G.R. NO. 152375, Dec. 13, 2011 Republic of the Phils. vs. Sani!anba"an, et. al.
#$%&S' A case was filed against the respondents for before the Sandiganbayan (SB) for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages in relation to the allegation that respondents illegally manipulated the purchase of the major shareholdings of Cable and Wireless imited in !astern "elecommunications #hilippines, $nc% (!"#$)% "his case doc&eted as %ivil %ase No. 000( spawned 000( spawned numerous incidental cases, among them, Civil Case 'o% *, a petition instituted by +ictor Africa (Son of the late ose Africa) which sought to nullify the orders of the #C-- directing him to account for the alleged se.uestered shares in !"#$ and to cease and desist from e/ercising voting rights% "he present respondents were not made parties either in Civil Case 'o% *% $n the former case, +ictor Africa (Africa) was not impleaded in and so is plainly not a party thereto% $n the proceedings for %ivil %ase No. 0130, testimony 0130, testimony of 0r% 0aurice +% Bane (former director and treasurer1 in1trust of !"#$) was ta&en by way of deposition upon oral e/amination (Bane deposition) before Consul -eneral !rnesto Castro of the #hilippine !mbassy in ondon, !ngland% "he purpose was for Bane to identify and testify on the facts set forth in his affidavit so as to prove the ownership issue in favor of the petitioner and2or establish the prima facie factual foundation for se.uestration of !"#$3s Class A stoc&% As to %ivil %ase No. 00(, 00(, the petitioner filed a motion ( st 0otion) to adopt the testimonies of the witnesses in Civil Case 'o% *, including the deposition of 0r% 0aurice Bane which was denied by SB in its April 445 6esolution because he was not available for cross1e/amination% "he petitioners did not in any way .uestion the 445 resolution, and instead made its 7ormal 8ffer of !vidence on 9ecember :, 444% Significantly, the Bane deposition was not included as part of its offered e/hibits% $n rectifying this, they filed a second motion with pr ayer for )e*openin! of the case for case for the purpose of introducing additional evidence and re.uested the court to ta+e uicial notice of notice of the facts established by the Bane deposition% "his was however denied by the SB in its 'ovember ;, < resolution (< resolution)% A third motion was filed by the petitioners on 'ovember ;, < see&ing once more to admit the Bane deposition which the SB denied for the reason that the 445 resolution has become final in view of the petitioner3s failure to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal within the =1day reglementary period% -SS/S' Whether the SB committed grave grave abuse of discretion discretion in holding that the 445 445 resolution resolution has already attained finality and in refusing to re1open the case% <% Whether the Bane Bane deposition is is admissible under the rules of court and under under the principle of judicial notice% notice%
%
R-NG'
1. "he court ruled that the SB3s ruling on the finality of its 445 resolution was
le!all" e))oneous but i not
constitute !)ave abuse of isc)etion due isc)etion due to the absence of a clear showing that its action was a capricious and whimsical e/ercise of judgment affecting its e/ercise of jurisdiction% "he SB3s ruling, although an erroneous legal conclusion was only an error of judgment, or, at best, an abuse of d iscretion but not a grave one% "he 445 resolution is an interlocutory decision, thus petition for certiorari is still premature since the rules of court provides that certiorari should be availed in a situation where neither an appeal nor any plain, speedy and ade.uate remedy in the ordinary course of law is available to the aggrieved party e/cept if such remedy is inade.uate or insufficient in relieving the aggrieved party of the injurious effects of the order complained of% At the time of the st motion, the presentation of evidence has not yet concluded% "he remedy after the denial of the st motion should have been for the petitioner to move for a reconsideration to assert and even clarify its position on the admission of the Bane deposition% But upon denial of the owever, the court ruled that the Sani!anba"an !)avel" abuse its isc)etion in ultiatel" )efusin! to )eopen the case fo) the pu)pose of int)oucin! an aittin! in evience the ane eposition. "he 6ules of Court does not prohibit a party from re.uesting the court to allow it to present additional evidence even after it has rested its case provided that the evidence is rebuttal in character, whose necessity, for instance, arose from the shifting of the burden of evidence from one party to the other? or where the evidence sought to be presented is in the nature of newly discovered evidence% At the time the petitioner moved to re1open its case, the respondents had not yet even presented their evidence in chief% "he respondents, therefore, would not have been prejudiced prejudiced by allowing allowing the petitioner3s petitioner3s introductio introduction n of the Bane depositio deposition, n, which was concededly concededly omitted @through oversight%
2. Despite
the cases being closely related, admissibility of the Bane deposition still needs to
comply with the rules of court on the admissibility of testimonies or deposition taken in a
different proceeding. 9epositions are not meant as substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness% -enerally, the deponent must be presented for oral e/amination in open court at the trial or hearing otherwise, the adverse party may oppose it as mere hearsay% Cross1e/amination will test the truthfulness of the statements of the witness? it is an essential safeguard of the accuracy and completeness of a testimony% 9epositions from the former trial may be introduced as evidence provided that the parties to the first proceeding must be the same as the parties to the later proceeding% $n the present case, the petitioner failed to establish the identity of interest or privity between the opponents of the two cases% While +ictor Africa is the son of the late respondent ose Africa, the deposition is admissible only against him as an !"#$ stoc&holder who filed Civil Case 'o% *% 7urther, the rule of uicial notice is not applicable in this case as it would create confusion between the two cases% $t is the duty of the petitioner, as a party1litigant, to properly lay before the court the evidence it relies upon in support of the relief it see&s, instead of imposing that same duty on the court% "he petition was D-S4-SS/D for lac& of merit%
