You are on page 1of 4

EVIDENCE DIGESTS Justice Bernabe RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (Additional Cases 1! "antolino et al #!

! Co$a%Cola "ottle&s 62 employees of Coca-Cola filed a complaint for unfair labor practice through illegal dismissal, violation of security of tenure and implementation of the cabo system. 2 of the complaints !ere dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to attend the mandatory hearings. "he point of contention of the remaining #$ complaints is the e%istence of an employee-employee relationship for being route helpers, bottle segregators and others to !hich basis the Coca-Cola Corporation filed a motion to dismiss. "he &abor 'rbiter ruled that in contrast !ith the negative declarations of Coca-Cola(s !itnesses !ho, as district sales supervisors of the company denied )no!ing the complainants personally, the testimonies of the complainants !ere more credible as they sufficiently supplied every detail of their employment, specifically identifying !ho their salesmen*drivers !ere, their places of assignment, aside from their dates of engagement and dismissal. +ne of Coca-Cola(s arguments is that the affidavits of some of the complainants, namely, ,rudencio Bantolino, -estor .omero, -ilo /spina, .icardo Bartolome, /luver 0arcia, /duardo 0arcia and -elson 1analastas, should not have been given probative value for their failure to affirm the contents thereof and to undergo cross-e%amination. "he Court of 'ppeals reversed the decision !ith respect to Bantolino et al for failure to affirm their contents in a crosse%amination. "he main issue of the case is the propriety of giving evidentiary value to the affidavits despite the failure of the affiants to affirm their contents and undergo the test of crosse%amination. 2n reversing the C' decision, the 3upreme Court held that 't(e a&)*+ent t(at t(e a,,ida#it is (ea&sa- .e$a*se t(e a,,iants /e&e not 0&esented ,o& $&oss%e1a+ination is not 0e&s*asi#e .e$a*se t(e &*les o, e#iden$e a&e not st&i$tl- in 0&o$eedin)s .e,o&e ad+inist&ati#e .odies li2e t(e NLRC /(e&e de$isions +a- .e &ea$(ed on t(e .asis o, 0osition 0a0e&s onl-!' A $&i+inal 0&ose$*tion &e3*i&es a 3*ant*+ o, e#iden$e di,,e&ent ,&o+ t(at o, an ad+inist&ati#e 0&o$eedin)! Unde& t(e R*les o, t(e Co++ission4 t(e La.o& A&.ite& is )i#en t(e dis$&etion to dete&+ine t(e ne$essit- o, a ,o&+al t&ial o& (ea&in)! 5en$e4 t&ial%t-0e (ea&in)s a&e not e#en &e3*i&ed as t(e $ases +a- .e de$ided .ased on #e&i,ied 0osition 0a0e&s4 /it( s*00o&tin) do$*+ents and t(ei& a,,ida#its! 4arl 5incent B. .aso 2! Onate #! CA 6eceased &eonor "aguba bought a parcel of rice land located in 'parri, Cagayan from /lvira 5da. de +nate for , ,$$$, payable in 7 installments. 8o!ever, after full payment !as made, the parties failed to reduce the contract in !riting. 9hen "aguba died, her heirs made a demand on /lvira +nate to e%ecute a public instrument of sale in their favor, ho!ever, the latter refused !hich led to a suit for specific performance. +nate(s defense !as that the contract bet!een herself and "aguba !as a verbal contract of loan and that the parcel of land in :uestion !as a mere mortgage that serves as security for the loan. "he trial court did not believe +nate and ruled in favor of "aguba(s heirs, !ith the court ordering the e%ecution of a document to give effect to the sale. +n appeal to the C', +nate contended that the trial court erred !hen it too) cogni;ance of the "aguba