ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 154115. June 28, 2006]

PHILIP S. YU v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND DIVISION, AND VIVECA LIM YU

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 28, 2006

G.R. No. 154115 (Philip S. Yu v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Second Division, and Viveca Lim Yu)

Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court's Decision promulgated on 29 November 2005, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 30 April 2002 and the Resolution dated 27 June 2002 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

In his Motion for Reconsideration, ^[1] cralaw petitioner insists that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction when it denied the compulsory production of the insurance policy. According to petitioner, respondent's request for subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum amounts to a fishing expedition, and thus she should not "be allowed to compel the production of documents the contents of which she unabashedly admits to be unaware of, much less capable of demonstrating the relevancy thereof to the issues properly brought to the cognizance of the court a quo." ^[2] cralaw

Petitioner further argues that the introduction of the insurance policy and application in the case a quo would constitute a collateral attack on the filiation of the purported illegitimate child, hence, should not be permitted, since an inquiry into the paternity of an illegitimate child should not be allowed except in cases of compulsory or judicial recognition. ^[3] cralaw Relying on Section 5 of Act 3253 (Civil Registry Law), ^[4] cralaw he contends that since he has not given his consent to the revelation of the paternity of the child being claimed to be the fruit of his amorous relationship, even the trial court cannot make such revelation. Thus, it is petitioner's position that the Court's Decision "effectively emasculated the trial court's power and discretion to deny a request for the issuance of a subpoena." ^[5] cralaw

Respondent, on the other hand, claims that the insurance policy and application are "crucial to the issue of petitioner's infidelity and his financial capacity to provide support to her and their children." ^[6] cralaw The documents sought to be produced are intended to be offered only on the issues of marital infidelity and financial capacity, and not on the filiation of the purported illegitimate child. While respondent concedes that the trial court has jurisdiction to rule on the relevancy of documents for the purpose of the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum , the court a quo gravely abused its discretion when it preemptively ruled out the documents on the ground of their supposed immateriality, and effectively barred respondent from making a meaningful tender of excluded evidence.

In the main, petitioner claims that the court a quo acted within its jurisdiction when it denied respondent's request for production of evidence. The Court is not persuaded.

The determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of the court, which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and everyday experience. ^[7] cralaw While it has the power to issue a subpoena duces tecum or subpoena ad testificandum , the exercise of such discretion is subject to two tests. Thus, in Roco v. Contreras, ^[8] cralaw the Court held:

Well-settled is the rule that before a subpoena duces tecum may issue, the court must first be satisfied that the following requisites are present: (1) the books, documents or other things requested must appear prima facie relevant to the issue subject of the controversy (test of relevancy); and (2) such books must be reasonably described by the parties to be readily identified (test of definiteness). x x x. ^[9] cralaw

To determine therefore whether the court a quo acted within its discretion when it denied respondent's Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum , ^[10] cralaw the request must pass the tests of definiteness and relevancy.

Doubtlessly, respondent's application for the production of the insurance policy and application passed the test of definiteness. The pertinent portion of the Request reads:

Please issue a subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum to:

x x x

Requiring him/them to bring with him/them copy of the Insular Life Policy No. A-001495178, and the application therefor and to appear and testify at the trial of the above-captioned case on 14 June 2001 at 8:30 a.m. (Emphasis supplied.)

Bearing in mind the nature of the case a quo, the relevancy of the insurance policy and applications becomes readily apparent. The case below is one for annulment of marriage on the ground of infidelity. The documents were sought to be introduced by respondent as rebuttal evidence to disprove petitioner's testimony that he and a certain Linda Diet are merely friends and business associates. The insurance policy and application, while not conclusive on the fact of infidelity may or may not corroborate the other pieces of evidence presented or to be presented by respondent. It may, or it may not show that the alleged amorous relationship produced a child. It may, or it may not show the financial capability of petitioner for purposes of the support due his wife and children. Despite these uncertainties, it cannot be denied that the insurance policy and application have, at the very least, prima facie relevance to the case, and must be allowed to be produced and offered in court instead of being automatically declared irrelevant and inadmissible.

Anent the objection that the production of the insurance policy and application would violate Sec. 5 of Act 3753, suffice it to say that the rule in essence provides that a birth certificate not signed by the alleged father (who had no hand in its preparation) is not competent evidence of paternity. ^[11] cralaw It does not prohibit the presentation of a document purportedly containing information about one's filiation especially when such document is not presented to prove filiation but for some other purpose.

To the Court's mind, petitioner's objections to the production of the insurance policy and application are premature and highly speculative. Mere allowance of the production of the insurance policy and application does not mean the automatic admission of such pieces of evidence. And even if the evidence will be eventually admitted, the findings of the court a quo will not determine the filiation of the said child because the case a quo concerns the annulment of petitioner and respondent's marriage, and not the child's paternity.

In fine, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it refused the production of the insurance policy and application, and when it declared these documents irrelevant and inadmissible even before their presentation and formal offer.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to DENY WITH FINALITY petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 January 2006.

Nazario, J ., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo , pp. 340-355.

^[2] cralaw Id. at p. 344.

^[3] cralaw Id. at pp. 345-346.

^[4] cralaw Sec. 5. x x x.

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.

^[5] cralaw Rollo , p. 349.

^[6] cralaw Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration, id. at 357-359.

^[7] cralaw People v. Galleno , G.R. No. 123546, 2 July 1998, 291 SCRA 761, 773, citing SIBAL AND SALAZAR, COMPENDIUM ON EVIDENCE, 1995 ed., citing Alfred Asmore Pope Foundation v. New York, 138 A. 444, 106 Conn. 432.

^[8] cralaw G.R. No. 158275, 28 June 2005, 461 SCRA 505.

^[9] cralaw Id. at p. 515.

^[10] cralaw Rollo , p. 107.

^[11] cralaw Fernandez, et al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 16 February 1994, 230 SCRA 130, 137, citing Berciles v. Government Service Insurance System, 128 SCRA 53 (1984).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011