502

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

G.R. No. 165496. February 12, 2007.

HUN HYUNG PARK, petitioner, vs. EUNG WON CHOI, respondent.
*

Pleadings and Practice; Verification; The veracity of the allegations in a pleading may
be affirmed based on either ones own personal knowledge or on authentic records, or both, as
warranted.The veracity of the allegations in a pleading may be affirmed based on either
ones own personal knowledge or on authentic records, or both, as warranted. The use of the
preposition or connotes that either source qualifies as a sufficient basis for verification
and, needless to state, the concurrence of both sources is more than sufficient. Bearing both
a disjunctive and conjunctive sense, this parallel legal signification avoids a construction
that will exclude the combination of the alternatives or bar the efficacy of any one of the
alternatives standing alone.
Same; Same; The range of permutation is not left to the pleaders liking, but is
dependent on the surrounding nature of the allegations which may warrant that a
verification be based purely on personal knowledge, or entirely on authentic records or on
both sources.The range of permutation is not left to the pleaders liking, but is dependent
on the surrounding nature of the allegations which may warrant that a verification be based
either purely on personal knowledge, or entirely on authentic records, or on both sources.
Same; Same; Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formalityits import
must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer capricefor what is at
stake is the matter of verity attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an assurance that the
allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not
merely speculative.Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality. Its
import must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer caprice. For what
is at stake is the matter of verity attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an assurance
that the allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith, or are true and correct
and not merely speculative. This Court has strictly been enforcing the requirement
_______________
*

SECOND DIVISION.

503

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

503

of verification and certification and enunciating that obedience to the requirements of

procedural rules is needed if fair results are to be expected therefrom. Utter disregard of
the rules cannot just be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. While

the requirement is not jurisdictional in nature, it does not make it less a rule. A relaxed
application of the rule can only be justified by the attending circumstances of the case.
Same; The Rules, however, require that the petition must be accompanied by clearly
legible duplicate original or true copies of the judgments or final order of both lower courts,
certified correct by the clerk of court.The Rules, however, require that the petition must be
accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or true copies of the judgments or final
orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court.
Remedial Law; Demurrer to Evidence; When a demurrer to evidence is filed without
leave of court, the whole case is submitted for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the
prosecution as the accused is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence .When a
demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the whole case is submitted for
judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution as the accused is deemed to have
waived the right to present evidence. At that juncture, the court is called upon to decide the
case including its civil aspect, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil
action has been waived or reserved.
Criminal Procedure; Actions; If the filing of a separate civil action has not been reserved
or priorly instituted or the enforcement of civil liability is not waived, the trial court should,
in case of conviction, state the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act or
omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any.If the filing
of a separate civil action has not been reserved or priorly instituted or the enforcement of
civil liability is not waived, the trial court should, in case of conviction, state the civil
liability or damages caused by the wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the
accused by the offended party, if there is any.
Jurisdictions; Where a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person
of the accused, and the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the court
necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the law requires it to resolve.Where
504

504

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the accused, and
the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily exercises
jurisdiction over all issues that the law requires it to resolve.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Jose F. Manacop for petitioner.
Benjamin Paggao for respondent.

CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
Petitioner, Hun Hyung Park, assails the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolutions dated
May 20, 2004 and September 28, 2004 in CA-G.R. CR No. 28344 dismissing his
petition and denying reconsideration thereof, respectively.
In an Information dated August 31, 2000, respondent, Eung Won Choi, was
charged for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing
Checks Law, for issuing on June 28, 1999 Philippine National Bank Check No.
0077133 postdated August 28, 1999 in the amount of P1,875,000 which was
dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds.
Upon arraignment, respondent, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not
guilty to the offense charged. Following the pre-trial conference, the prosecution
presented its evidence-in-chief.
1

_______________
1

CA Rollo, pp. 113-114, penned by Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, with the concurrence of Justice

Marina L. Buzon and Justice Noel G. Tijam.

2

Id., at pp. 172-173, penned by Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, with the concurrence of Justice Marina

L. Buzon and Justice Monina Arevalo-Zearosa.

3

Rollo, p. 86.

