You are on page 1of 7

Case Digest April 26, 2016

Case No. 1
Matugas v COMELEC & Barbers

custody of the record for there was no showing


that George was officer charged w/ its custody.

Facts: Barbers filed his certificate of candidacy


as governor of Surigao del Norte. But Matugas,
who is also a candidate for governor, filed with
COMELEC a Petition to Disqualify Barbers as
candidate. His main contention is that Barbers is
not a Filipino citizen. To support his claim,
Matugas presented the following documents: (1)
Photocopy of a letter-request of a confidential
agent of the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation (BID), addressed to one George
Clarke, regarding the US citizenship of Barbers;
(2) A notation on the letter request allegedly made
by George Clarke, stating that Barbers was
naturalized (3) Photocopy of Certification from the
BID containing Barbers' travel records and
indicating in some documents that he is
American. Meanwhile, Barbers won the election.
Thus, he filed a petition to disqualify w/c
COMELEC dismissed, contending that it found
little or no probative value in the notation of
George Clarke to Aganas letter-request. In a
Petition for Certiorari w/ SC, he presented the
following additional documents: (1) Photocopy of
a document purportedly coming from California
District Court showing the Naturalization of
Barbers signed by its Deputy Clerk; (2)
Photocopy of Authentication attached to the
previous document coming from the PH Consul in
LA stating that the said doc. is an Information of
Naturalization of Barbers.

Case No. 2
Gaw v. Chua

Issue: WON Barbers should be disqualified?


Held & Rationale: No. Matugas did not
overcome his burden of presenting substantial
evidence with the documents he presented. For
the purpose of their presentation in evidence,
documents are either public or private. Public
documents include the written official acts or
records of official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies, etc & their record may be
evidenced by official publication thereof or by a
copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record. In this, the grant of US
citizenship is an official act of the US. Thus, the
document containing the record of this act is a
public document w/c can only be evidenced by its
official publication or a copy duly attested by the
officer having legal custody thereof. And if the
record is not kept in the PH, a certificate that such
officer like the sec of embassy, or consul general,
etc, has custody thereof should accompany the
attested copy. Here, the evidence presented is
neither an official publication of the document, nor
a copy attested by the officer who has legal

Facts: Parties (P Chua Gaw, R Suy Ben Chua &


Chua Siok) are siblings & heirs of one Chua Chin
who, along with his wife, owned several
businesses like Hagonoy Lumber & Capitol
Sawmill. When the father died, the heirs had an
extra-judicial partition of the businesses amongst
them & a Deed of Partition & Renunciation of
Hereditary Right was issued to settle their interest
in the businesses in favor of Chua Siok, w/c she
thereafter sold to R. Thereafter, P asked R for a
loan of 200k to be paid w/in 6 months but failed to
do so thus a complaint was filed against him. On
her answer, P contends that the 200k was not a
loan but her share in the profits of Hagonoy
Lumber. During trial, P called R to testify as
adverse witness under Sec 10 Rule 132. On
direct examination, he testified that Hagonoy
Lumber was the conjugal property of his parents
& that he now owns the lots where Hagonoy
Lumber is operating. On cross-examination, he
said that Chua Sioc Huan acquired Hagonoy by
virtue of a Deed of Partition but that he became
the owner of it when he bought the same from the
latter. On re-direct, he paid the purchase price of
P255k for Hagonoy in cash which payment was
not covered by a separate receipt as he merely
delivered the same to Chua Sioc in her house.
RTC, as affirmed by CA, ruled for R thus P now
contends that court erred when it considered as
evidence for the defendant, plaintiffs testimony
when he was called to testify as an adverse party
Issue: WON P, a calling party, shall be bound by
the testimony of R, an adverse party?
Held & Rationale: Yes. That the witness is the
adverse party does not necessarily mean that the
calling party will not be bound by the formers
testimony. The fact remains that it was at his
instance that his adversary was put on the
witness stand. Nonetheless, as a rule, a party
who calls his adversary as a witness is not bound
by the latters testimony but only in the sense that
he may contradict him by introducing other
evidence to prove a state of facts contrary to what
the witness testifies on. But this does not mean
that such testimony may not be given its proper
weight. Merely, the calling party shall not be
precluded from rebutting his testimony or from
impeaching him w/c P failed to do in this. In short,
although the calling party does not vouch for the
witness veracity, he is nonetheless bound by his

Case Digest April 26, 2016


testimony if it is not contradicted or remains unrebutted, as in this case. She contended that the
transfer to Siok was temporary but failed to show
any document supporting such claim.
Case No. 3
Philtrust Bank v CA & Forfom Devt Corp.
Facts: Forfom is engaged in agri business & real
estate development & owns several parcels of
land in Pampanga. It is the registered owner of 2
parcels of land. Apparently, they later found out
that said lands were transferred in the names of
one Ma. Teresa & Ellenora Limcauco, both of who
were not known to R. Thus, R sought the help of
NBI & the latters investigation revealed several
acts, such that Limcauco sold the said lands to
one Claveria who then mortgaged the same to
Philtrust for 8M. Thereafter, R instituted an action
against the parties, alleging conspirational acts in
the fraudulent transfer of registration of the
property. For its part, Philtrust, alleged that (a) the
mortgage was granted after it was satisfied of the
spouses credit worthiness; (b) the latter was able
to maintain a satisfactory record of payment early
on; or (c) it followed the standard operating
procedures in accepting property as security,
including having investigators visit the subject
property and appraise its value. However, CA
ruled that their claims were not supported by
evidence. Thus, they countered that its
allegations were supported by the following
documents: (a) the Promissory Note; (b) the
Deed of Mortgage. More importantly, P adds that
it stated in the Answer to Interrogatories that it
followed the standard operating procedures in
accepting the property as security. Since said
Answer to Interrogatories is a notarized
document, P claims that it is a public document,
which is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its
contents

or her, on the date mentioned thereon. Thus,


even though affidavits are notarized documents,
SC has ruled that affidavits, being self-serving,
must be received with caution.
Case No. 4
Heirs of Arcilla v. Teodoro
GR No. 162886, 11 August 2008
FACTS: Ma. Teodoro originally filed with RTC for
land registration of 2 lands which she allegedly
bought from her father thru a deed of sale with
the exception of the building thereon. Her father
on the other hand acquired the property thru his
father by virtue of succession or extra judicial
settlement with out claim from the other heirs.
Dispute arose from the heirs of the uncle of Maria
as they contend that the lots are owned by their
father and not Marias father by virtue of a deed
of sale from a certain sarmiento bought by
vicente and NOT by marias father thru
inheritance from their grandparents. Petitioners
showed a tax dec as evidence.
Pet. filed an MTD contending that respondent
didnt follow the SC circular on the ground that
respondent should have filed the certificate
against forum shopping simultaneously with the
petition for land registration which is a mandatory
requirement of SC Administrative Circular No.
04-94 and that any violation of the said Circular
shall be a cause for the dismissal of the
application upon motion and after hearing.
MTC ruled in favour of Maria (res)
RTC and Ca- Maria too.
ISSUE: w/o CA erred?

Issue: WON the notarized Answer to


Interrogatories is conclusive as to its
truthfulness?

Held:

Held & Rationale: No. Under Sec 23 Rule 132,


notarized documents are merely proof of the fact,
which gave rise to their execution, and of the date
of the latter but is not prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated. And under Sec 30, the
acknowledgement in notarized documents is
prima facie evidence of the execution of the
instrument or document involved. Thus, while
there is a presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed, it applies only to the portion
wherein the notary public merely attests that the
affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before him

The CA ruled correctly when it held that the


belated filing of a sworn certification of nonforum shopping was substantial compliance
with SC Administrative Circular No. 04-94.

No.

