Yu v. CA and Lim Yu

PHILIP YU v.
CA and VIVECA LIM YU

Topic: tender of excluded evidence
Facts:
- Viveca brought against her husband Philip an action for legal separation and
dissolution of conjugal partnership on the grounds of marital infidelity and
physical abuse before RTC Pasig
- Viveca moved for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad
testificandum to certain officers of Insular Life Assurance Co. to compel
production of the insurance policy and application of a person suspected to
be Philips illegitimate child
- RTC denied the motion
o an Insurance contract is inadmissible evidence pursuant to Circular
Letter No. 11-2000 issued by the Insurance Commn to prevent
insurance companies/agents from divulging confidential and privileged
information pertaining to insurance policies
o Production of the application and insurance contract would violate NCC
2801 and Sec. 5 of the Civil Registry Law2, both of which prohibit the
unauthorized identification of the parents of an illegitimate child
- Viveca then filed a Motion to Attach Excluded Evidence to the Record
concerning the abovementioned documents
- Upon a petition for certiorari, CA reversed and ruled that:
o Premature objection Viveca was merely seeking the production of
insurance application and contract and was NOT yet offering the same
as part of her evidence
o Pursuant to a letter from the Insurance Commr, the documents cannot
be considered as privileged information as the Circular Letter was not
intended to be a legal impediment in complying with lawful orders
o RTC cannot deny a partys privilege to tender excluded evidence
- Philip now contends before SC that:
o CA erred in delving into errors of judgment when in fact Viveca only
filed a special civil action and not an ordinary appeal
o CA failed to show any specific instance of grave abuse when RTC
denied Vivecas motion
1 Art. 280. When the father or the mother makes the recognition separately, he or
she shall not reveal the name or the person with whom he or she had the child;
neither shall he or she state any circumstance whereby the other person may be
identified.
2 Act No. 3753, Section 5, fourth paragraph reads:In case of an illegitimate child, the birth
certificate shall be signed and sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant or only the
mother if the father refuses. In the latter case, it shall not be permissible to state or reveal in
the document the name of the father who refuses to acknowledge the child or to give
therein any information by which such father could be identified.
CA petition was mooted since she eventually filed her formal offer of
rebuttal exhibits, with tender of excluded evidence
Issue(s):
w/n CA erred in reversing RTC denial of Vivecas Motion
SC Ratio:
No. While trial courts have the discretion to admit or exclude evidence, such power
is exercised only when the evidence has been formally offered. For a long time, the
Court has recognized that during the early stages of the development of proof, it is
impossible for a trial court judge to know with certainty whether evidence is
relevant or not, and thus the practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections
to its materiality should be avoided.
When such a mistake is made and the proof is erroneously ruled out, the SC, upon
appeal, often finds itself embarrassed and possibly unable to correct the effects of
the error without returning the case for a new trial, a step which the SC is always
very loath to take. On the other hand, the admission of proof in a court of first
instance, even if the question as to its form, materiality, or relevancy is doubtful,
can never result in much harm to either litigant, because the trial judge is supposed
to know the law; and it is its duty, upon final consideration of the case, to
distinguish the relevant and material from the irrelevant and immaterial. If this
course is followed and the cause is prosecuted to the Supreme Court upon appeal,
this court then has all the material before it necessary to make a correct judgment.
In the instant case, the insurance application and the insurance policy were yet to
be presented in court, much less formally offered before it. In fact, Viveca was
merely asking for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad
testificandum when the trial court issued the assailed Order. Even assuming that
the documents would eventually be declared inadmissible, the trial court was not
then in a position to make a declaration to that effect at that point. Thus, it barred
the production of the subject documents prior to the assessment of its probable
worth. As observed by petitioners, the assailed Order was not a mere ruling on the
admissibility of evidence; it was, more importantly, a ruling affecting the proper
conduct of trial.
Excess of jurisdiction refers to any act which although falling within the general
powers of the judge is not authorized and is consequently void with respect to the
particular case because the conditions under which he was only authorized to
exercise his general power in that case did not exist and therefore, the judicial
power was not legally exercised. Thus, in declaring that the documents are
irrelevant and inadmissible even before they were formally offered, much less
presented before it, the trial court acted in excess of its discretion.
Issue(s):
w/n the documents are privileged in nature
SC Ratio:
No. It was clarified and settled by the Insurance Commissioners opinion that the
circular on which the trial court based its ruling was not designed to obstruct lawful
court orders. Hence, there is no more impediment to presenting the insurance
application and policy.
Issue(s):
w/n the CA petition had been mooted by Vivecas actual tender of excluded
evidence
SC Ratio:
No. Under ROC 132.403, before tender of excluded evidence is made, the evidence
must have been formally offered before the court. And before formal offer of
evidence is made, the evidence must have been identified and presented before the
court.
While Viveca made a "Tender of Excluded Evidence," such is not the tender
contemplated by the above-quoted rule, for obviously, the insurance policy and
application were not formally offered much less presented before the trial court. At
most, said "Tender of Excluded Evidence" was a manifestation of an undisputed fact
that the subject documents were declared inadmissible by the trial court even
before these were presented during trial. It was not the kind of plain, speedy and
adequate remedy which private respondent could have resorted to instead of the
petition for certiorari she filed before the Court of Appeals. It did not in any way
render the said petition moot.
3 Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. If documents or things offered in

evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or
made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for
the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony.

Yu v. CA and Lim Yu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yu v. CA and Lim Yu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yu v. CA and Lim Yu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHILIP YU v.

CA and VIVECA LIM YU

3 Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. If documents or things offered in

You might also like