505

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

505

After the prosecution rested its case, respondent filed a Motion for Leave of Court to
File Demurrer to Evidence to which he attached his Demurrer, asserting that the
prosecution failed to prove that he received the notice of dishonor, hence, the
presumption of the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise.
By Order of February 27, 2003, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati,
Branch 65 granted the Demurrer and dismissed the case. The prosecutions Motion
for Reconsideration was denied.
Petitioner appealed the civil aspect of the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Makati, contending that the dismissal of the criminal case should not include its
civil aspect.
By Decision of September 11, 2003, Branch 60 of the RTC held that while the
evidence presented was insufficient to prove respondents criminal liability, it did
not altogether extinguish his civil liability. It accordingly granted the appeal of
petitioner and ordered respondent to pay him the amount of P1,875,000 with legal
interest.
4

Upon respondents motion for reconsideration, however, the RTC set aside its
decision and ordered the remand of the case to the MeTC for further proceedings,
so that the defendant [respondent herein] may adduce evidence on the civil aspect of
the case. Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the remand of the case having
been denied, he elevated the case to
9

_______________
4

Records, pp. 234-244, citing Ting v. Court of Appeals, 398 Phil. 481;344 SCRA 551 (2000).

Rollo, p. 245.

Id., at p. 87.

Docketed as Criminal Case No. 03-1836. Petitioner amended the Notice of Appeal on June 2, 2003,

after the case had already been docketed, to point out that he is appealing the order of dismissal only
insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned (vide Records, pp. 283, 288, 290, 422).
8

Rollo, pp. 113-117.

Id., at pp. 143-146.

506

506

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

the CA which, by the assailed resolutions, dismissed his petition for the following
reasons:
1. 1.The verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to the
petition does not fully comply with Section 4, as amended by A.M. No. 00-210-SC, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Court, because it does not give the assurance
that the allegations of the petition are true and correct based on authentic
records.
2. 2.The petition is not accompanied by copies of certain pleadings and other
material portions of the record, (i.e., motion for leave to file demurrer to
evidence, demurrer to evidence and the opposition thereto, and the
Municipal [sic] Trial Courts Order dismissing Criminal Case No. 294690) as
would support the allegations of the petition (Sec. 2, Rule 42, ibid.).
3. 3.The Decision dated September 11, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court
attached to the petition is an uncertified and illegible mere machine copy of
the original (Sec. 2, Rule 42, ibid.).
4. 4.Petitioners failed to implead the People of the Philippines as partyrespondent in the petition.
10

In his present petition, petitioner assails the above-stated reasons of the appellate
court in dismissing his petition.
The manner of verification for pleadings which are required to be verified, such
as a petition for review before the CA of an appellate judgment of the RTC, is
prescribed by Section 4 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court:
11

Sec. 4. Verification.Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings

need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic
records.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on information
and belief, or upon knowledge, information
_______________
10

Id., at pp. 162-163.

11

RULES OF COURT, Rule 42, Sec. 1.

507

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi
and belief, or lacks a proper verification
pleading. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

507
shall

be

treated

as

an

unsigned

12

Petitioner argues that the word or is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation

and independence, hence, he chose to affirm in his petition he filed before the
court a quo that its contents are true and correct of my own personal
knowledge, and not on the basis of authentic documents.
On the other hand, respondent counters that the word or may be interpreted in
a conjunctive sense and construed to mean as and, or vice versa, when the context
of the law so warrants.
A reading of the above-quoted Section 4 of Rule 7 indicates that a pleading may
be verified under either of the two given modes or under both. The veracity of the
allegations in a pleading may be affirmed based on either ones own personal
knowledge or on authentic records, or both, as warranted. The use of the preposition
or connotes that either source qualifies as a sufficient basis for verification and,
needless to state, the concurrence of both sources is more than sufficient. Bearing
both a disjunctive and conjunctive sense, this parallel legal signification avoids a
construction that will exclude the combination of the alternatives or bar the efficacy
of any one of the alternatives standing alone.
13

14

15

Contrary to petitioners position, the range of permutation is not left to the

pleaders liking, but is dependent on the surrounding nature of the allegationswhich
may warrant that a verification be based either purely on personal knowledge, or
entirely on authentic records, or on both sources.
_______________
12

As amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10 SC (2000).

13

Rollo, p. 64.

14

Vide Bautista v. Sandiganbayan, 387 Phil. 872, 881-882; 332 SCRA 126, 135 (2000).

15

Vide China Banking Corporation v. Members of the Board of Trustees, Home Development Mutual

Fund, 366 Phil. 913; 307 SCRA 443, 457 (1999).

508

508

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

As pointed out by respondent, authentic records as a basis for verification bear

significance in petitions wherein the greater portions of the allegations are based on
the records of the proceedings in the court of origin and/or the court a quo, and not
solely on the personal knowledge of the petitioner. To illustrate, petitioner himself
could not have affirmed, based on his personal knowledge, the truthfulness of the
statement in his petition before the CA that at the pre-trial conference respondent
admitted having received the letter of demand, because he (petitioner) was not
present during the conference. Hence, petitioner needed to rely on the records to
confirm its veracity.
Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality. Its import must
never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer caprice. For what is at
stake is the matter of verity attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an
assurance that the allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith, or are
true and correct and not merely speculative.
This Court has strictly been enforcing the requirement of verification and
certification and enunciating that obedience to the requirements of procedural rules
is needed if fair results are to be expected therefrom. Utter disregard of the rules
cannot just be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. While
the requirement is not jurisdictional in nature, it does not make it less a rule. A
relaxed
16

17

18

19

20

_______________
16

Rollo, p. 53.

17

Records, p. 69; TSN, August 1, 2001.

18

Vide Grogun, Incorporated v. National Power Corp., 458 Phil. 217, 230-231; 411 SCRA 357, 367 (2003)

for a definition of verification.

19

Clavecilla v. Quitain, G.R. No. 147989, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 623, 631.

20

Id., at p. 623.

509

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

509

application of the rule can only be justified by the attending circumstances of the
case.
To sustain petitioners explanation that the basis of verification is a matter of
simple preference would trivialize the rationale and diminish the resoluteness of the
rule. It would play on predilection and pay no heed in providing enough assurance of
the correctness of the allegations.
On the second reason of the CA in dismissing the petitionthat the petition was
not accompanied by copies of certain pleadings and other material portions of the
record as would support the allegations of the petition (i.e., Motion for Leave to File
Demurrer to Evidence, Demurrer to Evidence and the Opposition thereto, and the
MeTC February 27, 2003 Order dismissing the case)petitioner contends that these
documents are immaterial to his appeal.
Contrary to petitioners contention, however, the materiality of those documents
is very apparent since the civil aspect of the case, from which he is appealing, was
likewise dismissed by the trial court on account of the same Demurrer.
Petitioner, nonetheless, posits that he subsequently submitted to the CA copies of
the enumerated documents, save for the MeTC February 27, 2003 Order, as
attachments to his Motion for Reconsideration.
The Rules, however, require that the petition must be accompanied by clearly
legible duplicate original or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both
lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court.
A perusal of the petition filed before the CA shows that the only duplicate
original or certified true copies attached as annexes thereto are the January 14,
2004 RTC Order granting respondents Motion for Reconsideration and the March
29, 2004 RTC Order denying petitioners Motion for Reconsid21

22

_______________
21

Cf. Shipside, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 404 Phil. 981; 352 SCRA 334(2001).

22

RULES OF COURT, Rule 42, Sec. 2 (d).

510

510

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

eration. The copy of the September 11, 2003 RTC Decision, which petitioner prayed
to be reinstated, is not a certified true copy and is not even legible. Petitioner later
recompensed though by appending to his Motion for Reconsideration a duplicate
original copy.
While petitioner averred before the CA in his Motion for Reconsideration that the
February 27, 2003 MeTC Order was already attached to his petition as Annex G,
Annex G bares a replicate copy of a different order, however. It was to this Court
that petitioner belatedly submitted an uncertified true copy of the said MeTC Order
as an annex to his Reply to respondents Comment.
This Court in fact observes that the copy of the other MeTC Order, that dated
May 5, 2003, which petitioner attached to his petition before the CA is similarly
uncertified as true.
Since both Orders of the MeTC were adverse to him even with respect to the civil
aspect of the case, petitioner was mandated to submit them in the required form.
In fine, petitioner fell short in his compliance with Section 2 (d) of Rule 42,
the mandatory tenor of which is discernible thereunder and is well settled. He has
not, however, advanced any strong compelling reasons to warrant a relaxation of the
Rules, hence, his petition before the CA was correctly dismissed.
23

24

Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and
litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some
instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this we stress, was never
_______________
23

Cf. Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 157; 275 SCRA 167 (1997), which ruled that a petitioner is

not required to attach to the petition before the Court of Appeals a certified true copybut only a true or
plain copyof the MeTC Decision since petitioner is not appealing therefrom as it was rendered in her
favor.
24

Atillo v. Bombay, 404 Phil. 179, 188; 351 SCRA 361, 368 (2001).

511

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

511

intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The
liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and
under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of
technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the

prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. (Emphasis

supplied)
25

As to the third reason for the appellate courts dismissal of his petitionfailure to
implead the People of the Philippines as a party in the petitionindeed, as
petitioner contends, the same is of no moment, he having appealed only the civil
aspect of the case. Passing on the dual purpose of a criminal action, this Court
ruled:

Unless the offended party waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action, there are two actions
involved in a criminal case. The first is the criminal action for the punishment of the
offender. The parties are the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff and the accused. In a
criminal action, the private complainant is merely a witness for the State on the criminal
aspect of the action. The second is the civil action arising from the delict. The private
complainant is the plaintiff and the accused is the defendant. There is a merger of the trial
of the two cases to avoid multiplicity of suits. (Italics supplied)
26

It bears recalling that the MeTC acquitted respondent. As a rule, a judgment of

acquittal is immediately final and
27

_______________
25

Garbo v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 780, 784; 258 SCRA 159, 163 (1996).

26

Salazar v. People, 458 Phil. 504, 514; 411 SCRA 598, 605 (2003).

27

From the MeTCs order, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati instituted a special civil action for

certiorari with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 147. Docketed as SCA No. 03-712 entitled
People of the Philippines v. Hon Rommel O. Baybay and Eung Won Choi, the petition was dismissed on
October 28, 2003
512

512

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal because of the
constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
Either the offended party or the accused may, however, appeal the civil aspect of
the judgment despite the acquittal of the accused. The public prosecutor has
generally no interest in appealing the civil aspect of a decision acquitting the
accused. The acquittal ends his work. The case is terminated as far as he is
concerned. The real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are the
offended party and the accused.
Technicality aside, the petition is devoid of merit.
28

When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the whole case is
submitted for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution as the
accused is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. At that juncture,
the
29

_______________
for being improper and for lack of merit, which order eventually attained finality (vide Records, pp.
335-341, 564-565, 676).
28

Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 436 Phil. 641, 653; 388 SCRA 72, 82 (2002).

29

RULES OF COURT, Rule 119, Sec. 23 reads: Demurrer to Evidence.After the prosecution rests its

case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative
after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the
accused with or without leave of court.
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence
in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right
to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds and shall
be filed within a nonextendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution
may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt.
513

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

513

court is called upon to decide the case including its civil aspect, unless the
enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been waived or
reserved.
If the filing of a separate civil action has not been reserved or priorly instituted or
the enforcement of civil liability is not waived, the trial court should, in case of
conviction, state the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act or
omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any.
For, in case of acquittal, the accused may still be adjudged civilly liable. The
extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action
where (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of
evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only
civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon
the crime of which the accused was acquitted.
The civil action based on delict may, however, be deemed extinguished if there is
a finding on the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from
which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
30

31

32

33

_______________

If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible
period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar
period from its receipt.
The order denying the motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be
reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.
30

In a criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, no reservation to file the civil action

separately shall be allowed. See RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 1, par. (b).
31

See RULES OF COURT, Rule 120, Sec. 2.

32

Sanchez v. Far East Bank & Trust Co ., G.R. No. 155309, November 15, 2005, 475 SCRA 97.

33

Vide RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 2, last par.