heirs( evidence, particularly /%hibits <=,< <=-#,< <=-2< and <=->,< comprised of receipts for the payments of the installments !hich had been mar)ed but never formally submitted in evidence as re:uired by the .ules of Court and that the court erred on relying on the said evidences in deciding in favor of the heirs. "he C' affirmed the trial court(s ruling and stated that the impugned evidences, though not formally offered, may still be admitted in evidence for having complied !ith the t!o ?2@ re:uisites for admission enunciated in our Aurisprudence, that is, ?#@ evidence must be duly identified by testimony duly recorded and ?2@ it must be incorporated in the records of the case. "he subAect of contention is the propriety of considering the e%hibits even though they !ere not formally offered. 2n affirming the trial court and C' decisions, the 3upreme Court held that /(ile as a )ene&al &*le ,o& t(e e#iden$e to .e $onside&ed4 t(e sa+e +*st .e 4arl 5incent B. .aso B '&3 6-2$#2 ,age # of 7

,o&+all- o,,e&ed4 t(e Co*&t (as &ela1ed t(e ,o&e)oin) &*le and allo/ed e#iden$e not ,o&+all- o,,e&ed to .e ad+itted and $onside&ed .- t(e t&ial $o*&t 0&o#ided t(e ,ollo/in) &e3*i&e+ents a&e 0&esent4 #i6!7 1 t(e sa+e +*st (a#e .een d*l- identi,ied .- testi+ond*l- &e$o&ded and4 2 t(e sa+e +*st (a#e .een in$o&0o&ated in t(e &e$o&ds o, t(e $ase . Both !ere satisfied !hen the e%hibits !ere mar)ed at the pre-trial for the purpose of identifying them, /ulalia 1arcita "aguba identified the said e%hibits in her testimony !hich !as duly recorded, +nate(s counsel vigorous cross-e%amination of the said !itness !ho testified on the e%hibits in :uestion, and finally, subAect e%hibits !ere also incorporated and made part of the records of the case. 4arl 5incent B. .aso 3! Ra)*do #! Fa.ella Estate "he tenants of a parcel of land in 1andaluyong City ?hereinafter referred to as the =abella /state@, !hich formed part of the estate of the late 6on 6ionisio =abella, organi;ed themselves and formed the =abella /states "enant 'ssociation, 2nc. ?=/"'@ for the purpose of ac:uiring the property and distributing it to their members. Cnable to raise enough money to purchase the land, =/"' applied for a loan !ith the -ational 8ome 1ortgage =inance Corporation under its Community 1ortgage ,rogram. 's a pre-condition for the loan, -81=C re:uired that all tenants to be members of =/"'. 3pouses .amon and /strella .agudo did not Aoin the =/"' and because of this, their share !as a!arded to 1iriam de 0u;man, a =/"' member. =/"' became the registered o!ner of the entire estate as evidenced by a "C" in their favor and filed a complaint for unla!ful detainer against the .agudo spouses before the 1etropolitan "rial Court ?1e"C@. "he 1e"C denied since the .agudos have been occupying the land for more than # year prior to the filing of the complaint and should have filed a complaint for recovery of possession !ith the ."C. ' complaint for recovery of possession !as filed in the ."C and in their defense, the .agudos argue that they have occupied the land in the concept of o!ner for more than 7$ years and that "C" issued to =/"' !as fa)e since the +C" that served as basis of the "C" !as already declared null and void by the ."C in another case bet!een the parties. "he ."C ruled in favor of =/"'. "he .agudos appealed to the C' and !hile the case !as pending, =/"' filed !ith the trial court a motion for the issuance of a !rit of e%ecution pending appeal, to !hich the .agudos interposed an +pposition, follo!ed by =/"'Ds .eply to +pposition. "he .agudos filed !ith the trial court a .eAoinder to .eply 9ith Counter-1otion to 'dmit 'ttached 6ocumentary /vidence .elevant to the ,ending 2ncident !hich sought to be attached certain documents and photograph !hich included, to !itE a &etter dated 2# -ovember #FGF of the spouses .agudoDs son, /ngr. 