G.R. No. 154115 November 29, 2005 same as part of her evidence.

same as part of her evidence. Thus, it declared that petitioner’s objection to the
admission of the documents was premature, and the trial court’s pronouncement that
PHILIP S. YU, Petitioner, the documents are inadmissible, precipitate. 14 The contents of the insurance
vs. application and insurance documents cannot be considered as privileged information,
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Second Division, and VIVECA LIM YU, the Court of Appeals added, in view of the opinion of the Insurance Commissioner
Respondents. dated 4 April 2001 to the effect that Circular Letter No.11-2000 "was never intended
to be a legal impediment in complying with lawful orders". 15 Lastly, the Court of
Appeals ruled that a trial court does not have the discretion to deny a party’s privilege
DECISION to tender excluded evidence, as this privilege allows said party to raise on appeal the
exclusion of such evidence.16 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but to no
Tinga, J.: avail.

This treats of the petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals’ Decision and In the present petition, petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals blundered in
Resolution in CA G.R. SP No. 66252 dated 30 April 2002 1 and 27 June 2002,2 delving into errors of judgment supposedly committed by the trial court as if the
respectively, which set aside the Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig petition filed therein was an ordinary appeal and not a special civil action. Further, he
City3 dated 10 May 2001, declaring an application for insurance and an insurance claims that the Court of Appeals failed to show any specific instance of grave abuse
policy as inadmissible evidence. of discretion on the part of the trial court in issuing the assailed Order. Additionally, he
posits that private respondent had already mooted her petition before the Court of
The facts of the case are undisputed. Appeals when she filed her formal offer of rebuttal exhibits, with tender of excluded
evidence before the trial court.17

On 15 March 1994, Viveca Lim Yu (private respondent) brought against her husband,
Philip Sy Yu (petitioner), an action for legal separation and dissolution of conjugal For her part, private respondent maintains that the details surrounding the insurance
partnership on the grounds of marital infidelity and physical abuse. The case was filed policy are crucial to the issue of petitioner’s infidelity and his financial capacity to
before the RTC of Pasig and raffled to Branch 158, presided by Judge Jose R. provide support to her and their children. Further, she argues that she had no choice
Hernandez. but to make a tender of excluded evidence considering that she was left to speculate
on what the insurance application and policy ruled out by the trial court would
contain.18
During trial, private respondent moved for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum
and ad testificandum4 to certain officers of Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. to compel
production of the insurance policy and application of a person suspected to be A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to correct errors of
petitioner’s illegitimate child.5 The trial court denied the motion. 6 It ruled that the jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction
insurance contract is inadmissible evidence in view of Circular Letter No. 11-2000, committed by a lower court.19 Where a respondent does not have the legal power to
issued by the Insurance Commission which presumably prevents insurance determine the case and yet he does so, he acts without jurisdiction; where, "being
companies/agents from divulging confidential and privileged information pertaining to clothed with power to determine the case, oversteps his authority as determined by
insurance policies.7 It added that the production of the application and insurance law, he is performing a function in excess of jurisdiction."20
contract would violate Article 2808 of the Civil Code and Section 5 of the Civil Registry
Law,9 both of which prohibit the unauthorized identification of the parents of an Petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals passed upon errors of judgment, not errors
illegitimate child.10 Private respondent sought reconsideration of the Order, but the of jurisdiction, since it delved into the propriety of the denial of the subpoena duces
motion was denied by the trial court.11 tecum and subpoena ad testificandum. The argument must fail.

Aggrieved, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of While trial courts have the discretion to admit or exclude evidence, such power is
Appeals, imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of exercised only when the evidence has been formally offered.21 For a long time, the
jurisdiction on the part of Judge Hernandez in issuing the 10 May 2001 Order.12 The Court has recognized that during the early stages of the development of proof, it is
Court of Appeals summarized the issues as follows: (i) whether or not an insurance impossible for a trial court judge to know with certainty whether evidence is relevant
policy and its corresponding application form can be admitted as evidence to prove a or not, and thus the practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections to its
party’s extra-marital affairs in an action for legal separation; and (ii) whether or not a materiality should be avoided.22 As well elucidated in the case of Prats & Co. v.
trial court has the discretion to deny a party’s motion to attach excluded evidence to Phoenix Insurance Co.:23
the record under Section 40, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.13
Moreover, it must be remembered that in the heat of the battle over which he presides
According to the Court of Appeals, private respondent was merely seeking the a judge of first instance may possibly fall into error in judging of the relevancy of proof
production of the insurance application and contract, and was not yet offering the where a fair and logical connection is in fact shown. When such a mistake is made
and the proof is erroneously ruled out, the Supreme Court, upon appeal, often finds It is thus apparent that before tender of excluded evidence is made, the evidence
itself embarrassed and possibly unable to correct the effects of the error without must have been formally offered before the court. And before formal offer of evidence
returning the case for a new trial, — a step which this court is always very loath to is made, the evidence must have been identified and presented before the court.
take. On the other hand, the admission of proof in a court of first instance, even if the While private respondent made a "Tender of Excluded Evidence," such is not the
question as to its form, materiality, or relevancy is doubtful, can never result in much tender contemplated by the above-quoted rule, for obviously, the insurance policy and
harm to either litigant, because the trial judge is supposed to know the law; and it is application were not formally offered much less presented before the trial court. At
its duty, upon final consideration of the case, to distinguish the relevant and material most, said "Tender of Excluded Evidence" was a
from the irrelevant and immaterial. If this course is followed and the cause is
prosecuted to the Supreme Court upon appeal, this court then has all the material manifestation of an undisputed fact that the subject documents were declared
before it necessary to make a correct judgment. inadmissible by the trial court even before these were presented during trial. It was
not the kind of plain, speedy and adequate remedy which private respondent could
In the instant case, the insurance application and the insurance policy were yet to be have resorted to instead of the petition for certiorari she filed before the Court of
presented in court, much less formally offered before it. In fact, private respondent Appeals. It did not in any way render the said petition moot.
was merely asking for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad
testificandum when the trial court issued the assailed Order. Even assuming that the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 30
documents would eventually be declared inadmissible, the trial court was not then in April 2002 and Resolution dated 27 June 2002 are AFFIRMED. Costs against
a position to make a declaration to that effect at that point. Thus, it barred the petitioner.
production of the subject documents prior to the assessment of its probable worth. As
observed by petitioners, the assailed Order was not a mere ruling on the admissibility
of evidence; it was, more importantly, a ruling affecting the proper conduct of trial.24 SO ORDERED.

Excess of jurisdiction refers to any act which although falling within the general Footnotes
powers of the judge is not authorized and is consequently void with respect to the
particular case because the conditions under which he was only authorized to 1
Rollo, pp. 36-45.
exercise his general power in that case did not exist and therefore, the judicial power
was not legally exercised.25 Thus, in declaring that the documents are irrelevant and 2
Id at 48-50.
inadmissible even before they were formally offered, much less presented before it,
the trial court acted in excess of its discretion. 3
Id. at 108-111.
Anent the issue of whether the information contained in the documents is privileged in 4
nature, the same was clarified and settled by the Insurance Commissioner’s opinion CA Rollo, p. 47.
that the circular on which the trial court based its ruling was not designed to obstruct
lawful court orders.26 Hence, there is no more impediment to presenting the insurance 5
Rollo, p. 171.
application and policy.
6
Order dated 10 May 2001, id. 108-111.
Petitioner additionally claims that by virtue of private respondent’s tender of excluded
evidence, she has rendered moot her petition before the Court of Appeals since the 7
Rollo, p. 109.
move evinced that she had another speedy and adequate remedy under the law. The
Court holds otherwise.
8
Art. 280. When the father or the mother makes the recognition
separately, he or she shall not reveal the name or the person with
Section 40, Rule 132 provides:
whom he or she had the child; neither shall he or she state any
circumstance whereby the other person may be identified.
Sec.40. Tender of excluded evidence.—If documents or things offered in evidence
are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of 9
Act No. 3753, Section 5, fourth paragraph reads:
the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the
name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the
proposed testimony. In case of an illegitimate child, the birth certificate shall be signed
and sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant or only the mother if
the father refuses. In the latter case, it shall not be permissible to
state or reveal in the document the name of the father who refuses
 to acknowledge the child or to give therein any information by which
such father could be identified.

10
Rollo, p. 109.

11
Id. at 128.

12
Id. at 62-75.

13
Id. at 36.

14
Id. at 43 citing Rules 34- to 36 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

15
CA Rollo, p. 58.

16
Rollo, p. 45.

17
Id. at 30.

18
Id. at 262-264.

19
Sec. 1, Rule 65, Revised Rules on Civil Procedure.

20
Punzalan v. Dela Peña, G.R. No. 158543, 21 July 2004, 434
SCRA 601, 609.

21
Sec. 34, Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence:

Sec. 34. Offer of evidence.- The court shall consider no evidence

22
People v. Yatco, et al. ,97 Phil. 940, 946 (1955) citing Prats & Co.
v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 52 Phil. 807 (1929).

23
52 Phil. 807, 816-817 (1929).

24
Rollo, p. 316.

25
Broom v. Douglas, 175 Ala. 268, 57 S 860; Tengco v. Jocson, 43
Phil 716 (1922).

26
CA Rollo, p. 58.