RULE 129 EVIDENCE Tabuena v. CA and Tabernilla, GR 85423, 6 May 1991

 Tabuena v. CA and Tabernilla, GR 85423, 6 May 1991

Doctrine: Evidence not formally offered cannot be considered by the Court unless it has been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and second, it has itself been incorporated in the records of the case. The mere fact that a particular document is marked as an exhibit does not mean it has  thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of a party.

 

GR: Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice in the adjudication of cases pending before them of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or actually pending before the same judge.

XPN: In the absence of objection, and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it, when:

 

With the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made to it for that purpose, by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated; or

 

When the original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court’s direction, at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending

FACTS: An action for recovery of ownership over a parcel of land was filed by one Emiliano Tabernilla Jr against Jose Tabuena, herein petitioner. During the trial, the testimony of Tabuena from a different but similar case was taken judicial notice of the court, to the prejudice of Tabuena.

After trial, judgment was rendered in favour of Tabernilla and ordered Tabuena to vacate the land. Tabuena appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Tabuena elevated the case to the SC contending that the trial court and CA erred in taking judicial notice of his testimony in a different case to his prejudice in the present action for recovery of ownership over a parcel of land, hence this petition.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT AND CA ERRED IN TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF TABUENA’S TESTIMONY IN A DIFFERENT CASE TO HIS PREJUDICE IN THE PRESENT ACTION?

HELD: YES, the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in taking judicial notice of his testimony in another case. It is clear, though, that this exception is applicable only when, "in the absence of objection," "with the knowledge of the opposing party," or "at the request or with the consent of the parties," the case is clearly referred to or "the original or part of the records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives" and "admitted as part of the record of the case then pending." These conditions have not been established here.

On the contrary, the petitioner was completely unaware that his testimony in another case was being considered by the trial court in the case then pending before it. As the petitioner puts it, the matter was never taken up at the trial  and was "unfairly sprung" upon him, leaving him no opportunity to counteract.