The certification of non-forum shopping


executed in a foreign country is not covered
by Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
There is no merit to petitioners' contentions that
the verification and certification subsequently
submitted by respondent did not state the country

Case Digest April 26, 2016


or city where the notary public exercised her
notarial functions; and that the MTC simply
concluded, without any basis, that said notary
public was from Maryland, USA; that even
granting that the verification and certification of
non-forum shopping were notarized in the USA,
the same may not be deemed admissible for any
purpose in the Philippines for failure to comply
with the requirement of Section 24, Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court that the notarized document
must be accompanied by a certificate issued by
an officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
who is stationed in the country in which a record
of the subject document is kept, proving or
authenticating that the person who notarized the
document is indeed authorized to do so and has
custody of the same.
It cannot be overemphasized that the required
certification of an officer in the foreign service
under Section 24 refers only to the documents
enumerated in Section 19(a), to wit: written
official acts or records of the official acts of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers of the Philippines or of a
foreign country. The Court agrees with the CA
that had the Court intended to include notarial
documents as one of the public documents
contemplated by the provisions of Section 24, it
should not have specified only the documents
referred to under paragraph (a) of Section 19.
In Lopez, the requirements of then Section 25,
Rule 132 were made applicable to all public or
official records without any distinction because
the old rule did not distinguish. However, in the
present rule, it is clear under Section 24, Rule
132 that its provisions shall be made applicable
only to the documents referred to under
paragraph (a), Section 19, Rule 132.
Case No. 5
Malayan Ins. Co. v. Phil. Nails and Wires
GR No. 138084, 10 April 2002
Facts: Respondent Phil. Nails & Wires Corp.
insured against all risk its shipment of 10,053.40
metric tons of steel billet with petitioner Malayan
Insurance Co., Inc., the shipment delivered was
short by 377.168 metric tons. For this shortage,
respondent claimed insurance for Php.
5,250,000.00. Petitioner refused to pay. On July
28, 1993, respondent filed a complaint against
petitioner for the Sum of money with RTC of
Pasig. Petitioner moved to dismiss for failure to
state cause of action but it was denied. On
November 4, 1994, respondent moved to declare
petitioner in default and the trial court granted and

allowed the presentation of evidence ex parte.


Respondent presented its lone witness, Jeanne
King. On November 11, 1993, petitioner filed its
answer but was expunged from the record for late
filing. The Trial Court rendered a judgment by
default.
Issue: Whether or not there is a cause of action
and whether or not King is credible witness.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the
respondents cause of action is founded on
breach of insurance. To hold petitioner liable,
respondent has to prove, first, its, its importation
of 10,053.40 metric tons of steel billets and
second, the actual steel billets delivered to and
received by the respondent. Witness Jeanne King
has personal knowledge of the goods imported
steel billets received. Her testimony on steel
billets received was hearsay because she based
the summary only on the receipts prepared by the
other person. CONCEALMENT MADE IN GOOD
FAITH; VALID INSURACE CONTRACT
Case No. 6
Republic v. Medida
GR No. 195097, 13 August 2012
FACTS: On October 22, 2004, herein respondent
Marlon Medida (Medida) filed with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Argao, Cebu a petition for
registration of title over two parcels of land
situated in Poblacion
The initial hearing on the petition was conducted
on September 22, 2005, with the attendance of
the public prosecutor. The RTC delegated the
reception of evidence to its Clerk of Court. Before
the court, Medida testified that he purchased the
subject properties in February 1997 from one
Eufemia Romero (Romero), who had previously
obtained the lots from Nabor Derama (Derama).
At the time of the lots purchase by Medida, the
properties were covered by Tax Declaration No.
08774 under the name of Romero. Medida
started occupying the properties in 1997, and had
since then declared the properties for tax
purposes under his name.
Also among the witnesses presented during the
proceedings a quo were Asuncion Derama
Binagatan (Binagatan) and Engineer Rafaela A.
Belleza (Engr. Belleza).
The trial court ruled in favor of Medida

Case Digest April 26, 2016


Unsatisfied with the decision of the RTC,
petitioner Republic, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), filed an appeal before
the CA

public lands as alienable and disposable. The


CENRO should have attached an official
publication of the DENR Secretarys issuance
declaring the land alienable and disposable.

ISSUE: The trial court erred in granting appellees


petition for registration because the subject lands
were not occupied and possessed for the period
required by law.

Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on


Evidence provides:

HELD: The petition is meritorious.


The issue in the present petition has been limited
by the Republic, as it merely concerns the merit
of notations in survey plans to prove that the
properties sought to be registered have been
declared alienable and disposable.
The burden of proof in overcoming the
presumption of State ownership of the lands of
the public domain is on the person applying for
registration, who must prove that the land subject
of the application is alienable or disposable. To
overcome this presumption, incontrovertible
evidence must be presented to establish that the
land subject of the application is alienable or
disposable.
t must be stressed that incontrovertible evidence
must be presented to establish that the land
subject of the application is alienable or
disposable.
In the present case, the only evidence to prove
the character of the subject lands as required
by law is the notation appearing in the
Advance Plan stating in effect that the said
properties are alienable and disposable.
However, this is hardly the kind of proof
required by law. To prove that the land subject
of an application for registration is alienable,
an applicant must establish the existence of a
positive act of the government such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive
order, an administrative action, investigation
reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, and
a legislative act or statute. The applicant may
also secure a certification from the
Government that the lands applied for are
alienable and disposable. Applying Section 24
of Rule 132, the record of public documents
referred to in Section 19(a), when admissible for
any purpose, may be evidenced by an official
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the
officer having legal custody of the record, or
by his deputy x x x. The CENRO is not the
official repository or legal custodian of the
issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring

Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence.


Documents consisting of entries in public records
made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein. All other public documents are evidence,
even against a third person, of the fact which
gave rise to their execution and of the date of the
latter.
This Court also holds that the alienability and
disposability of land are not among the matters
that can be established by mere admissions, or
even the agreement of parties. The law and
jurisprudence provide stringent requirements to
prove such fact. Our Constitution,[33] no less,
embodies the Regalian doctrine that all lands of
the public domain belong to the State, which is
the source of any asserted right to ownership of
land. The courts are then empowered, as we are
duty-bound, to ensure that such ownership of the
State is duly protected by the proper observance
by parties of the rules and requirements on land
registration.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition
is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 16,
2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
01870 is hereby SET ASIDE. The application for
registration filed by Marlon Medida is DENIED.
Case No. 7
Catuira v. CA
GR No. 105813, 12 September 1994
Facts: 2 Information for estafa were filed against
Catuira in RTC Calamba for having issued 2
checks in payment of her obligation to Ocampo
when Catuira had no sufficient funds to cover the
same.
Catuira motions to dimiss by way of demurrer to
evidence after prosecution had presented its
evidence under Sec. 15 Rule 119 of 1985
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure because
Catuira argues that testimony of Ocampo is
inadmissible in evidence since it was not properly
introduced when she was called to testify as
mandated in Sec. 35 Rule 132 of the R.R. on
Evidence and that even if the testimony was
considered, the evidence of the prosecution still

Case Digest April 26, 2016


failed to prove that the checks were issued in
payment of an obligation.
This motion was denied, the same with its MR.

Facts: Jianshe took loans from RCBC from


2003-2004 to finance its importation of
motorcycles, its parts, accessories and other
related goods. RCBC required Jianshe to execute
trust receipts over these goods. Moreover, to
secure payment of all existing and future
obligations of Jianshe to RCBC, respondents
Howard Ko, Jimmy Ong, Min Min See Ko, and
Grace Ng Ong executed a Comprehensive Surety
Agreement with a limited liability of P50M.
Jianshe failed to pay its obligations. Hence,
RCBC filed complaint for specific performance
with Pre. Attachement adgainst Jianshe as
principal and respondents as sureties before the
RTC Makati.

ON CA CPM was filed. Motion was rejected.


Issue: W/N CA erred when P argues that
Ocampos testimony should have been removed
off the record pursuant to Sec 34 Rule 132 which
prohibits the court from considering evidence
which has not been formally offered
W/N CA erred to declare that Ps objection was
not done at the proper time since Sec. 36 Rule
132, object to evidence offered orally must be
made immediately after the offer is made.

Howard Ko and Min Min See Ko filed Motion to


Discharge Pre. Attachment for having been
improperly or irregularly issued. This was granted
by the court except for Howard Kos motion.

Held: Deviod of Merit. Decision of the Court of


Appeals sustaining the order of the Regional Trial
Court of Calamba, Laguna, Br. 35, denying
petitioner's motion to dismiss (by way of demurrer
to evidence) isAFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
Ratio: As a general rule, the proponent must
show its relevancy, materiality and competency.
Where the proponent offers evidence deemed by
counsel of the adverse party to be inadmissible
for any reason, the latter has the right to object.
But such right is a mere privilege which can be
waived. Necessarily, the obligation must be made
at the earliest opportunity, lest silence when there
is no opportunity to speak may operate as a
waiver of objections.

Howard Ko and RCBC filed an MR. RTC grants


Kos motion leaving Jianshe as the only
defendant.
RCBC filed Partial Reconsideration. This was
denied but grants the inclusion of Petitioner as
plaintiff in substitution of RCBC.
CA denies petition of Petitioner

While it is true that the prosecution failed to offer


the questioned testimony when private
respondent was called to the witness stand,
petitioner waived this procedural error by failing to
object at the appropriate time, i.e., when the
ground for objection became reasonably apparent
the moment private respondent was called to
testify without any prior offer having been made
by the proponent.

Issue: W/N CA erred in dismissing the petitioner


where:
1) TC whimsically considered and relied on
the docs which are not duly identified by
testimony or offered in evidence;
2) TC has not been established that
respondent Howard Ko paid the P50
Million CAP
3) Supposed payments of Howard Ko, as
stated in the decision of TC, only amount
to $6,539,134.42 which is still below the
P50 M CAP under the Comprehensive
Surety Agreement

Consequently, even if the offer was belatedly


made by the prosecution, there is no reason for
the testimony to be expunged from the record. On
the contrary, the unoffered oral evidence must be
admitted if only to satisfy the court's sense of
justice and fairness and to stress that substantial
justice may not be denied merely on the ground
of technicality.
Case No. 8
Star Two Inc. v. Ko
GR No. 185454, March 23, 2011

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 Digest April 26, 2016


Indeed, courts cannot consider evidence which
has not been formally offered because parties are
required to inform the courts of the purpose of
introducing their respective exhibits to assist the
latter in ruling on their admissibility in case an
objection thereto is made. Without a formal offer
of evidence, courts are constrained to take no
notice of the evidence even if it has been marked
and identified this rule, however, admits of an
exception, provided that the evidence has been
identified by testimony duly recorded and that it
has been incorporated in the records of the case.
In this case, the subject pieces of evidence were
presented in support of respondents' motion for
reconsideration of the denial of their motion to
dismiss. A hearing was set for the reception of
their evidence, but petitioner failed to attend the
same. The pieces of evidence were thus
identified, marked in evidence, and incorporated
in the records of the case. Clearly, the trial court
correctly admitted and considered the evidence of
respondents warranting the dismissal of their
case.

The Court notes that the pieces of evidence


presented by respondents were documents, such
as official receipts, trust debit advices, and
passbooks, issued by no less than petitioner
itself.
Payments were made by respondents
through the active participation of RCBC,
primarily by debiting the subject amounts from
respondents' accounts with the bank. Admittedly,
it was Jianshe, as the principal, which owed
RCBC. Nowhere in petitioner's pleadings was it
claimed that respondents also owed the bank
aside from their obligation as surety to secure the
principal obligation of Jianshe. Undoubtedly, the
debited amounts from Howard Ko's accounts
were made to satisfy his obligation as surety.
Petitioner cannot now claim that the payments
were made by Jianshe as principal and not by
respondents as sureties simply because the
receipts were issued in the name of Jianshe. As
aptly observed by the CA, the issuance of the
receipts in the name of Jianshe was done only to
indicate that it was the principal obligor. The
issuance of the receipts does not erase the fact
that various amounts were debited from the
accounts of Howard Ko, and certificates of time
deposit in the name of Howard Ko were applied
as payment for Jianshe's obligations.
In view of the foregoing, the CA did not err in
sustaining the dismissal of the case against
respondents as the claim or demand set forth in
the complaint has been paid or otherwise
extinguished.

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

Case Digest April 26, 2016


because the legal fees for said motions were
unpaid and the person alleged to have
possession or control of the documents sought to
be produced is not named or specified therein.
OCA found complaint against Judge
unmeritorious and recommended the dismissal of
the administrative case for lack of merit.
Issue:

show that the person alleged to have possession


or control of the documents sought to be
produced is actually named or specified in the
Motions for Writs of Subpoena filed by
complainant respondent judge was correct not to
have entertained the same as the legal fees
corresponding thereto were not paid. Respondent
judge is not obliged to remind complainant or her
counsel regarding said fees as the rules of
procedure and practice already mandate that fees
prescribed in filing of pleadings or other
application which initiates an action or proceeding
shall be paid in full. However, this issue has
become moot as respondent judge subsequently
issued the subpoena prayed for after the
complainant paid the required fees.

Issue: W/N OCA was right in ruling such?


Ruling: We agree.
Ratio: The records clearly show that Conrado R.
Cruz was absent during the pre-trial, despite the
specific mandate of the Rules of Court for parties
and their counsel to personally appear therein.
While non-appearance of a party may be excused
if a duly authorized representative shall appear in
his behalf, however Cruz failed to validly
constitute complainant because his authorization
l e t t e r a n d S PA w e r e n o t r e s p e c t i v e l y
authenticated and specific as to its purpose.
Without any authorized representative, the failure
of Cruz to appear at the pre-trial made him nonsuited. Respondent judge thus correctly
dismissed the complaint in so far as he is
concerned.
Exclusions of paragraphs:
the rule is that
evidence formally offered by a party may be
admitted or excluded by the court. If a party's
offered documentary or object evidence is
excluded, he may move or request that it be
attached to form part of the record of the case. If
the excluded evidence is oral, he may state for
the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance
of the proposed testimony. These procedures are
known as offer of proof or tender of excluded
evidence and are made for purposes of appeal. If
an adverse judgment is eventually rendered
against the offeror, he may in his appeal assign
as error the rejection of the excluded evidence.
The appellate court will better understand and
appreciate the assignment of error if the evidence
involved is included in the record of the case.

Finally, complainant failed to present evidence to


show the alleged bias of respondent judge; mere
suspicion that a judge was partial is not enough.
Bare allegations of partiality will not suffice in an
absence of a clear showing that will overcome the
presumption that the judge dispensed justice
without fear or favor. It bears to stress again that
a judge's appreciation or misappreciation of the
sufficiency of evidence adduced by the parties, or
the correctness of a judge's orders or rulings on
the objections of counsels during the hearing,
without proof of malice on the part of respondent
judge, is not sufficient to show bias or
partiality.The Court will not shirk from its
responsibility of imposing discipline upon erring
members of the bench. At the same time,
however, the Court should not hesitate to shield
them from unfounded suits that only serve to
disrupt rather than promote the orderly
administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, the instant administrative


complaint against Judge Lydia Querubin-Layosa,
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 217, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

On the other hand, the ruling on an objection


must be given immediately after an objection is
made, as what respondent judge did, unless the
court desires to take a reasonable time to inform
itself on the question presented; but the ruling
shall always be made during the trial and at such
time as will give the party against whom it is
made an opportunity to meet the situations
presented by the ruling. Further, while records

You might also like