'urelio .agudo, addressed to =/"', stating therein that the .agudos !ere !illing to become =/"' membersH a Joint 'ffidavit, dated $I +ctober #FF7, of three ?>@ residents of the =abella /stateH ,hotos of three ?>@ alleged houses of 1iriam de 0u;man located at the =abella /stateH ,hotos of t!o ?2@ alleged houses of the sons of 1iriam de 0u;man located at the =abella /stateH ,hoto of a lot allegedly a!arded by =/"' to its president, 'mparo -oble;a, located at the =abella /stateH and ,hoto of a three ?>@-storey house of -oble;aDs relative named 'rchitect =ernande; located at the =abella /state. "he trial court allo!ed the reAoinder and denied =/"'(s re:uest for !rit of e%ecution. "he .agudos then filed !ith the appellate court a 1otion "o 'dmit Certain 6ocumentary /vidence by 9ay of ,artial -e! "rial, 2n the 2nterest of Justice and see)s the admission of the same documents and photographs that !ere earlier allo!ed by the trial court. "he appellate court denied the .agudos( motion and ordered e%punged from the records of the appealed case the documents they sought admission of, on the ground that they could not be considered as ne!ly discovered evidence. "he appeal to the C' as regards the complaint for recovery of possession !as li)e!ise denied. +ne of the .agudos contention !as that documents !hich their former counsel failed to adduce in evidence during trial of the main case must be allo!ed to stay in the records thereof and duly considered in the resolution of their appeal because they !ere duly admitted in the trial court during the hearing on the incidental motion for e%ecution pending appeal !hen =/"' sought for the issuance of the !rit of e%ecution. 2n affirming the trial court and the C'(s decision, the 3upreme Court held that !ith the &ealit- t(at t(ose do$*+ents /e&e ne#e& 0&esented and ,o&+all- o,,e&ed d*&in) t(e t&ial o, t(e +ain $ase4 t(ei& .elated ad+ission ,o& 0*&0oses o, (a#in) t(e+ d*l- $onside&ed in t(e &esol*tion o, t(e CA $ase /o*ld $e&tainl- $ollide /it( 4arl 5incent B. .aso B '&3 6-2$#2 ,age 2 of 7

Se$tion 384 R*le 1324 o, t(e R*les o, Co*&t4 /(i$( &eads7 SECTION 38! O,,e& o, E#iden$e! 9 T(e $o*&t s(all $onside& no e#iden$e /(i$( (as not .een ,o&+all- o,,e&ed! T(e 0*&0ose ,o& /(i$( t(e e#iden$e is o,,e&ed +*st .e s0e$i,ied! 2t !as only during the hearing of the motion for e%ecution pending appeal that said documents !ere presented and offered in evidence. 3ure, the trial court admitted them, but the admission !as only for the purpose for !hich they !ere offered, that is, by !ay of opposition to =/"'Ds motion for e%ecution pending appeal. It is .asi$ in t(e la/ o, e#iden$e t(at t(e $o*&t s(all $onside& e#iden$e solel- ,o& t(e 0*&0ose ,o& /(i$( it /as o,,e&ed! 9hile the said documents may have the right to stay in the records of the case for purposes of the incidental issue of e%ecution pending appeal, they do not have that same right insofar as far as the main case is concerned, and ought not be considered in the resolution thereof. 4arl 5incent B. .aso 8! Ta.*ena #! CA "he estate of 'lfredo "abernilla filed an action for recovery of a parcel of land in ')lan against Jose "abuena. 'lfredo "abernilla purchased the subAect lot from Juan ,eralta, Jr. !hile the t!o !ere in the Cnited 3tates. 9hen "abernilla returned to the ,hilippines, per Juan(s instruction, the latter(s mother, 6amasa "imtiman, conveyed the land to "abernilla !ith the re:uest that she be allo!ed to stay there. "abernilla agreed !ith the re:uest for as long as 6amasa pays the real estate ta%es. 9hen 6amasa died, Jose !ho !as her son and half-brother to Juan too) possession of it. "he trial court ruled in favor of 'lfredo and reAecting Jose(s contention that he !as the absolute o!ner of the land. Jose appealed to the C' alleging that in arriving at its factual findings, the trial court motu proprio too) cogni;ance of /%hibits <'<, <B< and <C<, !hich had been mar)ed by 'lfredo but never formally submitted in evidence. "he e%hibits contained the follo!ingE /%h. <'<, letter dated +ctober 7, #F2# addressed in 1a)ato, Capis, ,hilippinesH /%h. <'-#<, paragraph 2 of the letter indicating that the amount of ,6$$.$$ J the first ,>$$.$$ and then another ,>$$.$$ as interest since +ctober 7, #F2#H /%h. <'-2<, is paragraph > of the letterH /%h. <B<, a 3panish documentH /%h. <C<, deed of conveyance filed by "omasa "imtiman and 'lfredo "abernilla in #F2>H and /%h. <C-#<, paragraph 7 of /%h. <C<. "he C' held that, contrary to the allegations of Jose, the said e%hibits !ere in fact formally submitted in evidence as disclosed by the transcript of stenographic notes. 2n reversing the C' decision, the 3upreme Court held that the e%hibits submitted !ere not the above-described documents but /%hibits <K< and <L< and their sub-mar)ings, !hich !ere the last !ill and testament of 'lfredo "abernilla and the order of probate. 2t is not at all denied that the list of e%hibits does not include /%hibits <'<, <B< and <C<. 2n fact, the trial court categorically declared that </%hibits D',D D'-#,D D'-2,D DB,D DC,D and DC-#,D !ere not among those documents or e%hibits formally offered for admission by the estate of 'lfredo.< "his is a clear contradiction of the finding of the appellate court !hich seems to have confused /%hibits <',< <B< and <C< !ith /%hibits <K< and <L<, the evidence mentioned in the :uoted transcript. R*le 132 o, t(e R*les o, Co*&t 0&o#ides in Se$tion 3: t(e&eo, as ,ollo/s7 Se$! 3:! O,,e& o, e#iden$e! 9 T(e $o*&t s(all $onside& no e#iden$e /(i$( (as not .een ,o&+all- o,,e&ed! T(e 0*&0ose ,o& /(i$( t(e e#iden$e is o,,e&ed +*st .e s0e$i,ied! T(e +e&e ,a$t t(at a 0a&ti$*la& do$*+ent is +a&2ed as an e1( does not +ean it (as t(e&e.- al&ead- .een o,,e&ed as 0a&t o, t(e e#iden$e o, a 0a&t-! It is t&*e t(at E1(i.its 'A4' '"' and 'C' /e&e +a&2ed at t(e 0&e%t&ial o, t(e $ase .elo/4 .*t t(is /as onl- ,o& t(e 0*&0ose o, identi,-in) t(e+ at t(at ti+e! T(e- /e&e not .- s*$( +a&2in) ,o&+all- o,,e&ed as e1(i.its! ;(ile e#en i, t(e&e .e no ,o&+al o,,e& o, an e1(i.it4 it +a- still .e ad+itted a)ainst t(e ad#e&se 0a&t- i,4 1 it (as .een d*l- identi,ied .- testi+on- d*l- &e$o&ded and4 2 it (as itsel, .een in$o&0o&ated in t(e &e$o&ds o, t(e $ase! "*t t(e Co*&t does not ,ind t(at t(ese &e3*i&e+ents (a#e .een satis,ied! 'lthough one of the estate(s !itnesses did testify and !as cross-e%amined, all she did !as identify the documents. -o!here in her testimony did the Court find a recital of the contents of the e%hibits. 4arl 5incent B. .aso 4arl 5incent B. .aso B '&3 6-2$#2 ,age > of 7

4arl 5incent B. .aso B '&3 6-2$#2 ,age 7 of 7