514

514

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

In case of a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce
countervailing evidence if the court denies the demurrer. Such denial bears no
distinction as to the two aspects of the case because there is a disparity of
evidentiary value between the quanta of evidence in such aspects of the case. In
other words, a court may not deny the demurrer as to the criminal aspect and at the
same time grant the demurrer as to the civil aspect, for if the evidence so far
presented is not insufficient to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt, then the
same evidence is likewise not insufficient to establish civil liability by mere
preponderance of evidence.
On the other hand, if the evidence so far presented is insufficient as proof beyond
reasonable doubt, it does not follow that the same evidence is insufficient to
establish a preponderance of evidence. For if the court grants the demurrer,
proceedings on the civil aspect of the case generally proceeds. The only recognized
instance when an acquittal on demurrer carries with it the dismissal of the civil
aspect is when there is a finding that the act or omission from which the civil
liability may arise did not exist. Absent such determination, trial as to the civil
aspect of the case must perforce continue. Thus this Court, inSalazar v.
People, held:
34

35

If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the court, the accused has the right
to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case unless the court also declares that the act
or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
36

In the instant case, the MeTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case without
any finding that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
exist.
_______________

34

Supra note 29.

35

458 Phil. 504; 411 SCRA 598 (2003).

36

Id., at p. 517; p. 607.

515

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

515

Respondent did not assail the RTC order of remand. He thereby recognized that
there is basis for a remand.
Indicatively, respondent stands by his defense that he merely borrowed
P1,500,000 with the remainder representing the interest, and that he already made
a partial payment of P1,590,000. Petitioner counters, however, that the payments
made by respondent pertained to other transactions. Given these conflicting claims
which are factual, a remand of the case would afford the fullest opportunity for the
parties to ventilate, and for the trial court to resolve the same.
Petitioner finally posits that respondent waived his right to present evidence on
the civil aspect of the case (1) when the grant of the demurrer was reversed on
appeal, citing Section 1 of Rule 33, and (2) when respondent orally opposed
petitioners motion for reconsideration pleading that proceedings with respect to the
civil aspect of the case continue.
Petitioners position is tenuous.
Petitioners citation of Section 1 of Rule 33 is incorrect. Where a court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the accused, and the
crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily
exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the law requires it to resolve.
One of the issues in a criminal case being the civil liability of the accused arising
from the crime, the governing law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the Rules
of Civil Procedure
37

38

_______________
37

Rollo, pp. 72-73.

38

After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for

dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his
motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the
order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.
516

516

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi

which pertains to a civil action arising from the initiatory pleading that gives rise to
the suit.
As for petitioners attribution of waiver to respondent, it cannot be determined
with certainty from the records the nature of the alleged oral objections of
respondent to petitioners motion for reconsideration of the grant of the demurrer to
evidence. Any waiver of the right to present evidence must be positively
demonstrated. Any ambiguity in the voluntariness of the waiver is frowned
upon, hence, courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against it.
This Court therefore upholds respondents right to present evidence as reserved
by his filing of leave of court to file the demurrer.
WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing discussions, DENIED.
The case is REMANDED to the court of origin, Metropolitan Trial Court of
Makati City, Branch 65 which is DIRECTED to forthwith set Criminal Case No.
294690 for further proceedings only for the purpose of receiving evidence on the civil
aspect of the case.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio, Tinga andVelasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
39

40

41

Petition denied, case remanded to court of origin.

Notes.Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or
resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. (Diaz vs. Mesias, Jr., 424
SCRA 747 [2004])
_______________
39

Cruz v. Court of Appeals, supra note 28 at p. 654; pp. 82-83.

40

Vide People v. Flores, 336 Phil. 58; 269 SCRA 62 (1997).

41

Alonte v. Savellano, Jr., 350 Phil. 700, 720; 287 SCRA 245, 263 (1998).

517

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 12, 2007

Rayos vs. Hernandez

517

If a demurrer to evidence is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is

reversed, the movant shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.
Movant who presents a demurrer to the plaintiffs evidence retains the right to
present their own evidence, if the trial court disagrees with them. (Permanent
Savings and Loan Bank vs. Velarde, 439 SCRA 1 [2004])
o0o

 Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.