DIGEST/FERNANDEZ/ATTY. MELVIN M. MIRANDA V. JUDGE WILFREDO G. OCA/2018

 

ATTY. MELVIN M. MIRANDA VS. PRESIDING JUDGE WILFREDO G. OCA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, REAL, QUEZON (FORMER ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 71, PASIG CITY 

A.M. No. MTJ-17-1899, SECOND DIVISION, March 07, 2018, CAGUIOA, J.

 

FACTS:

Atty. Miranda alleged that when he was about to present private complainant, Antonio L. Villaseñor, together with his Judicial Affidavit, and began to state the purpose of the witness' testimony pursuant to Section 6 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR), Judge Oca told Atty. Miranda that there was "no need for that" and then directed the defense counsel, Atty. Ma. Antonieta B. Albano Placides to proceed to cross-examination. Atty. Miranda asked that he be allowed to state the purpose of his witness' testimony but Judge Oca asked Atty. Miranda if he included the offer or statement of the purpose of the witness' testimony in the Judicial Affidavit. Atty. Miranda replied in the negative then Judge Oca asked Atty. Placides to say something about the matter. Atty. Placides said that Atty. Miranda violated the JAR for filing the Judicial Affidavit only on October 14, 2013. Judge Oca then ordered the termination of the proceedings and told Atty. Miranda that he should have included the offer or statement of the purpose of the witness' testimony in the Judicial Affidavit. Moreover, Judge Oca ordered Atty. Miranda to pay a fine of P1,000.00, and he set the next hearing on February 12, 2014, which is 4 months thereafter. Atty. Miranda made an oral motion for reconsideration, asserting that the JAR does not require the inclusion of the offer or statement of the purpose of the witness' testimony in the judicial affidavit and thus there is no basis for the termination of the proceedings and the imposition of the fine. However, Judge Oca denied outright the said oral motion, excused the witness, and adjourned the proceedings.

ISSUE:

Whether the Supreme Court should adopt the recommendation of the Office of Court Administration (OCA).

RULING:

Yes. The OCA agreed with Atty. Miranda's assertion that the JAR does not require the inclusion of the offer or statement of the purpose of the witness' testimony nor does it impose a fine on a party for failure to include the same. The OCA noted that the contents of a judicial affidavit are those listed under Section 3 of the JAR, while Section 6 thereof provides that the party presenting the witness' judicial affidavit in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of the same at the start of the presentation of the witness. Moreover, the OCA stressed that the fine under Section 10 of the JAR is only imposable in the following instances: (a) the court allows the late submission of a party's judicial affidavit; and (b) when the judicial affidavit fails to conform to the content requirements under Section 3 and the attestation requirement under Section 4.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DIGEST/ACOPIADO/ LARA GIFTS V. PNB 2018

Lara Gifts and Decors, Inc. vs. PNB GR. Nos. 230429-30| January 24, 2018 Digest by: A. Acopiado FACTS: Petitioner company insured a building with respondent bank. Sometime later, the subject of the insurance was gutted by fire. Respondent engaged services of independent appraisers for the fire loss, but the latter were unable to ascertain the damage due to petitioner’s failure to supply documents. Respondent thus denied the insurance claim.  Petitioner sued in the RTC. In the pre-trial the parties agreed to the facts and issues in dispute and the judge issued an order which stipulated that the parties agree to the presentation of additional evidence. None of the parties objected to the stipulation.  Sometime later, petitioner introduced an affidavit and documents which were not submitted in the pre-trial. Respondent objected stating that the same is violative of the judicial affidavit rule and the court memo governing pre-trial procedures and modes of discovery (A....
Read more

[ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Before this Court is a direct recourse from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via petition [1]  for review on the question of whether Section 5 [2]  of the  Judicial   Affidavit   Rule  (JAR) applies to hostile or adverse witnesses.  The petition seeks to annul and set aside the May 28, 2014 [3]  and August 27, 2014 [4]  Orders of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City in Civil Case No. 08-1028. This case stemmed from a collection suit filed by China Banking Corporation (China Bank) against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company Inc. (Ever), the heirs of Go Tong, Vicente Go, George Go and petitioner Ng Meng Tam sometime in December 2008.  China Bank alleged that it granted Ever a loan amounting to P5,532,331.63.  The loan was allegedly backed by two surety agreements executed by Vic...
Read more

G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC., Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondents

 t HIRD DIVISION January 24, 2018 G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC.,  Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. , Respondents D E C I S I O N VELASCO,JR.,  J.: Nature of the Case Before this Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the March 6, 2017 Amended Decision 1  of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Former Fifth Division, in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 138321 and 138774. The Amended Decision granted respondents' motions for the reconsideration of the December 21, 2015 Decision 2  of the CA's Former Fifth Division annulling and setting aside the Omnibus Orders dated October 1, 2014 and November 26, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 14 7, in Civil Case No. 11-238. Factual Antecedents Petitioner Lara's Gifts and Decors, Inc. (LGDI) is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and exporting various handicraft items and decor...
Read more