In a Complaint for Sum Of Money filed by the petitioner against the respondents for refusal to pay the petitioner’s claim for damage arising out of a fire, the RTC in its Notice of Pre-Trial Conference required the parties to submit their respective pre-trial briefs, with a reminder than evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial other than those that had been earlier identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial. Pre-Trial conference proceeded, and on account of the voluminous documentary exhibits to be presented, identified and marked, it required six meetings/conferences just for the pre-marking. The parties also reserved the right to present additional documentary exhibits and witness in the course of the trial.
While the parties filed their motions to amend/correct pre-trial order, none of them sought amendment of the pre-trial order for the purpose of adding judicial affidavits or additional documentary exhibits in the course of the trial.
Trial proceeded. One of those presented was Gina Sevilla, who testified that she was able to recover the documents (Questioned Documents) months after the fire broke out.
Governor Vilafuerte also testified on direct and cross examination that he had divested himself of his share in the company after he became governor of Camarines Sur, and he merely gave advice to his wife, who managed the company. Prior to his re-direct examination, petitioner submitted the 2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Mrs. Villafuerte dated July 9, 2014 (the 1st Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Mrs. Villafuerte was filed during the Pre-Trial for the re-marking of exhibits) which contained the Questioned Documents. PNB Gen, through a Motion to Expunge, sought to strike from the records the said 2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Mrs. Villauferte and all documents attached thereto for alleged violation of Administrative Matter No. 12-8-8-SC, otherwise known as the “Judicial Affidavit Rule” (JA Rule) and A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC,or the Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures (Guidelines on Pre-Trial). UCPB filed its Manifestation and Motion, adopting in toto PNB Gen’s Motion. The twin Motions were set to be heard on September 19, 2014.
A day before the scheduled hearing, Governor Villafuerte testified on re-direct examination, and identified the Questioned Documents. Respondents objected to the identification of the documents, as these were not covered by Gov. Villafuerte’s cross -examination. Further, he had no hand in the preparation of the documents thus his testimony would be hearsay with respect to the documents; lastly, they are the subject of the motion to expunge which the court had yet to resolve.
In sum, the RTC denied the objections of the respondents on the identification of Gov. Villafuerte in his re-direct examination, and also denied the motion to expunge the 2nd Judicial Affidavit.
On petition for certiorari before the CA, the appellate court at first sided with the petitioner, but reversed itself, ruling that that the RTC erred in allowing the introduction of the 2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit in evidence, including the attached Questioned Documents, since petitioner failed to comply with Sections 2 and 10 of the JA Rule which prohibit the presentation, marking and identification of additional exhibits during trial that were not promptly submitted during pre-trial. In addition, the CA declared Mr. Villafuerte as incompetent to testify on the Questioned Documents since he was neither involved in the preparation nor execution thereof thus, his testimony respecting the documents is hearsay.
The Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in excluding the 2nd Judicial Affidavit for violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule and for declaring Mr. Villafuerte incompetent to testify on the Question Documents.
The Ruling:
We find merit in the petition.
In an action for certiorari, the primordial task of the court is to ascertain whether the court a quo acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in the exercise of its judgment, such that the act was done in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.
The jurisdiction of the court in such cases is narrow in scope since it is limited to resolving only errors of jurisdiction, or one where the acts complained of were issued without or in excess of jurisdiction. There is excess of jurisdiction where the court or quasi-judicial body, being clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as declared by law. Hence, as long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
This was the issue the CA was confronted with. Specifically, the CA was called to determine whether the trial court correctly allowed the petitioner to submit the 2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit, together with the documentary evidence attached thereto, even though trial had already commenced when it submitted the same, and hence, had not been submitted and pre-marked during the pre-trial.
We agree with the CA Former Fifth Division’s December 21, 2015 Decision that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the assailed Omnibus Orders.
The JA Rule, which took effect on January 1, 2013, was promulgated to address congestion and delays in courts. Designed to expedite court proceedings, it primarily affects the manner by which evidence is presented in court,particularly with regard to the taking of the witnesses’ testimonies. Consequently, in lieu of direct testimony in court, the parties are required to submit the judicial affidavits of their witnesses within a given period. Nevertheless, the JA Rule was not devised to supplant or amend existing procedural rules; rather, it is designed to supplement and augment them. In this regard, reference must be made to the Guidelines on Pre-Trial in relation to the Rules on Pre-Trial, which, interestingly, both parties invoke in support of their respective arguments.
Invoking the avowed objectives of the Guidelines on Pre-Trial and the JA Rule to abbreviate court proceedings, ensure prompt disposition of cases, and decongest court dockets, respondents contend that the submission of the 2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Mrs. Villafuerte and the corresponding documentary evidence will unduly prolong the case and defeat the purposes of these rules.
