Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for libel against respondents. Indeed, it is settled jurisprudence that an issue that was neither raised in the complaint nor in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process.
When MSU President Alonto was replaced by herein petitioner Dr. Emily M. Marohombsar on January 5, 1993, private respondent continued her employment and received the corresponding salary and other benefits from the MSU until she was summarily terminated on February 28, 1993.
Thus, respondent judge, in rendering decision in Civil Case No. 214, acted contrary to the doctrine of res judicata, the requisites of which are: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.
Petitioner then re-submitted his claim to Director Lim, with a copy of Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of then Secretary of Justice Drilon stating that the issuance of the Administrative Code did not operate to repeal or abregate in its entirety the Revised Administrative Code, including the particular Section 699 of the latter”.
They did not take the oath of allegiance to the United States, unlike the petitioner who solemnly declared on oath, that I absolutely and …Administrative Law Is The Real Deep State” Read More