SALCEDO-ORTANEZ Vs CA
SALCEDO-ORTANEZ Vs CA
11. In affirming the questioned order of respondent Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the
judge, the Court of Appeals has likewise rendered a existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of
decision in a way not in accord with law and with the same or any part thereof, or any information therein
applicable decisions of the Supreme Court. contained, obtained or secured by any person in
violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not
11.1 Although the questioned order is interlocutory in be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
nature, the same can still be [the] subject of a petition legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
for certiorari. 2
Clearly, respondents trial court and Court of Appeals
The main issue to be resolved is whether or not the failed to consider the afore-quoted provisions of the law
remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in admitting in evidence the cassette tapes in question.
was properly availed of by the petitioner in the Court of Absent a clear showing that both parties to the
Appeals. telephone conversations allowed the recording of the
same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is
The extraordinary writ of certiorari is generally not mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.
available to challenge an interlocutory order of a trial
court. The proper remedy in such cases is an ordinary Additionally, it should be mentioned that the above-
appeal from an adverse judgment, incorporating in said mentioned Republic Act in Section 2 thereof imposes a
appeal the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order. penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) months
and up to six (6) years for violation of said Act. 5
However, where the assailed interlocutory order is
patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not We need not address the other arguments raised by the
afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court may parties, involving the applicability of American
allow certiorari as a mode of redress. 3 jurisprudence, having arrived at the conclusion that the
subject cassette tapes are inadmissible in evidence
In the present case, the trial court issued the assailed under Philippine law.
order admitting all of the evidence offered by private
respondent, including tape recordings of telephone WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
conversations of petitioner with unidentified persons. G. R. SP No. 28545 is hereby SET ASIDE. The subject
These tape recordings were made and obtained when cassette tapes are declared inadmissible in evidence.
private respondent allowed his friends from the military
to wire tap his home telephone. 4 SO ORDERED.
Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled "An Act to Prohibit and Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of
the Privacy of Communication, and for other purposes"
expressly makes such tape recordings inadmissible in
evidence. The relevant provisions of Rep. Act No. 4200
are as follows: