You are on page 1of 5

Evidence in chief

It refers to the evidence presented by the plaintiff at the initial hearing to prove
that the defendant is liable.
http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/researchLiti
gation/TrialPractice/PlaintiffsCIF.asp

It is the evidence given by a witness for the party who called him.
(http://sixthformlaw.info/03_dictionary/dict_e.htm)

Where a witness is called to give oral evidence under paragraph (1), his witness
statement shall stand as his evidence in chief (GL) unless the court orders
otherwise. (http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part32)

Evidence supporting the basic premises of a partys case.


(http://www.yourdictionary.com/evidence)

Cases:
1.

Gomez v. Alcantara
G.R. No. 179556, February 13, 2009
Facts:
The case is a about a dispute over the ownership of a land. Gomez claimed that
she was the owner of the land since it was part of her inheritance while
Alcantara, her niece, got the lot through a deed of donation allegedly executed by
one of her siblings. Her efforts to settle this amicably failed, thus, she filed a
complaint for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court
of Manila. On the initial hearing, the petitioner's counsel as well as the
respondent and her counsel failed to appear. The presiding judge ordered the
dismissal of the case for failure of plaintiff to continue with her evidence in chief.
Petitioner's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration but on its hearing he came
late and the judge denied his motion. No appeal was made by the petitioner.

Less than four years, the petitioner filed again a complaint on the same cause of
action but was dismissed on the ground of res judicata.

Issue: Whether or not the principle of res judicata applies in the case?

Held: The Court held in affirmative.

The Court cited Section 3 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SEC. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If, for no justifiable cause, the
plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on
the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to
comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be
dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the courts own motion, without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same
or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication
upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure of petitioner and her
counsel to attend the scheduled hearing on said date and was not appealed by
the petitioner, allowing it to become final and executory. Having failed to appeal
from that judgment, petitioner may not abuse court processes by re-filing the
same case to obviate the conclusive effects of dismissal. It now operates as res
judicata.

2.

KO, et. al. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, et. al.

G.R. Nos. 169131-32 January 20, 2006


Facts:
Petitioners filed a complaint for Annulment of Mortgage, Extra-judicial
Foreclosure Sale, Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-21064 and T21065 and Deed of Sale with a Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining
Order. The complaint alleged that the assailed mortgage and the foreclosure
proceedings were null and void since the written consent of petitioners, as
beneficiaries of the mortgaged property, were not secured. Respondent bank
denied the claim and alleged that in the execution of the mortgage, petitioners in
fact gave their consent. The petitioners failed to appear at the scheduled trial and
upon motion of the respondent, the court ordered the dismissal of the case. They
file a motion for reconsideration alleging that their failure was due to their
negotiation with the bank.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the court erred in dismissing the complaint
on the ground of the petitioner's failure to appear on the scheduled hearing?

Held: The Court held in affirmative.


The Court cited Section 3 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SEC. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If, for no justifiable cause, the
plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on
the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to
comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be
dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the courts own motion, without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same

or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication


upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.

In every action, the plaintiff is duty-bound to prosecute the same with utmost
diligence and with reasonable dispatch to enable him to obtain the relief prayed
for and, at the same time, minimize the clogging of the court dockets. The
expeditious disposition of cases is as much the duty of the plaintiff as the court.
It must be remembered that a defendant in a case likewise has the right to the
speedy disposition of the action filed against him considering that any delay in
the proceedings entail prolonged anxiety and valuable time wasted.
3.

ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION


BENEFITS SYSTEM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.
G.R. No. 188956, March 20, 2013
Facts:
Petitioner filed an Application for Registration of Title over three parcels of land
located in West Bicutan, Taguig City, before the RTC of Pasig City. After
petitioner met the jurisdictional requirements, the court a quo issued an order of
general default against the whole world, and the petitioner was allowed to
present evidence ex-parte. The petitioner then presented as its witness and the
court ruled in its favor.
Upon receipt of a copy of the decision, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a
motion for reconsideration on the ground that it failed to prosecute because it
was not able to prove that it has personality to own property in its name and also
to show that the witness it presented was duly authorized to appear for and in its
behalf
Issue:

Whether the court a quo acted contrary to law and jurisprudence when it
dismissed petitioners application for land registration on the ground that
petitioner failed to prosecute the subject case?
Held:
The Court held in the affirmative.
The reason of the court a quo in dismissing petitioners application for land
registration on the ground of failure to prosecute was the lack of authority on the
part of Ms. Aban to testify on behalf of the petitioner.
Clearly, the court a quos basis for pronouncing that the petitioner failed to
prosecute its case is not among those grounds provided by the Rules. It had no
reason to conclude that the petitioner failed to prosecute its case. First, the
petitioner did not fail to appear at the time of the trial. In fact, the Decision of trial
court ordering the registration of petitioners title to the subject lots shows that the
petitioner appeared before the Court and was represented by counsel. Records
would also reveal that the petitioner was able to present its evidence, and as a
result, the RTC rendered judgment in its favor.