: (1) conduct of a party amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts or at least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert; (2) intent, or at least expectation, that this conduct shall be acted upon by, or at least influence, the other party; and (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.[9]

GR No. 170452

2008-08-13

SALVADOR CHUA v. RODRIGO TIMAN

QUISUMBING, J.

Petitioners cannot also raise the defenses of in pari delicto and good faith. The defense of in pari delicto was not raised in the RTC, hence, such an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Petitioners must have seasonably raised it in the proceedings before the lower court, because questions raised on appeal are confined only within the issues framed by the parties. [14] The defense of good faith must also fail because such an issue is a question of fact [15] which may not be properly raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which allows only questions of law. [16]

GR NO. 172324

2007-04-04

PEOPLE v. CELINO NABONG Y OSENAR

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This argument deserves scant consideration. As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, this issue was raised belatedly by appellant Nabong for the first time before the Court of Appeals in a motion for reconsideration. The rule is that an issue not raised in the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, much less in a motion for reconsideration.[28]

GR NO. 143188

2007-02-14

FLORENTINO PINEDA v. HEIRS OF ELISEO GUEVARA

TINGA, J.

Petitioner Pineda had ample opportunity to raise before the Court of Appeals the objection on the improper mode of appeal taken by the heirs of Guevara. This, he failed to do. The issue of improper appeal was raised only in Pineda's motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' Decision. Hence, this Court cannot now, for the first time on appeal, pass upon this issue. For an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[5] In any case, the appeal by the heirs of Guevara also raised the issue regarding the existence of laches on the part of petitioners as defendants, which is factual in nature as discussed below.

GR NO. 163509

2006-12-06

PICOP RESOURCES v. BASE METALS MINERAL RESOURCES CORPORATION

TINGA, J.

Even so, we hold that that the so-called new issues raised by PICOP are well within the issues framed by the parties in the proceedings a quo. Thus, they are not, strictly speaking, being raised for the first time on appeal.[23] Besides, Base Metals and the OSG have been given ample opportunity, by way of the pleadings filed with this Court, to respond to PICOP's arguments. It is in the best interest of justice that we settle the crucial question of whether the concession area in dispute is open to mining activities.

GR NO. 138703

2006-06-30

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

As a rule, a court in such a case has no alternative but to enforce the contractual stipulations in the manner they have been agreed upon and written. Courts, whether trial or appellate, generally have no power to relieve parties from obligations voluntarily assumed simply because their contract turned out to be disastrous or unwise investments.[52]

GR No. 153535

2005-07-28

SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORPORATION

PANGANIBAN, J.

Moreover, it is rather late in the day to raise the alleged joint liability, as this matter has not been pleaded before the trial and the appellate courts. Before the lower courts, petitioner anchored its claim solely on the alleged joint and several (or solidary) liability of the individual respondents. Petitioner must be reminded that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but seasonably in the proceedings before the trial court.[16]

GR NO. 156893

2005-06-21

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. GOMERSENDO P. DANIEL

PANGANIBAN, J.

Fairness and due process dictate that evidence and issues not presented below cannot be taken up for the first time on appeal.[15] Indeed, how can the NLRC be held to have abused its discretion over evidence not presented before the Commission?

GR NO. 154188

2005-06-15

MONDRAGON LEISURE v. VS.CA

QUISUMBING, J.

Considering the submissions of the parties, we are constrained to agree with the respondents' contention. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. The issue concerning the signatories' authorization was never raised before it. Likewise, the appellate court did not err in refusing to take cognizance of the issue, since the parties did not raise it beforehand. Issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[10]

GR NO. 147245

2005-03-31

REPUBLIC v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Though NIA actively participated in the proceedings below, it did not move for the appointment of commissioners or object to their absence at any time. A party cannot raise for the first time on appeal an issue not raised in the trial court.[32] NIA is thus estopped from belatedly protesting the lack of commissioners.

GR NO. 141658

2005-03-18

CIR v. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY

CARPIO, J.

