Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case No. 1
Matugas v COMELEC & Barbers
Case No. 2
Gaw v. Chua
Held:
No.
Ruling: No Merit
Ratio: we settle the procedural question raised
by petitioner on the admissibility of the
documentary evidence presented by respondents
in support of the dismissal of the case against
them. It is petitioner's postulation that the trial
court should not have relied on the documents
presented by respondents as they were not
formally offered in evidence.
We do not agree.
Case No. 9
Arevalo v. Judge Layosa,
AM No. RTJ-06-2005, July 14, 2006
Facts: This is an administrative complaint by
Josefina Cruz-Arevalo against Judge Lydia
Querubin-Layosa with manifest bias and partiality
and ignorance of the law relative to case CruzArevalo v. Home Development Mutual Fund and
Federico Quimbo.
Conrado Cruz executed SPA in favor Josefina
while the former undergoes medical treatment in
the US. Respondent Judge still declared Cruz
non-suited due to his absence. Judge also
refused to isse an order to that effect thus
depriving Cruz the right to challenge her order by
way of pet. For certiorari. Complainat also assails
the order of judge to exclude several paragraphs
in the Affidavit which was adopted as the direct
testimony of her witness w/o giving her counsel a
chance to comment on the objections raised by
the defendants. Moreover, she refused to issue a
written order excluding certain paragraphs thus
depriving complainant the opportunity to file
certiorari proceedings. Also, Complainant
accuses Judge of inaction, indifference or
collusion by silence with the defedants for not
acting on her Motion for Writs of Subpoena
Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum thus
providing opportunity for defendant Quimbo to
avoid compliance therewith. Also prays for the reraffling of the case to ensure impartiality and
proper dispensation of the case.
Judge made ruling to inhibit herself from the case
and that such letter-decision be forwarded to the
Office of the Executive Judge through the Clerk of
Court of this Court for re-raffle so that plaintiff
would not fear of alleged unfairness of the Judge.
Judge explains that (via comment) letter
presented by complainant allegedly authorizing
her to represent Cruz in the pre-trial is defective
because it was not duly notarized and
authenticated. SPA, according to Judge, is also
defective.
As to the paragraph exclusions, Judge points out
that she gave the other part the chance to go
over the affidavit and make objections thereto like
any direct testimonial evidence. She claims that
no written order is necessary as demanded by
complainants counsel because her ruling were
made in open court during the course of trial and
are already reflected in the transcript of the
stenographic notes. As to the Subpoenas, Judge
aver that they were not give in due course