We are not persuaded.
| The JA Rule and the Guidelines on Pre-Trial do not totally proscribe the submission of additional evidence even after trial had already commenced |
Certainly, the parties are mandated under Sec. 2 of the JA Rule to file and serve the judicial affidavits of their witnesses, together with their documentary or object evidence, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference, to wit:
Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies. – (a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents, the following:
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such witnesses’ direct testimonies; and
(2) The parties’ documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant. x x x
The documentary and testimonial evidence submitted will then be specified by the trial judge in the Pre-Trial Order. Concomitant thereto, Sec. 10 of the same Rule contains a caveat that the failure to timely submit the affidavits and documentary evidence shall be deemed to be a waiver of their submission, thus:
Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule. – (a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00 at the discretion of the court. (Emphasis supplied)
It bears to note that Sec. 10 does not contain a blanket prohibition on the submission of additional evidence. However, the submission of evidence beyond the mandated period in the JA Rule is strictly subject to the conditions that: a) the court may allow the late submission of evidence only once; b) the party presenting the evidence proffers a valid reason for the delay; and c) the opposing party will not be prejudiced thereby.
Corollary thereto, the Guidelines on Pre-Trial instructs the parties to submit their respective pre-trial briefs at least three (3) days before the pre-trial, containing, inter alia, the documents or exhibits to be presented and to state the purposes thereof, viz:
I. Pre-Trial
A. Civil Cases
- The parties shall submit, at least three (3) days before the pre-trial, pre-trial briefs containing the following:
x x x x
| d. | The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the purpose thereof (No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of a party’s evidence-in-chief other than those that had been earlier identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial, except if allowed by the court for good cause shown) x x x. (Emphasis supplied) |
Notwithstanding the foregoing procedural prescription, the same rule confers upon the trial court the discretion to allow the introduction of additional evidence during trial other than those that had been previously marked and identified during the pre-trial, provided there are valid grounds.
The trial court precisely exercised this discretion. It allowed the introduction of the Questioned Documents during the re-direct examination of Mr. Villafuerte upon petitioner’s manifestation that the same are being presented in response to the questions propounded by PNB Gen’s counsel, Atty. Mejia, during the cross-examination:
| Atty. Mejia: | Did you for instance submit proofs of purchases of raw materials for the production of the goods worth P330 Million? |
| Witness: | We have delivery receipts from subcontractors to prove the validity and existence of these because we feel. .. |
| Atty. Mejia: | Do these delivery receipts amount to P330 Million? |
| Witness: | I do not know the total but as I mentioned earlier, sir, we have already proven proof of loss. |
| Atty. Mejia: | Did you for instance submit job orders issued by LGD to its subcontractors for the production of the goods worth P330 Million? |
| Witness: | We have purchase orders that we issued to our subcontractors. |
| Atty. Mejia: | Did you issue purchase orders to your subcontractors? |
| Witness: | Yes, sir. |
| Atty. Mejia: | Did you submit copies of these purchase orders to your subcontractors? |
| Witness: | I think so.[24] (Emphasis supplied) |
To echo the CA’s observation, Atty. Mejia first raised the matter of petitioner’s issuance and submission of purchase orders to its subcontractors during Mr. Villafuerte’s cross-examination. Granting that the line of questioning refers to the fact of petitioner’s submission of proofs of purchase of raw materials used for the production of its goods, the existence of such proofs of purchase was injected into the testimony due to Mr. Villafuerte’s answers. The Court wishes to point out that Atty. Mejia failed to have Mr. Villafuerte’s answers stricken out the records although the same were unresponsive to the questions propounded. Pursuant, therefore, to Sec. 7, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, Mr. Villafuerte may be examined again by petitioner’s counsel to supplement and expound on his answers during the cross-examination:
SEC. 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. – After the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement his answer given during the cross-examination. On re-direct examination, questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination, may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
Respondents understandably take issue on Mr. Villafuerte’s competence to testify on the Questioned Documents given his admission that he no longer has any direct participation in the operations and management of petitioner corporation upon divesting his interests thereat in 2004, and that his current participation in the company is only limited to an advisory capacity. Nevertheless, the issues of Mr. Villafuerte’s incompetence as a witness to testify on the object and documentary evidence presented and the propriety of presentation of the Questioned Documents, while intimately related, are separate and distinct from each other.
Moreover, to disallow the presentation of the Questioned Documents on the ground of Mr. Villafuerte’s incompetence to identify and authenticate the same for lack of personal knowledge is premature at this juncture. Sec. 34, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence clearly instructs that:
Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 20 of the same Rule, in turn, provides that before any private document is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Following Sec. 19 of Rule 132, the documents sought to be presented undoubtedly are private in character, and hence, must be identified and authenticated in the manner provided in the Rules. The failure to properly authenticate the documents would result in their inadmissibility. The court, however, can only rule on such issue upon the proponent’s formal offer of evidence, which, pursuant to Sec. 35, Rule 132, is made after the presentation of the party’s testimonial evidence. The present case clearly has not reached that stage yet when the documents were introduced in court.
| The 2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Mrs. Villafuerte was properly admitted by the trial court. |
With regard to the admission of the 2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit, We reiterate the requirements laid down in Sec. 2 of the JA Rule that the parties must file with the court and serve on the adverse party the Judicial Affidavits of their witnesses not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference. While the belated submission of evidence is not totally disallowed, it is still, to reiterate, subject to several conditions, which petitioner failed to comply with. Specifically, the records are bereft of any justification, or “good cause,” for the filing of the 2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit during trial instead of during the pre-trial. Petitioner merely filed and served the affidavit during the hearing on July 10, 2014, without any accompanying motion setting forth any explanation and valid reason for the delay. Further, whether denominated as merely “supplemental,” the fact that the affidavit introduces evidence not previously marked and identified during pre-trial qualifies it as new evidence.
