Yu v.

CA
November 29, 2005 | Tinga, J. | Petition for review on Certiorari | Offer and Objection
PETITIONER: Philip Yu
RESPONDENT: Court of Appeals, Viveca Lim Yu
SUMMARY: Viveca filed a case for legal separation and dissolution of conjugal partnership against her husband Philip. She moved
for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum against Insular Life to compel the production of the insurance
policy and application of a person suspected to be Philips illegitimate child. The RTC denied this saying it is inadmissible. The CA
reversed. Philip says when Viveca tendered excluded evidence, this mooted her petition. SC said this is not the tender contemplated
because the evidence was not offered nor presented to the court.
DOCTRINE: Before the tender of excluded evidence is made, the evidence must have been formally offered before the court.
Before formal offer, the evidence must have been identified and presented before the court.
FACTS:
Viveca brought an action for legal separation and dissolution
of conjugal partnership against husband Philip Yu, on the
grounds of marital infidelity and physical abuse.
During trial, private respondent Viveca moved for issuance of
subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum against Insular
Life to compel production of the insurance policy and
application of a person suspected to be Philips illegitimate
child.
-

Denied by RTC because insurance contract is

inadmissible as evidence in view of Circular Letter
No. 11-2000 which prevents insurance companies
from divulging confidential and privileged
information regarding insurance policies. Would also
violate Civil Registry Law which prohibits
unauthorized identification of the parents of an
illegitimate child.

Viveca appealed to CA saying grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the judge who
issued the order.

Moot because Viveca filed her formal offer of

rebuttal exhibits, with tender of excluded evidence.

Respondent Viveca:
-

Details surrounding the insurance policy are crucial

to the issue of petitioners infidelity nd financial
capacity to provide support to her and their children.

No choice but to tender excluded evidence because she was

left to speculate on what the application and policy contained.
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N a trial court has the discretion to deny a partys
motion to attach excluded evidence to the record under
R132 sec. 40 - NO
RULING: CA affirmed.
RATIO:
Trial courts may admit or exclude evidence, but may only do
so when the evidence has been formally offered. During the
early stages, the court cannot know with certainty whether
evidence is relevant or not.

CA: private rrespondent was merely seeking the

production of the insurance application and contract,
not presenting it as evidence. Therfore, petitioners
objection was premature

Petitioner argues that Private respondents tender of excluded

evidence moots her petition since the move showed that she
had another speedy and adequate remedy

Not privileged information, in view of the Insurance

Commissioners opinion that 11-2000 was never
intended to be a legal impediment in complying with
lawful orders.

Before the tender of excluded evidence is made, the evidence

must have been formally offered before the court. Before
formal offer, the evidence must have been identified and
presented before the court.

CA also said RTC does not have the discretion to

deny a partys privilege to tender excluded evidence
because this privilege allows the party to raise on
appeal the exclusion of such evidence.

Petitioner Philip appealed to SC

-

CA wrong in delving into errors of judgment as if the

petition filed was an ordinary appeal and not a special
civil action.
No specific instance of GAD shown

While Viveca made a tender of excluded evidence,

such is not the tender contemplated above because
the insurance policy and application were not
formally offered, much less presented before the trial
court.

This was merely a manifestation of an undisputed fact that the

documents were declared inadmissible even before
presentation during trial. It was not the plain speedy adequate
remedy Viveca could have resorted to.