OFFER OF EVIDENCE

1. WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Vs AMOS P. FRANCIA, JR.,

CECILIA ZAMORA, BENJAMIN FRANCIA, and PEARLBANK SECURITIES,

Facts: Respondents Francias filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money and
Damages arising from their investments against petitioner Wincorp and respondent.
(Pearlbank) before the RTC.

After the testimony of Amos Francia, Jr., the Francias filed their Formal Offer of
Evidence. Pearlbank filed its Comment/Objection, while Wincorp did not file any
comment or objection. After all the exhibits of the Francias were admitted for the
purposes they were offered, the Francias rested their case.
Thereafter, 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 on even date, as its witness, Antonio T. Ong, was
unavailable because he had to attend a congressional hearing. Wincorps substitute
witness, Atty. Nemesio Briones, was likewise unavailable due to a previous commitment
in the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The RTC denied Wincorps 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.

Issue: Whether the court should admit the documents attached to Wincorp’s pleadings?

Held: No, all the documents attached by Wincorp to its pleadings before the CA cannot
be given any weight or evidentiary value for the sole reason that, as correctly observed by
the CA, these documents were not formally offered as evidence in the trial court. To
consider them now would deny the other parties the right to examine and rebut them.
Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 34. 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 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.

As to the evidence presented by the Francias. It is elementary that objection to evidence

must be made after evidence is formally offered. It appears that Wincorp was given ample
opportunity to file its Comment/Objection to the formal offer of evidence of the Francias
but it chose not to file any.

2. STAR TWO (SPV-AMC), INC., - versus - HOWARD KO, MIN MIN SEE
KO,JIMMY ONG, and GRACE NG ONG,

Facts: Jianshe obtained various credit facilities or loan accommodations from RCBC
from 2003-2004 to finance its importation of motorcycles, motorcycle parts, motorcycle
accessories, and other related goods. To secure the goods imported by Jianshe, RCBC
required it to execute trust receipts over these goods. Moreover, to secure payment of all
existing and future obligations of Jianshe to RCBC, respondents Howard Ko, Jimmy Ong,
Min Min See Ko, and Grace Ng Ong executed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement dated
September 3, 2002, with a limited liability of P50 M.

Despite demand, Jianshe failed to pay its obligations. RCBC thus filed a Complaint for
Specific Perfomance with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment against Jianshe as
principal and respondents as sureties, before the RTC.

The RTC directed the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against all the
properties of Jianshe and respondents as may be sufficient to satisfy RCBCs principal
claim of P25, 636,339.40 conditioned upon the filing of the required bond. The
corresponding writ of preliminary attachment was thereafter issued.

Howard Ko and Min Min See Ko filed a Motion to Discharge Preliminary Attachment for
having been improperly or irregularly issued. RCBC, however, opposed the motion.
Howard Ko filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that RCBCs claim had already been
paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished. Min Min See Ko adopted Howard
Kos motion.

On June 15, 2006, the RTC ordered the immediate discharge of the attachment issued
against Howard Ko and Min Min See Ko, but denied Howard Kos Motion to Dismiss.

Unsatisfied, Howard Ko and RCBC filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration.
Howard Ko likewise filed a Motion to Set Case for Hearing for Reception of Evidence.

The RTC granted Howard Kos motion and accordingly dismissed the case against
respondents, leaving Jianshe as the only defendant. In dismissing the case, the trial court
stated that there was sufficient evidence to prove that Howard Ko paid an amount more
than the limit provided under the Comprehensive Surety Agreement.

Issue: Whether the court is correct in admitting documents which were not duly
identified by testimony or offered as evidence.

Held: Yes, indeed, courts cannot consider evidence which has not been formally offered
because parties are required to inform the courts of the purpose of introducing their
respective exhibits to assist the latter in ruling on their admissibility in case an objection
thereto is made. Without a formal offer of evidence, courts are constrained to take no
notice of the evidence even if it has been marked and identified.

