0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
14 vizualizări3 pagini
The court is reversing the lower court's judgment that dismissed the plaintiff's case for failing to prove sufficient facts. The lower court improperly prevented the plaintiff from introducing evidence to establish: 1) the execution and delivery of documents transferring land from one company to another, and 2) that one of the documents was lost, which would allow secondary evidence of its contents. The appellate court found the lower court was too strict in disallowing evidence that was otherwise competent and necessary for establishing the plaintiff's case. A new trial is ordered to allow the plaintiff to properly introduce this evidence.
The court is reversing the lower court's judgment that dismissed the plaintiff's case for failing to prove sufficient facts. The lower court improperly prevented the plaintiff from introducing evidence to establish: 1) the execution and delivery of documents transferring land from one company to another, and 2) that one of the documents was lost, which would allow secondary evidence of its contents. The appellate court found the lower court was too strict in disallowing evidence that was otherwise competent and necessary for establishing the plaintiff's case. A new trial is ordered to allow the plaintiff to properly introduce this evidence.
The court is reversing the lower court's judgment that dismissed the plaintiff's case for failing to prove sufficient facts. The lower court improperly prevented the plaintiff from introducing evidence to establish: 1) the execution and delivery of documents transferring land from one company to another, and 2) that one of the documents was lost, which would allow secondary evidence of its contents. The appellate court found the lower court was too strict in disallowing evidence that was otherwise competent and necessary for establishing the plaintiff's case. A new trial is ordered to allow the plaintiff to properly introduce this evidence.
1. TRIAL; RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE; RULINGS BY COURT AS TO FORM OF
QUESTIONS. — While trial courts should see to it that they are not imposed on by the introduction of incompetent testimony or by other evasions of the well established rules of evidence, they should not be so strict as to the mere form of a questions as will result in injustice when the evidence which is intended to be brought out by the questions, and which in all probability will be brought out by it, is competent and material and is absolutely necessary to the protection of the party's rights. 2. ID.; ID.; ID. — While trial courts should, of course, be at all times strictly impartial as between litigants, they may and should go so far as to indicate and suggests the form of questions to and the method of examination of a witness where it appears that examining counsel, through inexperience or misunderstanding, is unable to extract evidence which is competent and essential to his client's case. 3. EVIDENCE; PRELIMINARIES TO ADMISSION OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE. — Method of laying the foundation for the introduction of secondary evidence of the contents of a lost written instrument discussed.
DECISION
MORELAND J : MORELAND, p
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu