5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly that he has no complaints against his employer; (4) he did not pay for placement fees and deductions because charging them is illegal; and (5) attorney's fees should only be awarded upon finding of bad faith,[19] In its Comment, Hechanova focused his discussion on illegal dismissal and his entitlement to the monetary claims granted by the CA. He did not respond to the issue of whether his cause of action was limited to total and permanent disability and excluded the monetary claims subject of this petition.[20] While the Court lauds the CA in showing compassion to a seafarer, we are still a court of law. In Bucal v. Bucal,[21] "[i]t is well-settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by a party to a case. The rationale for the rule was explained in Development Bank of the Philippines [DBP] v. Teston," viz.: Due process considerations justify this requirement. It is improper to enter an order which exceeds the scope of relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice which affords the opposing party an opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposed relief. The fundamental purpose of the requirement that allegations of a complaint must provide the measure of recovery is to prevent surprise to the defendant. (Citation omitted) Bucal further elucidated the reason for the rule: For the same reason, this protection against surprises granted to defendants should also be available to petitioners. Verily, both parties to a suit are entitled to due process against unforeseen and arbitrary judgments. The very essence of due process is "the sporting idea of fair play" which forbids the grant of relief on matters where a party to the suit was not given an opportunity to be heard.[22] (Citation omitted). The records reveal that Hechanova's complaint is for total and permanent disability benefits.[23] He neither complained of illegal dismissal, nor claimed for salary for the unexpired portion of the contract and reimbursement of placement fee and other deductions. Hechanova was consistent in his pleadings that he was interested in total and permanent disability benefits and not the monetary claims of an illegally dismissed seafarer.[24] Following the pronouncements in Bucal and DBP, the CA cannot grant the monetary awards on its own initiative since the complainant, Hechanova did not allege and pray for them. Furthermore, when the CA unilaterally held that he was illegally dismissed from employment, the theory of the case was changed in the middle of the proceedings, which is against the rules of fair play and justice. Consequently, Interorient was surprised at the finding of illegal dismissal, since it was not raised as an issue from the beginning and they were not given the opportunity to present evidence to rebut it. Interorient's first argument alone is a ground to grant the petition. The Court shall no https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66482 4/6