This rule, however, admits of an exception, provided that the evidence has been identified
by testimony duly recorded and that it has been incorporated in the records of the case.

In this case, the subject pieces of evidence were presented in support of respondents
motion for reconsideration of the denial of their motion to dismiss. A hearing was set for
the reception of their evidence, but petitioner failed to attend the same. The pieces of
evidence were thus identified, marked in evidence, and incorporated in the records of
the case. Clearly, the trial court correctly admitted and considered the evidence of
respondents warranting the dismissal of their case.

3. Roquero vs. Chancellor UP Manila et al, GR No. 181851, March 9, 2010

Facts: Petitioner is an employee of UP-Manila assigned at the PGH Security Division as

Special Police Captain. Private respondent Imelda O. Abutal is a Lady Guard of Ex-
Bataan Security Agency who was applying for a position in the security force assigned at
UP-PGH.

Private respondent Abutal filed a complaint with then Chancellor of UP-Manila Perla D.
Santos-Ocampo for Grave Misconduct against petitioner Capt. Roquero.

The Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT) composed of Atty. Zaldy B. Docena,

Eden Perdido and Isabella Lara, was organized to hear the instant case.The Prosecution
presented its only witness, private respondent Abutal. After the completion of the cross-
examination on the prosecutions only witness, the prosecution agreed to submit its
Formal Offer of Evidence on or before16 July 1999.

The prosecution, however, failed to submit its formal offer of evidence within the period
agreed upon. Thereafter, on10 August 1999, when the case was called, only petitioner
and his counsel appeared. The prosecution repeatedly failed to appear.

On22 October 1999, petitioner filed a Motion through counsel praying that complainant
(private respondent herein) be declared to have waived her rights to formally offer her
exhibits since complainant was not able to file her Formal Offer within the given period
of fifteen (15) days from1 July 1999or up to16 July 1999.

The ADT was not able to act on the said Motion for almost five (5) years.Due to the
unreasonable delay, petitioner, on19 May 2004 filed another Motion asking for the
dismissal of the administrative case against him based on the following reasons: that the
prosecution had not formally offered its evidence; that the ADT had failed to act on the
motion filed on 22 October 1999; that the unfounded charges in the administrative
complaint were filed just to harass him; and that he is entitled to a just and speedy
disposition of the case.

On26 May 2004, the prosecution alleged that a Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits
had been filed on24 January 2004, of which a copy thereof was received by Atty. Lee,
petitioners counsel, on 30 January 2004, per registry return receipt.However, petitioner
has not filed his comment to the said Formal Offer.

In its petition for certiorari, the CA denied the petition with prayer for TRO of Roquero
reasoning that the ADT did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed
orders. Roquero moved for reconsideration of the Decision, but the same was likewise
denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution promulgated on1 February 2008.

Issue: Whether admitting the Formal Offer of Exhibit of complainant Imelda Abutal
despite having filed after almost five years violated the constitutional right of the
petitioner to a speedy disposition of cases?

Held: Yes, the appropriate rule in this case is Section 27 of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which provides, to wit:

When the presentation of evidence has been concluded, the parties shall formally offer
their evidence either orally or in writing and thereafter objections thereto may also be
made either orally or in writing. After which, both parties may be given time to submit
their respective memorandum which in no case shall [be] beyond five (5) days after the
termination of the investigation. Failure to submit the same within the given period
shall be considered a waiver thereof.

The failure to file a formal offer of evidence amounts to no more than a waiver of the
right to file the same. In administrative cases, particularly, where the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service applies, the absence of a formal offer of
evidence does not bar the adverse party from presenting its evidence.
Section 3 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Administrative investigations shall be conducted without necessarily adhering strictly to

the technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable to judicial proceedings.

While under the Rules of Court, a formal offer may be indispensable because the rules
on evidence so require it, the same is not true in administrative cases. There is no
provision in the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service akin to
Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.