Tsn Jan9 2015 Pretrial Cullencase2

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT National Capital Judicial Region Branch 22, Makati City

EDWARD X. CULLEN, Plaintiff, -versus-

Civil Case No. 1234454 For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code

ISABELLA W. SALVADOR-CULLEN Defendant. X==================================X TRANSCRIPT of the stenographic notes taken during the pre-trial and held at the Sala of this Court on 9 January 2016, at 4:00 P.M. before the HON. MARJORIE UYENGCONOLASCO, Presiding Judge. PRESENT: FOR THE COURT: Ms. JOANNA MARIN Branch Clerk of Court Ms. CLEMENTINE VILLANUEVA Stenographer APPEARANCE: Atty. ALEJANDRO UNTALAN Plaintiff Counsel Atty. BERNHARD FULGENCIO

CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454 TSN – 9 January 2016 C.S.M. Villanueva

Defense Counsel Atty. ADRIAN TADENA Counsel from the Office of the Solicitor General X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X (AFTER THE CASE WAS CALLED) COURT: Appearances? ATTY. UNTALAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. I am Atty. Alejandro Untalan for the plaintiff Mr. Edward X. Cullen COURT: Good afternoon. Where is the petitioner? ATTY. UNTALAN: He’s here Your Honor. ATTY. FULGENCIO: Good afternoon, Your Honor. I am Atty. Bernhard Fulgencio representing the respondent Ms. Isabella W. Salvador-Cullen COURT: Is the respondent present? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Yes, Your Honor. COURT: Alright. And for the State? ATTY. TADENA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. I am Atty. Adrian Tadena General.

representing

the

office

of

the

Solicitor


COURT: Why are you so interested in this case? ATTY. TADENA: Because the case is controversial your Honor. COURT: Ok. For today I will recognize the OSG. The lawyer from the OSG is appearing instead of the trial prosecutor. This case is scheduled for pre-trial today. The case already underwent before the branch clerk of court and we have the minutes for the preliminary conference. Do you have anything to add to what was taken up during the preliminary conference? ATTY. UNTALAN: For the petitioner, none. COURT: How about the stipulations? I see that the minutes of the preliminary conference did not enumerate any stipulation of facts, just the general statement that “the parties guided by their pre-trial briefs, agreed upon the facts proposed by the petitioner in his pre-trial brief. The petitioner disagreed with the proposed stipulation of the respondent in her pre-trial brief.” Yun lang. Let us clarify this portion ha. Next time when you make the minutes of the preliminary conference, it should contain the stipulations not just a reference to the pre-trial brief or other documents. Let us clarify from the respondent. Atty. Fulgencio, it is stated in the minutes that the respondent is admitting the proposed stipulation of facts of the petitioner. All of them? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Yes Your Honor. COURT:


You are referring to item 3 of the petitioner’s pre-trial brief? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Yes Your Honor. COURT: All of these are admitted? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Yes Your Honor. In item 3 from paragraph 4 to paragraph 22. COURT: Now for the respondent’s proposals for stipulations, the petitioner has not admitted or is not willing to admit any of the proposals for stipulations? ATTY. UNTALAN: For the petitioner your Honor, the stipulation of facts stated in the pre-trial brief of respondents are simply the issues of the case. COURT: These are not stipulation of facts. What you have here are not stipulations of facts. These are actually the issues to be resolved during the trial and naturally the petitioner is not expected to stipulate on these. Otherwise, tapos na. Remember when you make proposals for stipulation of facts, you are referring to facts. You want the other party to admit. Can you have a revised stipulation of facts from the respondent’s side? What will be your proposals? ATTY. FULGENCIO: The respondent proposes to stipulate that he has without knowledge or information to formulate with regards to paragraph 2.10 of the petitioner’s petition. COURT: You want the petitioner to admit that? Atty. Untalan, you’ve heard the proposal for admission.


ATTY. UNTALAN: Admitted. COURT: You’re admitting that the respondent has no personal knowledge? ATTY. UNTALAN: No Your Honor. COURT: Yun nga eh. And again I remind you. When you make your proposal, it must be something that you know the other party might be able to admit or stipulate. Otherwise, it’s useless. Kung ikaw ang nasa petitioner’s side, what will be matters, relevant matter pertaining to your defense which might be admitted by the other party. The respondent is contesting the nullity di ba? Why? ATTY. FULGENCIO: The respondent is contesting the nullity because she and the petitioner are not psychologically incapacitated. COURT: Not psychologically incapacitated, you have that theory, your objective and then from there you break it down. This is your premise. This is your defense. This petition should be contested because neither of the parties are psychologically incapacitated. What is your support for that? What will be your supporting facts and evidence? You break it down and then based on this find these facts which might be stipulated upon by the other party. That’s how you make proposals for stipulations. You have to make it subtle. Meaning to say, hindi pwede yung blatant na ganito kasi for sure hindi yan iaadmit ng kabila like your proposal that the parties are not psychologically incapacitated. Obviously the petitioner will deny that because the petitioner precisely filed this case on the ground that both of them are psychologically incapacitated so if this is your theory and your defense that they are not psychologically


incapacitated, what will be your supporting facts and evidence regarding that? That’s how you get your stipulations. What are your proposals for stipulations again? ATTY. FULGENCIO: We propose to stipulate that the respondent had a constant communication with the petitioner when she was out of the country training at Stanford. COURT: Admitted or denied? ATTY. UNTALAN: The petitioner denies that. COURT: Why is the petitioner denying this? ATTY. UNTALAN: Because on the petition, the respondent even when she is in the Philippines the respondent fails to communicate or to answer the calls of the petitioner when the petitioner calls. COURT: What else? Any other proposal for stipulation? ATTY. FULGENCIO: The respondent proposes that she was able to provide support for her family also when she was training outside of the country at Stanford. COURT: Admitted or denied? ATTY. UNTALAN: The petitioner deny the proposal for stipulation COURT: Why? ATTY. UNTALAN:


In the petition, since the petitioner is the father, he already alleged that he provides for the family. COURT: So there was absolutely no participation on the part of the respondent in providing support? ATTY. UNTALAN: Yes Your Honor. COURT: Are you sure of that? ATTY. UNTALAN: Yes Your Honor. COURT: Will you be able to prove that the upkeep and support of the family was shouldered by the petitioner alone with no participation on the part of the respondent? ATTY. UNTALAN: Yes Your Honor. The petitioner has a means because he is employed as a call center agent. COURT: Alright. Any other proposal for stipulation? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Your Honor, the respondent would also like to propose that during the time when she was in Cagayan she also had constant communication with the petitioner. COURT: Admitted or denied? ATTY. UNTALAN: The petitioner denies the proposed stipulation because it is the attitude of the respondent that she will live the house, their conjugal dwelling not to communicate with the husband or with the family when she’s outside the area.


COURT: What else? ATTY. FULGENCIO: The respondent would also like to propose that her training in Stanford was with the consent of the petitioner; that the petitioner gave his consent to the respondent in order for her to go to Stanford and conduct her training. COURT: The respondent’s training in Stanford was with the consent of the petitioner? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Yes Your Honor COURT: Admitted or denied? ATTY. UNTALAN: The petitioner denies. The respondent failed to get the permission of the petitioner for her study in Stanford. COURT: You mean to say the respondent left for Stanford without the prior consent of the petitioner? ATTY. UNTALAN: Yes Your Honor. COURT: How was she able to leave without getting the consent of the petitioner? There was really no consent given? ATTY. UNTALAN: Although the petitioner knows that the respondent will be leaving for abroad, he has to idea that the respondent will study in Stanford. COURT:


So the petitioner is willing to admit that he knows that the petitioner was leaving for abroad? Correct? ATTY. UNTALAN: Yes Your Honor. COURT: What else? Any other proposal for stipulation? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Your Honor, in relation to the custody of Renesmee Cullen, the respondent respectfully proposes that she earns P150,000.00 a month. COURT: Admitted or denied? ATTY. UNTALAN: The petitioner denies the stipulation because the respondent has no job or she has the means to get that earning and is in school studying for the furtherance of her profession. COURT: What else? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Your Honor, the respondent respectfully proposes that, also with regards to the custody of Renesmee Cullen, that Renesmee Cullen is her dependent under her tax records from which the petitioner have made his waiver to make Renesmee the respondent’s dependent. COURT: So Renesmee is the respondent’s dependent in the tax records? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Yes Your Honor. COURT:


Admitted or denied? ATTY. UNTALAN: The petitioner denies the proposed stipulation because their child Renesmee, their tax declaration they declared as joint dependent, as their dependent. COURT: Does the respondent agree to that? That Renesmee is a joint dependent or the dependent of both the petitioner and the respondent? ATTY. FULGENCIO: No Your Honor. COURT: What else? Any other proposals? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Your Honor, the respondent wants to propose that fact that her work hours is from 8pm to 5pm. COURT: You think the petitioner will be willing to admit that given that earlier they already stated that or they denied your proposal for stipulation regarding the P150,000.00 monthly income on the ground that apparently the respondent had no job. So if it’s the petitioner’s contention that the respondent had no job, you think that the petitioner will be willing to stipulate that the respondent’s working hours are as you said 8pm to 5pm ba? Or you want to withdraw that proposal? ATTY. FULGENCIO: I would like to withdraw that proposal. (26:32) COURT: Do you have any other proposal for stipulation? Earlier you said that you were admitting everything, the proposals for stipulations of the petitioner, all of item 3 number 4 to 22. It also contains the fact of the marriage of the petitioner and that the petitioner and


the respondent has a common child, Renesmee and the custody is with the petitioner. We have no issue regarding the custody over the child? ATTY. FULGENCIO: We have, your Honor. COURT: What is your issue regarding that? You want the custody to be transferred to the respondent? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Yes Your Honor. COURT: How about the support? Who supports the child? ATTY. FULGENCIO: We also like to ask for a respective support from the petitioner. COURT: But the child is with the petitioner. You mean to say even if the child is with the petitioner you are asking support from the petitioner? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Yes Your Honor. COURT: Why? What will be your basis? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Because the petitioner is the father of Renesmee. He also has the obligation to support the child. COURT: But who is supporting the child right now? ATTY. UNTALAN: It is the petitioner. COURT:


The petitioner is the one supporting and custody is also with the petitioner. What will be your legal basis for asking for support for a child who is being supported and under the custody of the petitioner? There will be no basis for that. It will be different if for example the child is with you and you allege that the petitioner is not providing any support but obviously since the child is with the petitioner that’s not disputed that the present situation is that the child is in the custody of the petitioner so obviously the one supporting the child is the petitioner so what will be the basis for the respondent to ask for support? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Therefore, your honor, we would just like to withdraw the request for support only for the custody. 33:18 COURT: So with those additions the other matters in the minutes of the preliminary conference are satisfactory to both the petitioner and respondent? ATTY. UNTALAN and ATTY. FULGENCIO: Yes Your Honor. COURT: How about the State? Mr. OSG? ATTY. TADENA: Yes Your Honor. COURT: The State does not have any proposals for stipulation or any evidence to be presented? ATTY. TADENA: None Your Honor. COURT: But you will choose to examination on the witnesses?

conduct

cross

–


ATTY. TADENA: Yes Your Honor. COURT: Both the petitioner’s and the respondent’s witnesses? ATTY. TADENA: Yes Your Honor. COURT: All of the exhibits mentioned in the preliminary conference for both the petitioner and the respondent were already marked? Already here? Complete? CLERK OF COURT: Yes Your Honor. ATTY. FULGENCIO: With respect to the respondent we would like to submit these two pieces of evidence which were previously provisionally marked during the preliminary conference. COURT: What are these exhibits? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Exhibit #5 Completion Certificate from Cagayan Provincial Hospital and Exhibit #9. COURT: You’re submitting the originals or certified copies only? ATTY. FULGENCIO: We are submitting the originals your Honor with the Clerk of Court. COURT: Alright. Please have it noted. And you want a transfer of the markings on the photocopies to the originals?


ATTY. FULGENCIO: Yes Your Honor COURT: Alright. Kindly transfer the markings Ms. Clerk of Court. Cancel the provisional marking on the photocopy and have it noted that it was transferred to the original (THE CLERK OF COURT DOES THE MARKINGS) COURT: How about for the petitioner? All the exhibits are originals or certified copies? ATTY. UNTALAN: Yes Your Honor.

COURT: No additional exhibits to be submitted today? None? ATTY. UNTALAN: None Your Honor. COURT: How about the respondent? ATTY. FULGENCIO: None Your Honor. COURT: All of your exhibits were attached to the judicial affidavits of your witnesses? ATTY. UNTALAN: Yes Your Honor. ATTY. FULGENCIO: Your Honor, with respect to the respondent, we will submit later on the attachments for the judicial affidavit.


COURT: But you were able to submit the judicial affidavits? Not yet? ATTY. FULGENCIO: We were able to submit the judicial affidavits. COURT: Ah eto Exhibit 1 to 2. You mean to say exhibits 3 to 11 were not attached to the judicial affidavit of Isabella and Chezmos? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Yes Your Honor. COURT: Why not?

ATTY. FULGENCIO: Because of technical difficulties Your Honor in procuring the copies. We were not able to completely attach all of these to the judicial affidavits. COURT: But these exhibits were already marked so you have them. It’s just a matter of attaching them to the judicial affidavits. ATTY. FULGENCIO: We were not able to...We decided Your Honor to submit it once we have gathered all the evidence such as this evidence that I have given to the Clerk of Court for markings Your Honor. COURT: But today is already the pre-trial so you should have at least made sure that during the pre-trial these exhibits were already attached to the judicial affidavits. If you have a complete set then you can attach it. Do you have a complete set?


ATTY. FULGENCIO: Your Honor, we have the complete set with the Clerk of Court. COURT: No, attached to the judicial affidavits. ATTY. FULGENCIO: Not yet Your Honor. COURT: What can the petitioner say about this? ATTY. UNTALAN: The petitioner would like to move that the evidence or exhibits mentioned in the petition which were not attached in the judicial affidavits be expunged from the records of the court. COURT: What will be your basis for that? ATTY. UNTALAN: Because under the judicial affidavit rule, it is stated that if the if the testimony of the witnesses refers to a document he may attach that document as an exhibit and if he wants to retain the original, he can. COURT: So what is the effect if the exhibits are not attached to the judicial affidavit? ATTY. UNTALAN: It will not form part of the judicial affidavit. COURT: What is the reason again Mr. Fulgencio for failure to submit the attachments? ATTY. FULGENCIO:


Your Honor, there was a delay in procuring the copies of these two exhibits that have previously have the clerk of court mark. That is the reason for our delay in submitting the evidence. COURT: Is that reason acceptable to the petitioner? Yes or no? Do you think it’s a valid cause Atty. Untalan? ATTY. UNTALAN: For the petitioner, we are not willing to accept. COURT: It’s not a valid cause? So if that happens to you, you will not consider it as a valid cause? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Your Honor, I would like to manifest something. I would like to manifest that early on we have an agreement with the lawyers of the petitioner regarding our late submission of these exhibits to be attached to the judicial affidavits. And earlier on they assented to our request. COURT: Do you confirm that? There was this gentlemen’s agreement. ATTY. UNTALAN: Before this court has come into session, the opposing counsel approached me that they cannot provide the documents because of some reason and I told him that we will oppose his motion to accept those documents or reason and he will be the one to explain to the court to give a valid reason. COURT: Do you have a recommended fine or I will ask the State? State na lang. ATTY. TADENA: P1,000.00


COURT: I am adapting the recommendation made by the OSG lawyer so a fine of P1000.00 will be imposed upon the respondent and it will be paid at the same time the compliant judicial affidavit will be submitted. When will the compliant judicial affidavit be submitted? ATTY. FULGENCIO: By Monday Your Honor. COURT: Through LBC? ATTY. FULGENCIO: Yes Your Honor. COURT: No other matters to be changed in the minutes of the preliminary conference? Petitioner and respondent, none? ATTY. FULGENCIO and ATTY. UNTALAN: None Your Honor. COURT: Can we now adapt the minutes of the preliminary conference with the modifications and clarifications made today for purposes of pre-trial? ATTY. FULGENCIO and ATTY. UNTALAN: Yes Your Honor. COURT: Can we now terminate pre-trial? We will just set the trial dates. The petitioner will be presented next week? ATTY. UNTALAN: Yes Your Honor. COURT: And the second witness the week after?


ATTY. UNTALAN: Yes Your Honor. COURT: For the defendant, February 6 and the second witness February 13.These are the trial dates that we have. So can we now terminate pre-trial? ATTY. FULGENCIO and ATTY. UNTALAN: Yes Your Honor. COURT: Pre-trial is now terminated. Set this case for the initial presentation of...actually can we change the headings of this case? Instead of petitioner and respondent, let’s change it to plaintiff and defendant to make it uniform. Edward Cullen will testify on January 16. Any other matters or manifestations from counsels? ATTY. FULGENCIO and ATTY. UNTALAN: None Your Honor. X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing transcript is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and ability. Makati City, Philippines, 9 January 2016.

CLEMENTINE S.M. VILLANUEVA St enographer

Tsn Jan9 2015 Pretrial Cullencase2

Recommend Documents