Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Alvarez vs.

Ramirez
GRN 143439 Sandoval Gutierrez, J.; FACTS: Petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the CA for allowing the testimony of petitioners wife in a criminal proceeding where petitioner was accused for ransom. Private prosecutor in the said criminal case called the petitioners wife without objection from petitioners counsel. Wife testified that it was her estranged husband who poured and set the house of her sister on fire. A motion to disqualify the testimony of his wife was filed pursuant to rules on martial disqualification. ISSUE: Whether or not the wife can testify against her husband in a criminal case. RULING:The reason for the rule on martial disqualification are: 1. There is identity of interests between husband and wife; 2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there is consequent danger of perjury; 3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidence of private life, even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness; 4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other. The offense of arson attributed to the husband impairs the conjugal relation between him and his wife. His act eradicates all the major aspects of marital life such as trust, confidence, respect and love by which virtues the conjugal relationship survives and flourishes the evidence and facts presented reveal that the preservation of the marriage between petitioner and his wife is no longer an interest the State aims to protect. =========================

RULING: Depositions are chiefly a mode of discovery. They are intended as a means to compel disclosure of facts resting in the knowledge of a party or other person which are relevant in some suit or proceeding in court. Depositions are principally made by law to the parties as a means of informing themselves of all the relevant facts; they are not therefore generally meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party witness. Leave of court is not necessary where the deposition is to be taken before a secretary or embassy or legation, consul gen. etc., and the defendants answer has already been served. Depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of any action, whenever necessary or convenient. There is no rule that limits deposition. Taking only to the period of pre-trial or before it; no prohibition against the taking of deposition after pre-trial the law authorizes the taking of depositions before or after an appeal is taken from the judgment of RTC to perpetuate their testimony for use in event of further proceedings in court or during the process of execution of a final and executor judgment. ==========================

Jonathan Landoil vs. Mangudadatu


GRN 155010 Panganiban, J.; FACTS: Respondents filed a complaint for damages against petitioner in the lower court. Trial proceeded without the participation of petitioner and declared it in default. Petitioner filed a motion for new trial but was denied. When the writ of execution was served, petitioner alleged that it is yet to receive the order of denial for the motion for new trial. A petition for prohibition was filed with CA and respondents submitted its opposition and attached to their pleading is a certification that the order denying the motion for new trial was no longer available for a deposition since trial, had already been terminated. It also opined that the alleged error committed by the trial court of disregarding the oral depositions, was certiorari or prohibition. ISSUE: August 16, 2001

Dasmarias Garments vs. Reyes/American Pres. Lines GRN 108229 Narvasa, J.; FACTS: APL sued Dasmarias Garments for sum of money at the hearing. Instead of presenting its witness, APL filed a motion praying that it intended to take the depositions of some Taiwan nationals. The lower court granted the deposition which was in compliance with the rules on taking of testimony by deposition upon written interrogatories under ROC. CA affirmed. ISSUE: Whether or not a party could present its evidence by taking the deposition of its witness in a foreign jurisdiction before a private entity. August 24, 1993 Whether or not the taking of oral deposition was proper under the circumstances. RULING: (A motion for new trial may be filed on the grounds of 1) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence that could not have been guarded against ordinary prudence, and by reason of which the aggrieved partys rights have probably been impaired; 2) newly discovered evidence, that, with reasonable diligence,. The aggrieved party could not have discovered and produced at the trial; 3) and that if presented, would probably alter the result.) A deposition may be taken with leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property that is the subject of the action; or without such leave after an answer has been served. In keeping with the principle of promoting the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding, depositions are allowed as a departure from the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of examining

witness in open court where demeanor could be observed by the trial judge. As a rule, depositions should be allowed absent any showing that taking them would prejudice any party. ESUS CUENCO vs. TALISAY TOURIST SPORTS COMPLEX, INC. and MATIAS B. AZNAR III [G.R. No. 174154, October 17, 2008] FACTS: Petitioner leased from respondent a property to be operated as a cockpit. Upon expiration of the contract, respondent company conducted a public bidding for the lease of the property. Petitioner participated in the bidding. The lease was eventually awarded to another bidder. Thereafter, petitioner formally demanded, through several demand letters, for the return of his deposit in the sum of P500, 000.00. It, however, all remained unheeded. Thus, petitioner filed a Complaint for sum of money maintaining that respondents acted in bad faith in withholding the amount of the deposit without any justifiable reason. In their Answer, respondents countered that petitioner caused physical damage to the leased premises and the cost of repair and replacement of materials amounted to more than P500,000.00. The RTC issued a Pre-trial Order in which respondent admitted that there is no inventory of damages. The respondents later offered an inventory which was admitted by the said trial court. The RTC ruled favorably for the petitioner. The CA reversed said decision. ISSUES: Whether a judicial admission is conclusive and binding upon a party making the admission. HELD: Yes. Obviously, it was on Coronado's testimony, as well as on the documentary evidence of an alleged property inventory conducted on June 4, 1998, that the CA based its conclusion that the amount of damage sustained by the leased premises while in the possession of petitioner exceeded the amount of petitioner's deposit. This contradicts the judicial admission made by respondents' counsel which should have been binding on the respondents. Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. - An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by a showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. A party may make judicial admissions in (1) the pleadings, (2) during the trial, by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, or (3) in other stages of the judicial proceeding. The stipulation of facts at the pre-trial of a case constitutes judicial admissions. The veracity of judicial admissions require no further proof and may be controverted only upon a clear showing that the admissions were made through palpable mistake or that no admissions were made. Thus, the admissions of parties during the pre-trial, as embodied in the pre-trial order, are binding and conclusive upon them.

Respondents did not deny the admission made by their counsel, neither did they claim that the same was made through palpable mistake. As such, the stipulation of facts is incontrovertible and may be relied upon by the courts. The pre-trial forms part of the proceedings and matters dealt therein may not be brushed aside in the process of decision-making. Otherwise, the real essence of compulsory pre-trial would be rendered inconsequential and worthless. Furthermore, an act performed by counsel within the scope of a "general or implied authority" is regarded as an act of the client which renders respondents in estoppel. By estoppel is meant that an admission or representation is conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. Thus, respondents are bound by the admissions made by their counsel at the pre-trial. Accordingly, the CA committed an error when it gave ample evidentiary weight to respondents' evidence contradictory to the judicial admission. Lechugas vs. CA GRN L-39972 & L-40300 August 6, 1986 FACTS: Petitioner filed an unlawful entry case against private respondent the Lozas. Another case was filed for recovery and possession of the same property and both cases was tried jointly. Petitioner testified that she bought the land from Lasangue in 1950. Private respondent contended that the same land in question was bought by their father from the father of petitioner in 1941. Plaintiffs vendor testified for the defendant stating that she sold the south part of the land which is lot 5522 not lot 5456 which plaintiff claims. IISUE: Whether or not the court of appeals erred in considering, parol evidence over the objection of petitioner. RULING: The appellate court acted correctly in upholding the trial courts action in admitting the testimony of Leoncia. Petitioner alleges that lot 5522 was sold to her by Leonora, not Leoncia, who was never presented as witness in any proceeding in the lower court the parol evidence rule does not apply and may not properly be involved by either party to litigation against the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of a party to a written instrument in the question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby. The rule is not applicable where the controversy is between one of the parties to the document and third persons. Through the testimony of Leoncia, it was shown that what she really intended to sell is lot 5522 but not being able to read and write and fully relying on the good faith of her cousin, petitioner, she just placed her thumb mark on a piece of paper.