IT IS A WELL-SETTLED RULE THAT “A PARTY WHO DELIBERATELY ADOPTS A CERTAIN THEORY UPON WHICH THE CASE WAS DECIDED BY THE LOWER COURT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO CHANGE [IT] ON APPEAL.

 It is a well-settled rule that “a party who deliberately adopts a certain theory upon which the case was decided by the lower court will not be permitted to change [it] on appeal.”( Pasco v. Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 165501, March 28, 2006, 485 SCRA 514, 523.)  

“Petitioner is bound by the statements and stipulations he made while the case was being heard in the lower courts.”( Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres v. Heirs of Manuel Abella, G.R. No. 143510, November 23, 2005, 476 SCRA 1, 8.)  In Manila Electric Company v. Benamira,( 501 Phil. 621 (2005).we said:

          [I]t 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.  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. (Id. at 638.) (Rodolfo Morla vs. Corazon Nisperos Belmonte et al., G.R. No. 171146, December 7, 2011, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:)