Ordinarily, a party cannot raise for the first time on appeal an issue not raised in the trial court.[13] The Court of Appeals should not have taken cognizance of the issue on respondents' supposed liability under Section 182(A)(3)(dd). However, we cannot entirely fault the Court of Appeals or petitioner. Even if the percentage tax on lending investors was the sole issue before it, the CTA ordered petitioner to refund to the PHILAM companies "the fixed and percentage taxes [t]hen paid by petitioners as lending investor."[14] Although the amounts for refund consisted only of what respondents paid as percentage taxes, the CTA Decision also ordered the refund to respondents of the fixed tax on lending investors. Respondents in their pleadings deny any liability under Section 182(A)(3)(dd), on the same ground that they are not lending investors.

GR No. 151319

2004-11-22

MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY v. PEDRO L. LINSANGAN

TINGA, J,

Neither is there estoppel in the instant case. The essential elements of estoppel are (i) conduct of a party amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts or at least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert; (ii) intent, or at least expectation, that this conduct shall be acted upon by, or at least influence, the other party; and (iii) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.[51]

GR No. 149634

2004-07-06

LORETA TORRES v. SPECIALIZED PACKAGING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PANGANIBAN, J.

Elementary due process -- which means giving the opposite party the opportunity to be heard, and the assailed court to consider every argument presented[11] -- bars this Court from taking up these three issues in this Decision, even if doing so would speed up the final resolution of the case. Basic is the rule that issues not presented below cannot for the first time be taken up on appeal.[12]

