8/13/2019 RULE+132

1/4

EVIDENCE DIGESTSJustice 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 !eredismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to attend the mandatory hearings. "he point ofcontention of the remaining #$ complaints is the e%istence of an employee-employee relationshipfor being route helpers, bottle segregators and others to !hich basis the Coca-Cola Corporationfiled a motion to dismiss. "he &abor 'rbiter ruled that in contrast !ith the negative declarations ofCoca-Cola(s !itnesses !ho, as district sales supervisors of the company denied )no!ing thecomplainants personally, the testimonies of the complainants !ere more credible as theysufficiently supplied every detail of their employment, specifically identifying !ho theirsalesmen*drivers !ere, their places of assignment, aside from their dates of engagement anddismissal. +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 theirfailure to affirm the contents thereof and to undergo cross-e%amination. "he Court of 'ppealsreversed the decision !ith respect to Bantolino et al for failure to affirm their contents in a cross-e%amination. "he main issue of the case is the propriety of giving evidentiary value to theaffidavits despite the failure of the affiants to affirm their contents and undergo the test of cross-e%amination. n reversing the C' decision, the 3upreme Court held that 'te a&)*+ent tat tea,,ida#it is ea&sa- .e$a*se te a,,iants /e&e not 0&esented ,o& $&oss%ea+ination is not0e&s*asi#e .e$a*se te &*les o, e#iden$e a&e not st&i$tl- o.seed in 0&o$eedin)s .e,o&ead+inist&ati#e .odies lie te NLRC /e&e de$isions +a- .e &ea$ed on te .asis o,0osition 0a0e&s onl-!' A $&i+inal 0&ose$*tion &e*i&es a *ant*+ o, e#iden$e di,,e&ent,&o+ tat o, an ad+inist&ati#e 0&o$eedin)! Unde& te R*les o, te Co++ission4 te La.o&A&.ite& is )i#en te dis$&etion to dete&+ine te ne$essit- o, a ,o&+al t&ial o& ea&in)!5en$e4 t&ial%t-0e ea&in)s a&e not e#en &e*i&ed as te $ases +a- .e de$ided .ased on

#e&i,ied 0osition 0a0e&s4 /it s*00o&tin) do$*+ents and tei& a,,ida#its! 4arl 5incent B. aso

2! Onate #! CA

eceased &eonor "aguba bought a parcel of rice land located in 'parri, Cagayan from /lvira5da. de +nate for ,$$$, payable in 7 installments. 8o!ever, after full payment !as made, theparties 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!eenherself and "aguba !as a verbal contract of loan and that the parcel of land in :uestion !as amere mortgage that serves as security for the loan. "he trial court did not believe +nate and ruledin favor of "aguba(s heirs, !ith the court ordering the e%ecution of a document to give effect tothe sale. +n appeal to the C', +nate contended that the trial court erred !hen it too) cogni;anceof the "aguba heirs( evidence, particularly /%hibits

8/13/2019 RULE+132

2/4

,o&+all- o,,e&ed4 te Co*&t as &elaed te ,o&e)oin) &*le and allo/ed e#iden$e not,o&+all- o,,e&ed to .e ad+itted and $onside&ed .- te t&ial $o*&t 0&o#ided te ,ollo/in)&e*i&e+ents a&e 0&esent4 #i6!7 1 te sa+e +*st a#e .een d*l- identi,ied .- testi+on-d*l- &e$o&ded and4 2 te sa+e +*st a#e .een in$o&0o&ated in te &e$o&ds o, te $ase .Both !ere satisfied !hen the e%hibits !ere mar)ed at the pre-trial for the purpose of identifyingthem, /ulalia 1arcita "aguba identified the said e%hibits in her testimony !hich !as dulyrecorded, +nate(s counsel vigorous cross-e%amination of the said !itness !ho testified on thee%hibits in :uestion, and finally, subAect e%hibits !ere also incorporated and made part of therecords 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 on ionisio =abella, organi;ed themselvesand formed the =abella /states "enant 'ssociation, nc. ?=/"'@ for the purpose of ac:uiring theproperty and distributing it to their members. nable to raise enough money to purchase the land,=/"' applied for a loan !ith the ational 8ome 1ortgage =inance Corporation under itsCommunity 1ortgage rogram. 's a pre-condition for the loan, 81=C re:uired that all tenantsto be members of =/"'. 3pouses amon and /strella agudo did not Aoin the =/"' andbecause 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 acomplaint 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 ofpossession !ith the "C. ' complaint for recovery of possession !as filed in the "C and intheir defense, the agudos argue that they have occupied the land in the concept of o!ner formore than 7$ years and that "C" issued to =/"' !as fa)e since the +C" that served as basis ofthe "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. "heagudos filed !ith the trial court a eAoinder to eply 9ith Counter-1otion to 'dmit 'ttachedocumentary /vidence elevant to the ending ncident !hich sought to be attached certain

documents and photograph !hich included, to !itE a &etter dated 2# ovember #FGF of thespouses agudoDs son, /ngr. 'urelio agudo, addressed to =/"', stating therein that theagudos !ere !illing to become =/"' membersH a Joint 'ffidavit, dated $I +ctober #FF7, ofthree ?>@ residents of the =abella /stateH hotos of three ?>@ alleged houses of 1iriam de0u;man located at the =abella /stateH hotos of t!o ?2@ alleged houses of the sons of 1iriam de0u;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 ofoble;aDs relative named 'rchitect =ernande; located at the =abella /state. "he trial courtallo!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 ocumentary /vidence by 9ay of artiale! "rial, n the nterest of Justice and see)s the admission of the same documents andphotographs 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 soughtadmission of, on the ground that they could not be considered as ne!ly discovered evidence. "heappeal to the C' as regards the complaint for recovery of possession !as li)e!ise denied. +neof the agudos contention !as that documents !hich their former counsel failed to adduce inevidence during trial of the main case must be allo!ed to stay in the records thereof and dulyconsidered in the resolution of their appeal because they !ere duly admitted in the trial courtduring the hearing on the incidental motion for e%ecution pending appeal !hen =/"' sought forthe issuance of the !rit of e%ecution. n affirming the trial court and the C'(s decision, the3upreme Court held that !ith the &ealit- tat tose do$*+ents /e&e ne#e& 0&esented and,o&+all- o,,e&ed d*&in) te t&ial o, te +ain $ase4 tei& .elated ad+ission ,o& 0*&0oses o,a#in) te+ d*l- $onside&ed in te &esol*tion o, te CA $ase /o*ld $e&tainl- $ollide /it

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

8/13/2019 RULE+132

3/4

Se$tion 384 R*le 1324 o, te R*les o, Co*&t4 /i$ &eads7

SECTION 38! O,,e& o, E#iden$e! 9 Te $o*&t sall $onside& no e#iden$e /i$ as not.een ,o&+all- o,,e&ed! Te 0*&0ose ,o& /i$ te e#iden$e is o,,e&ed +*st .e s0e$i,ied!

t !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 =/"'Dsmotion for e%ecution pending appeal. It is .asi$ in te la/ o, e#iden$e tat te $o*&t sall$onside& e#iden$e solel- ,o& te 0*&0ose ,o& /i$ it /as o,,e&ed!9hile the said documentsmay have the right to stay in the records of the case for purposes of the incidental issue ofe%ecution pending appeal, they do not have that same right insofar as far as the main case isconcerned, 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 againstJose "abuena. 'lfredo "abernilla purchased the subAect lot from Juan eralta, Jr. !hile the t!o!ere in the nited 3tates. 9hen "abernilla returned to the hilippines, per Juan(s instruction, thelatter(s mother, amasa "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 amasa pays the realestate ta%es. 9hen amasa 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 factualfindings, the trial court motu proprio too) cogni;ance of /%hibits H and /%h.

8/13/2019 RULE+132

4/4

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