Nevertheless, the Court is constrained to rule that the 2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit was properly admitted in evidence by the trial court. As can be gleaned from Page 64 of the Pre-Trial Order, both parties reserved the right to present additional evidence, thus:
All the parties made a reservation for the presentation of additional documentary exhibits in the course of the trial.
Clearly, the foregoing reservation is tantamount to a waiver of the application of Secs. 2 and 10 of the JA Rule. That respondents waived their right to object to petitioner’s introduction of additional evidence is further reinforced by their counsel’s manifestation during the hearing on November 21, 2013:
| Atty. Zarate: | May I ask her your honor. Who else is knowledgeable about the documents, Madam Witness? |
| Witness: | The DRs and the Purchase Orders, your honor, were prepared by Lara’s Gifts and Decors. They were sent to the subcontractors, your Honor. And then, however, their copies were burned so we now asked the subcontractors to give us copies of the purchase orders that we sent to them so these are the purchase orders, your honor. |
| x x x x | |
| Atty. Zarate: | These are the copies of the DRs of the subcontractors, your honor, because our copies were burned by the fire. |
| Witness: | Your honor Please, we will not be objecting to the introduction in evidence of boxes of documents which were prepared by persons who are not before the court who apparently will not be brought to court for cross-examination by us, provided that there [is] a showing today that these alleged products or supplies delivered have something to do with specific purchase orders that established the contractual obligation to manufacture the 1,081,000 pieces of candle holders. |
| x x x x | |
| Atty. Zarate: | x x x Now, if they say, later on, they will be able to connect the relevance or materiality, it will be after the presentation of Mrs. Lara Villafuerte whom the witness claims is knowledgeable about these documents, your honor. |
| Court: | . . . that is why, he is saying, that it will be the President who can testify. |
| Atty. Zarate: | We would rather wait for the President to identify these documents, your Honor. |
| Court: | … that is I believe the manifestation of the counsel. |
| Atty. Zarate: | Yes, I am agreeable to that, your Honor.[32] (Emphasis supplied) |
Notably, respondents argued that the parties’ respective reservations to allow them to introduce additional evidence do not constitute a waiver of the parties’ rights and obligations under the Pre-Trial Order and the Rules. They further maintained that the introduction of additional evidence must be predicated on necessity, and within the bounds of the issues that have been defined, limited, and identified in the Pre-Trial Order. This argument deserves scant consideration.
For one, following the Guidelines on Pre-Trial, the parties are bound by the contents of the Pre-Trial Order. Records do not disclose that the respondents endeavored to amend the Pre-Trial Order to withdraw their assent to their reservation. Consequently, they cannot now dispute the contents of the Pre-Trial Order. The evidence sought to be presented are likewise undeniably relevant to the issues raised during the pre-trial, which mainly question petitioner’s entitlement to claim the amount of its insurance policy from the respondents and if it has proved the amount of its loss by substantial evidence.
Finally, no less than UCPB, in its Motion to Correct/Amend Pre-Trial Order, moved that the Pre-Trial Order be amended to explicitly include the trial court’s ruling that it will allow additional direct testimony of the parties’ witnesses to be given in open court so long as they have already submitted their Judicial Affidavits within the reglementary period required by the JA Rule. It appears that the motion was made in connection with UCPB’s motion to allow its own witness to give additional direct testimony in open court. Herein, respondents do not dispute that petitioner was able to submit the Judicial Affidavit and 1st Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Mrs. Villafuerte within the period prescribed by the JA Rule. Respondents, therefore, cannot be made to selectively apply the provisions of the rules to the petitioner and then request to be exempted therefrom.
In view of the peculiar factual milieu surrounding the instant case, We rule, pro hac vice, that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in allowing the Questioned Documents to be presented in court and in admitting the 2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of petitioner’s witness. This notwithstanding, litigants are strictly enjoined to adhere to the provisions of the JA Rule, and to be circumspect in the contents of court documents and pleadings.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 138321 and 138774 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Court of Appeals’ December 21, 2015 Decision is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
VELASCO JR., J.:
Bersamin, Leonen, and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Martires, J., on leave.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 230429-30, January 24, 2019, LARA’S GIFT AND DECORS, INC., PETITIONER, V. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. AND UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., RESPONDENTS.
Citations omitted.
SEE ALSO.
3 thoughts on “The reservation to present additional documentary evidence during trial, when agreed to by the parties, is a waiver of the provisions of Secs. 2 and 10 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule.”