This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2006-07-25 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As a rule, a party who did not appeal from a decision of a court cannot obtain affirmative relief other than that granted in the appealed decision.[5] This applies also to decisions of administrative or quasi-judicial tribunals.[6] In the present case, however, while respondents did not appeal from CSC Resolution No. 991110 dated May 27, 1999 which merely ordered reinstatement and that they raised the issue of backwages only in the present motion, these did not preclude them from praying for the monetary benefits provided by law. Where an ironhanded application of the rules will result in an unmistakable failure or miscarriage of justice, technicalities should be disregarded in order to resolve the case.[7] This Court is, therefore, constrained to relax the rules to give way to the supreme and overriding interest of labor and justice. Indeed, laws and rules should be interpreted and applied not in a vacuum or in isolated abstraction but in light of surrounding circumstances and attendant facts in order to afford justice to all.[8] | |||||
|
2005-08-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A demurrer to evidence abbreviates judicial proceedings, it being an instrument for the expeditious termination of an action. Caution, however, must be exercised by the party seeking the dismissal of a case upon this ground as under the rules, if the movant's plea for the dismissal on demurrer to evidence is granted and the order of dismissal is reversed on appeal, he loses his right to adduce evidence. If the defendant's motion for judgment on demurrer to evidence is granted and the order is subsequently reversed on appeal, judgment is rendered in favor of the adverse party because the movant loses his right to present evidence.[40] The reviewing court cannot remand the case for further proceedings; rather, it should render judgment on the basis of the evidence presented by the plaintiff.[41] | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A demurrer to evidence abbreviates judicial proceedings, it being an instrument for the expeditious termination of an action. Caution, however, must be exercised by the party seeking the dismissal of a case upon this ground as under the rules, if the movant's plea for the dismissal on demurrer to evidence is granted and the order of dismissal is reversed on appeal, he loses his right to adduce evidence. If the defendant's motion for judgment on demurrer to evidence is granted and the order is subsequently reversed on appeal, judgment is rendered in favor of the adverse party because the movant loses his right to present evidence.[40] The reviewing court cannot remand the case for further proceedings; rather, it should render judgment on the basis of the evidence presented by the plaintiff.[41] | |||||
|
2004-09-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Lastly, if a demurrer to evidence is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed, the movant shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.[41] The movant who presents a demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence retains the right to present their own evidence, if the trial court disagrees with them; if the trial court agrees with them, but on appeal, the appellate court disagrees with both of them and reverses the dismissal order, the defendants lose the right to present their own evidence. The appellate court shall, in addition, resolve the case and render judgment on the merits, inasmuch as a demurrer aims to discourage prolonged litigations.[42] Thus, respondent may no longer offer proof to establish that he has no liability under the loan documents sued upon by petitioner. | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed in toto the decision of the lower court.[4] Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Hence, they filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 38739. | |||||