	GR No. 197204 2014-03-26	DANILO O. GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
The settled rule is that issues not raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal[23] in this case, in a motion for reconsideration for being offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[24] Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court are barred by estoppel and cannot be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Also, in United Special Watchman Agency v. Court of Appeals,[25] we held that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court.[26] The effect of filing a second motion for reconsideration is to make the questioned decision final and executory.
	GR No. 172139 2010-12-08	JOCELYN M. TOLEDO v. MARILOU M. HYDEN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Clearly, by her own acts, Jocelyn is estopped from impugning the validity of the "Acknowledgment of Debt." "[A] party to a contract cannot deny the validity thereof after enjoying its benefits without outrage to one's sense of justice and fairness."[21] "It is a long established doctrine that the law does not relieve a party from the effects of an unwise, foolish or disastrous contract, entered into with all the required formalities and with full awareness of what she was doing. Courts have no power to relieve parties from obligations voluntarily assumed, simply because their contracts turned out to be disastrous or unwise investments."[22]
	GR No. 165938 2009-11-25	ROGELIO DIZON v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK PERALTA, J.
The essential elements of estoppel are: (1) conduct of a party amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts or at least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert; (2) intent, or at least expectation, that this conduct shall be acted upon by, or at least influence, the other party; and (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.[9]
	GR No. 170452 2008-08-13	SALVADOR CHUA v. RODRIGO TIMAN QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners cannot also raise the defenses of in pari delicto and good faith. The defense of in pari delicto was not raised in the RTC, hence, such an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Petitioners must have seasonably raised it in the proceedings before the lower court, because questions raised on appeal are confined only within the issues framed by the parties. [14] The defense of good faith must also fail because such an issue is a question of fact [15] which may not be properly raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which allows only questions of law. [16]
	GR NO. 172324 2007-04-04	PEOPLE v. CELINO NABONG Y OSENAR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This argument deserves scant consideration. As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, this issue was raised belatedly by appellant Nabong for the first time before the Court of Appeals in a motion for reconsideration. The rule is that an issue not raised in the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, much less in a motion for reconsideration.[28]
	GR NO. 143188 2007-02-14	FLORENTINO PINEDA v. HEIRS OF ELISEO GUEVARA TINGA, J.
Petitioner Pineda had ample opportunity to raise before the Court of Appeals the objection on the improper mode of appeal taken by the heirs of Guevara. This, he failed to do. The issue of improper appeal was raised only in Pineda's motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' Decision. Hence, this Court cannot now, for the first time on appeal, pass upon this issue. For an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[5] In any case, the appeal by the heirs of Guevara also raised the issue regarding the existence of laches on the part of petitioners as defendants, which is factual in nature as discussed below.
	GR NO. 163509 2006-12-06	PICOP RESOURCES v. BASE METALS MINERAL RESOURCES CORPORATION TINGA, J.
Even so, we hold that that the so-called new issues raised by PICOP are well within the issues framed by the parties in the proceedings a quo. Thus, they are not, strictly speaking, being raised for the first time on appeal.[23] Besides, Base Metals and the OSG have been given ample opportunity, by way of the pleadings filed with this Court, to respond to PICOP's arguments. It is in the best interest of justice that we settle the crucial question of whether the concession area in dispute is open to mining activities.
	GR NO. 138703 2006-06-30	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA AZCUNA, J.
As a rule, a court in such a case has no alternative but to enforce the contractual stipulations in the manner they have been agreed upon and written. Courts, whether trial or appellate, generally have no power to relieve parties from obligations voluntarily assumed simply because their contract turned out to be disastrous or unwise investments.[52]
	GR No. 153535 2005-07-28	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
Moreover, it is rather late in the day to raise the alleged joint liability, as this matter has not been pleaded before the trial and the appellate courts. Before the lower courts, petitioner anchored its claim solely on the alleged joint and several (or solidary) liability of the individual respondents. Petitioner must be reminded that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but seasonably in the proceedings before the trial court.[16]
	GR NO. 156893 2005-06-21	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. GOMERSENDO P. DANIEL PANGANIBAN, J.
Fairness and due process dictate that evidence and issues not presented below cannot be taken up for the first time on appeal.[15] Indeed, how can the NLRC be held to have abused its discretion over evidence not presented before the Commission?
	GR NO. 154188 2005-06-15	MONDRAGON LEISURE v. VS.CA QUISUMBING, J.
Considering the submissions of the parties, we are constrained to agree with the respondents' contention. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. The issue concerning the signatories' authorization was never raised before it. Likewise, the appellate court did not err in refusing to take cognizance of the issue, since the parties did not raise it beforehand. Issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[10]
	GR NO. 147245 2005-03-31	REPUBLIC v. CA CARPIO, J.
Though NIA actively participated in the proceedings below, it did not move for the appointment of commissioners or object to their absence at any time. A party cannot raise for the first time on appeal an issue not raised in the trial court.[32] NIA is thus estopped from belatedly protesting the lack of commissioners.
	GR NO. 141658 2005-03-18	CIR v. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY CARPIO, J.
Ordinarily, a party cannot raise for the first time on appeal an issue not raised in the trial court.[13] The Court of Appeals should not have taken cognizance of the issue on respondents' supposed liability under Section 182(A)(3)(dd). However, we cannot entirely fault the Court of Appeals or petitioner. Even if the percentage tax on lending investors was the sole issue before it, the CTA ordered petitioner to refund to the PHILAM companies "the fixed and percentage taxes [t]hen paid by petitioners as lending investor."[14] Although the amounts for refund consisted only of what respondents paid as percentage taxes, the CTA Decision also ordered the refund to respondents of the fixed tax on lending investors. Respondents in their pleadings deny any liability under Section 182(A)(3)(dd), on the same ground that they are not lending investors.
	GR No. 151319 2004-11-22	MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY v. PEDRO L. LINSANGAN TINGA, J,
Neither is there estoppel in the instant case. The essential elements of estoppel are (i) conduct of a party amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts or at least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert; (ii) intent, or at least expectation, that this conduct shall be acted upon by, or at least influence, the other party; and (iii) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.[51]
	GR No. 149634 2004-07-06	LORETA TORRES v. SPECIALIZED PACKAGING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
Elementary due process -- which means giving the opposite party the opportunity to be heard, and the assailed court to consider every argument presented[11] -- bars this Court from taking up these three issues in this Decision, even if doing so would speed up the final resolution of the case. Basic is the rule that issues not presented below cannot for the first time be taken up on appeal.[12]

JEFFERSON LIM v. QUEENSLAND TOKYO COMMODITIES