PHILAMGEN v. Sweet Lines, Inc.

212 SCRA 194 (1992) Offer and Objection Facts: The vessel SS VISHVA YASH belonging to or operated by SCI Line (Shipping Corp. of India) took on board 2 consignment of cargoes for shipment from LA to Manila and Davao covered by bills of lading issued by SCI Line. The cargoes were insured by Tagum Plastics and PHILAMGEN. For the purpose of transhipment from Manila to Davao, SCI Line made use of M/V Sweet Love owned and operated by Sweet Lines. The cargoes were comingled with similar cargoes belonging to Evergreen Plantation and Standfilco. After the shipments were discharged, it was discovered that there were damages, losses and shortages on the cargo covered by the bills of lading. From the total of 7,000 bags only 5,820 were delivered to the consignee, leaving a balance of 1,080 to which Sweet Lines and F.E. Zueelig is answerable to.Philamgen and Tagum Plastics commenced a suit against Sweet Lines Inc. (SLI), Davao Arastre, SCI Line and FE Zuellig to recover the cost of damaged shipment. Philamgen: SLI failed to adduce any evidence in support of the ground of prescription and that the bills of lading said to contain the shortened periods for filing and for instituting a court action against the carrier were never offered in evidence SLI: it is standard practice in its operations to issue bills of lading for shipments entrusted to it for carriage and that it issued bills of lading Issue: WON the bills of lading may be considered as evidence though not formally offered? Held: Yes. Although the bills of lading were not offered in evidence, the litigation obviously revolves on such bills of lading w/c are practically the documents or contracts sued upon, hence they are inevitably involved and their provisions cannot be disregarded in the determination of the relative rights of the parties thereto. The bills of lading can be categorized as actionable documents w/c under the Rules must be properly pleaded either as causes of action or defenses, and the genuineness and due execution of w/c are deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath by the adverse party. Philamgen s failure to specifically deny the existence, much less the genuineness and due execution, of the instruments in question amounts to an admission. Judicial admissions, verbal or written, made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no evidence being required to prove the same, and cannot be contradicted unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Moreover, when the due execution and genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted because of the adverse party's failure to make a specific verified denial thereof, the instrument need not be presented formally in evidence for it may be considered an admitted fact.

Catuira v. CA 236 SCRA 398 (1994) Offer and Objection Facts: 2 informations for estafa were filed against Concepcion Catuira for having issued 2 checks in payment of her obligation to Maxima Ocampo when Catuira had no sufficient funds to cover the same. Catuira filed a motion to dismiss contending that the testimony of Ocampo was inadmissible in evidence since it was not properly introduced when she was called to testify as mandated in Rule 132.35.RTC and CA denied the MTD. Catuira claimed that the CA erred when it accepted the testimony of Ocampo despite the fact that it was not offered at the time she was called to testify and it was error for the CA to declare her (Catuira) objection as not done at the proper time since under Rle 132. 36, objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. Issue: WON the testimony of the witness is inadmissible if not formally offered at the time the witness is called to testify? Held: Yes (but in the case, there was a waiver on the part of the Catuira) The reason for requiring that evidence be formally introduced is to enable the court to rule intelligently upon the objection to the questions which have been asked.As a general rule, the proponent must show its relevancy, materiality and competency. Where the proponent offers evidence deemed by counsel of the adverse party to be inadmissible for any reason, the latter has the right to object. But such right is a mere privilege which can be waived. Necessarily, the objection must be made at the earliest opportunity, lest silence when there is opportunity to speak may operate as a waiver of objections. Thus, while it is true that the prosecution failed to offer the questioned testimony when Ocampo was called to the witness stand, Catuira waived this procedural error by failing to object at the appropriate time, i.e., when the ground for objection became reasonably apparent the moment Ocampo was called to testify without any prior offer having been made by the proponent. Catuira should have objected to the testimony of the complaining witness when it was not first offered upon calling her and should not have waited in ambush after she had already finished testifying. By so doing she did not save the time of the Court in hearing the testimony of the witness that after all according to her was inadmissible. And for her failure to make known her objection at the proper time, the procedural error or defect was waived.

Sheraton Palace v. Quijano 64 OG 9118 Offer and Objection Facts: Cristina Quijano was awarded a contract by the Philippine Gov t to salvage 36 sunken vessels in the Phils. She met Fred Devine in Japan who offered her the services of Fred Devine Diving Company, an American Corporation engaged in marine salvaging, to undertake Quijano s salvaging operations in the

Phils. Devine invited Quijano to the US in connection with the transaction, with Fred Devine undertaking to pay for Quijano s hotel bills.Quijano arrived in San Francisco and proceeded to Sheraton Hotel where Devine made arrangements. However, Devine refused to pay Quijano s hotel bills. Sheraton filed an action for collection against Quijano. Sheraton relied on the letter of its lawyer in the US to its lawyer in the Phils.in an attempt to show that it was Quijano who asked that her hotel bills be charged against Fred Devine and to the annexes attached to its memorandum. Issues: 1. WON the letter of Sheraton s lawyer may be admitted as independent evidence? 2. WON the annexes attached to the Memorandum not offered in trial be considered as evidence? Held: 1. No. The recitals contained in the letter are merely part of the testimony of the lawyer and is not an independent evidence. It does not constitute proof of the facts related therein. 2. No. The alleged annexes were never presented in evidence during the course of the trial and therefore cannot be taken into consideration as part of the evidence upon which the case should be decided.

Vda. De Oate v. CA 250 SCRA 283 (1995) Offer and Objection Facts: LeonerTaguba bought a parcel of land from Elvira MatoVda. De Onate in 1976 for P5,000. After full payment was made, the parties however failed to reduce the contract in writing. Leonor Taguba died. A demand was made upon Elvira MatoVda. De Onate to execute a public document of sale in favour of Taguba and her heirs but Vda de Onate refused. Her defense was that she contracted a verbal loan from Taguba for P12,000 and the 2 parcels of land were mortgaged by her (Vda. De Onate) toTaguba as security for payment of the loan.As evidence, she presented the receipts showing the varying amounts paid by Taguba to Vda. De Onate. Issue:WON the receipts though not formally offered may still be admitted in evidence? Held: Yes. A party may opt to formally offer his evidence if he believes that it will advance his cause or not to do so at all. In the event he chooses to do the latter, the trial court is not authorized by the Rules to consider the same. In PP v. Napat-a, the Court relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered by the trial court provided the following requirements are present, viz.: first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and, second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case. The receipts were marked at the pre-trial and were identified by Taguba in her testimony duly recorded. The subject exhibits were also incorporated and made part of the records of this case.