Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides in Section 35 thereof as follows

Rule 132 of the rules of court provides in section 35

This preview shows page 7 - 9 out of 26 pages.

"Y", the evidence mentioned in the quoted transcript. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides in Section 35 thereof as follows: EVIDENCE CASE DIGESTS | RULE 129 7
Image of page 7
Sec. 35. Offer of evidence .—The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. 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. It is true that Exhibits "A," "B" and "C" were marked at the pre-trial of the case below, but this was only for the purpose of identifying them at that time. They were not by such marking formally offered as exhibits. 2. It conceded that as a general rule "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 are actually pending before the same judge. Nevertheless, it applied the exception that: . . . 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by which it is sufficiently designated; or when the original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court's direction, at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending. 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of the parties," the case is clearly referred to or "the original or part of the records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives" and "admitted as part of the record of the case then pending."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 Civil Case No. 1327 was being considered by the trial court in the case then pending before it. G.R. No. 144570 VIVENCIO V. JUMAMIL, Petitioner, - versus JOSE J. CAFE, et al. Respondents. FACTS: Petitioner Jumamil filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Panabo, Davao del Norte a petition for declaratory relief with prayer for preliminary injunction and writ of restraining order against public respondents Mayor Jose J. Cafe and the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Panabo, Davao del Norte. He questioned the constitutionality of Municipal Resolution No. 7, Series of 1989 (Resolution No. 7).
Image of page 8
Image of page 9

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 26 pages?

  • Spring '16
  • Mumdani

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture