This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-06-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The CA has already rejected the evidentiary value of the May 1, 1985 lease contract between the Baguio City Government and Lomises, as it was not formally offered in evidence before the RTC; in fact, the CA admonished Lomises' lawyer, Atty. Lockey, for making it appear that it was part of the records of the case. Under Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. "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."[22] Although the contract was referred to in Lomises' answer to Johnny's complaint[23] and marked as Exhibit "2" in his pre-trial brief,[24] a copy of it was never attached. In fact, a copy of the May 1, 1985 lease contract "surfaced" only after Lomises filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA decision. What was formally offered was the 1969 permit, which only stated that Lomises was permitted to occupy a stall in the Baguio City market and nothing else.[25] In other words, no evidence was presented and formally offered showing that any and all improvements in the market stalls shall be owned by the Baguio City Government. | |||||
|
2011-12-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| "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."[40] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The "parol evidence rule" forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that, at or before the execution of the parties' written agreement, other or different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract. When an agreement has been reduced to writing, the parties cannot be permitted to adduce evidence to prove alleged practices which, to all purposes, would alter the terms of the written agreement. Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and abandoned.[22] None of the above-cited exceptions finds application in this case, more particularly the alleged failure of the MOA to express the true intent and agreement of the parties concerning the commitment/service fee of P320,000.00. | |||||