This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-09-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In the preceding discussion, we have ruled that the Restructuring Agreement is a valid and binding novation of loans of the spouses Tiu entered into from September 22, 1997 to March 26, 1998 in the total amount of US$3,632,000.00. Thus, in order that the spouses Tiu can be held to have fully paid their loan obligation, they should present evidence showing their payment of the total restructured amount under the Restructuring Agreement which was P104,668,741.00. As we have discussed above, however, while respondent Rodolfo Tiu appeared to have identified during his testimony a computation dated July 17, 2002 of the alleged payments made to Union Bank,[78] the same was not formally offered in evidence. Applying Section 34, Rule 132[79] of the Rules of Court, such computation cannot be considered by this Court. We have held that a formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. It has several functions: (1) to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence; (2) to allow opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility; and (3) to facilitate review by the appellate court, which will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court.[80] Moreover, even if such computation were admitted in evidence, the same is self-serving and cannot be given probative weight. In the case at bar, the records do not contain even a single receipt evidencing payment to Union Bank. | |||||
|
2010-09-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Our ruling in Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Parocha[45] is instructive, thus: The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial matter. Failure to make a formal offer within a considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it. Consequently, as in this case, any evidence that has not been offered shall be excluded and rejected. | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Per the records of this case, the BIR was directed to present its evidence[48] in the hearing of February 21, 1996, but BIR's counsel failed to appear.[49] The CTA denied petitioner's motion to consider BIR's presentation of evidence as waived, with a warning to BIR that such presentation would be considered waived if BIR's evidence would not be presented at the next hearing. Again, in the hearing of March 20, 1996, BIR's counsel failed to appear.[50] Thus, in its Resolution[51] dated March 21, 1996, the CTA considered the BIR to have waived presentation of its evidence. In the same Resolution, the parties were directed to file their respective memorandum. Petitioner complied but BIR failed to do so.[52] In all of these proceedings, BIR was duly notified. Hence, in this case, we are constrained to apply our ruling in Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Parocha:[53] | |||||