This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that a party who adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and decided by the lower courts or tribunals will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal,[30] not because of the strict application of procedural rules, but as a matter of fairness.[31] Basic considerations of due process dictate that theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court would not ordinarily be considered by a reviewing court,[32] except when their factual bases would not require presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable him to properly meet the issue raised,[33] such as when the factual bases of such novel theory, issue or argument is (a) subject of judicial notice; or (b) had already been judicially admitted,[34] which do not obtain in this case. | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court cannot tolerate this kind of procedural strategy on Maxicare's part because it would be unfair to Dr. Contreras who would no longer be able to present further evidence material to the new issue raised on appeal. Maxicare's lapse in procedure has proved fatal to its cause and therefore, it should suffer the consequences. The Court has been consistent in its ruling in a long line of cases, the latest of which is Duty Free Philippines Services, Inc., v. Manolito Q. Tria,[24] where it was written: It was only in petitioner's Petition for Certiorari before the CA did it impute liability on DFP as respondent's direct employer and as the entity who conducted the investigation and initiated respondent's termination proceedings. Obviously, petitioner changed its theory when it elevated the NLRC decision to the CA. The appellate court, therefore, aptly refused to consider the new theory offered by petitioner in its petition. As the object of the pleadings is to draw the lines of battle, so to speak, between the litigants, and to indicate fairly the nature of the claims or defenses of both parties, a party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to, or inconsistent, with its pleadings. It is a matter of law that when a party adopts a particular theory and the case is tried and decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal. The case will be reviewed and decided on that theory and not approached and resolved from a different point of view. | |||||