Recalling a witness

Sec. 132, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court states the rule on Recalling a
Witness:
Sec. 9 Recalling a witness After the examination of
a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness
cannot be recalled without leave of court. The court will
grant or withhold leave in its discretion as the interests of
justice may require.
Justice Regalado in his Civil Procedure Book discussed the rule on
recalling a witness, to wit:
Where all sides in the case have concluded
their examination of the witness, his recall for futher
examination is discretionary with the court as the interest
of justice requires. However, where such examination has
not been concluded, or if the recall of the witness was
expressly reserved by a party with the approval of the court,
then his recall is a matter of right.
From this, it can be inferred that Recalling a witness is discretionary
upon the court. However, you may recall the witness in the following instances:
1. Examination has not been concluded;
2. Recall of the witness was expressly reserved by a party with the approval
of the court.
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Rivera et.al 1, the court
discussed the requirements in recalling a witness. In this case, it was
emphasized that when moving to recall a witness, mere generality of the need is
not sufficient. What is essential is more than the bare assertion of the need to
propound additional questions before the Court's discretion may rightfully be
exercised to grant or deny recall. There must be a satisfactory showing of some
1 G.R. No. 98376August 16, 1991

concrete, substantial ground for the recall. The pertinent part of the decision in
the case is as follows:
The writ of certiorari prayed for will issue. The Trial
Court

acted

with

grave

abuse

of

discretion

in

authorizing the recall of witness Benjamin Lee over the

objections of the prosecution, and in later striking out
said witness' testimony for want of further crossexamination.
There is no doubt that a Trial Court has discretion to
grant leave for the recall of a witness. This is clear from
a reading of Section 9, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,
as amended,

viz.:

SEC. 9. Recalling witness. After the examination of a

witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness
cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court
will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the
interests of justice may require.
But obviously that discretion may not be exercised in a
vacuum, as it were, entirely, isolated from a particular
set of attendant circumstances. The discretion to recall a
witness is not properly invoked or exercisable by an
applicant's mere general statement that there is a need
to recall a witness "in the interest of justice," or "in order
to afford a party full opportunity to present his case," or
that, as here, "there seems to be many points and
questions that should have been asked" in the earlier
interrogation. To regard expressed generalities such as
these as sufficient ground for recall of witnesses would
make the recall of witness no longer discretionary but
ministerial. Something more than the bare assertion of
the need to propound additional questions is essential

before the Court's discretion may rightfully be exercised

to grant or deny recall. There must be a satisfactory
showing of some concrete, substantial ground for the
recall. There must be a satisfactory showing on the
movant's part, for instance, that particularly identified
material

points

examination,

or

were
that

not

covered

particularly

in

the

described

crossvital

documents were not presented to the witness whose

recall is prayed for, or that the cross-examination was
conducted in so inept a manner as to result in a virtual
absence thereof. Absent such particulars, to repeat,
there would be no foundation for a trial court to
authorize the recall of any witness.
In the case at bar, the respondent Trial Court granted
the defendant's motion for recall on nothing more than
said movant's general claim that certain questions
unspecified, it must be stressed had to be asked.
In doing so, it acted without basis, exercised power
whimsically or capriciously, and gravely abused its
discretion.