Cases (Offer of Evidence) Flashcards
Lomises acquired from the Baguio City Government the right to occupy two stalls in the Hangar Market in Baguio City. Lomises entered into an agreement with respondent Johnny M. Suerte for the transfer of all improvements and rights over the two market stalls. Before full payment could be made, however, Lomises backed out of the agreement and returned the P68,000.00.Thus, Johnny filed a complaint against Lomises for specific performance with damages. RTC nullified the agreement between Johnny and Lomises for failure to secure the consent of the Baguio City Government to the agreement. The RTC found that Lomises was a mere lessee of the market stalls, and the Baguio City Government was the owner-lessor of the stalls. On appeal, CA agreed with the RTC that the assignment of the leasehold rights was void for lack of consent of the lessor, the Baguio City Government. The sale of the improvements, however, was valid because these were Lomises’ private properties. Lomises, however, objects to the CA ruling upholding the validity of the agreement insofar as it involved the sale of improvements on the stalls. Lomises alleges that the sale of the improvements should similarly be voided because it was made without the consent of the Baguio City Government, the owner of the improvements, pursuant to the May 1, 1985 lease contract.
ISSUE: Whether or not a document repeatedly mentioned in the pleadings of the parties which was presented only on appeal may be considered for purposes of adjudicating the case.
No. The CA has already rejected the evidentiary value of the May 1, 1985 lease contract between the Baguio City Government and Lomises, as it was not formally offered in evidence before the RTC; in fact, the CA admonished Lomises’ lawyer, Atty. Lockey, for making it appear that it was part of the records of the case. Under Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. “The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for which such document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative weight.” Although the contract was referred to in Lomises’ answer to Johnny’s complaint and marked as Exhibit “2” in his pre- trial brief, a copy of it was never attached. In fact, a copy of the May 1, 1985 lease contract “surfaced” only after Lomises filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA decision.
Respondents filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages arising from their investments against petitioner Westmont Investment Corporation (Wincorp) and respondent Pearlbank Securities Inc. the case was set for the presentation of the defense evidence of Wincorp. On March 7, 2003, three (3) days before the scheduled hearing, Wincorp filed a written motion to postpone the hearing. The RTC denied Wincorp’s Motion to Postpone and considered it to have waived its right to present evidence. The Motion for Reconsideration of Wincorp was likewise denied. On September 27, 2004, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the Francias and held Wincorp solely liable to them. The CA affirmed with modification the ruling of the RTC. Wincorp filed an MR with the CA attaching to the said motion evidentiary evidence which it was not able to present during trial.
ISSUE: Whether or not documents attached to a motion for reconsideration made before the appellate court may be considered for purposes of adjudicating the merits of the case.
No. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence states that: “The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.” A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court. Evidence not formally offered during the trial cannot be used for or against a party litigant. Neither may it be taken into account on appeal. The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial matter. Failure to make a formal offer within a considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it. Consequently, any evidence that has not been offered shall be excluded and rejected. Prescinding therefrom, the very glaring conclusion is that all the documents attached in the motion for reconsideration of the decision of the trial court and all the documents attached in the defendant-appellant’s brief filed by defendant- appellant Wincorp cannot be given any probative weight or credit for the sole reason that the said documents were not formally offered as evidence in the trial court because to consider them at this stage will deny the other parties the right to rebut them.
