CASE No.

Jose Carandang vs. Hon. Jose R. Cabatuando

GR. No. L-25384, October 26, 1973

Doctrine (Qualification and Competency of Witnesses and Testimony Rule 130 Section
20):

The law itself provide that a party or any other person interested in the outcome of the case
may testify. The testimony of an interested witness, this Court has said, should not be rejected
on the ground of bias alone, and must be judged on its own merits, and if such testimony is
clear and convincing and not destroyed by other evidence on record, it may be believed.

Facts:

Petitioner Carandang is the caretaker of the agricultural land owned by private respondent,
Consuelo D. Pandy. The private respondent filed a case for ejectment and damages against
the petitioner on grounds that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions agreed upon
between them, stubbornly refused and failed to clear the land of bushes and grasses, to take
proper care of the coconut land and improvements thereon, and to perform the necessary
work in accordance with the customs and proven practices in the locality; that petitioner had
been feeding his hogs and chickens with coconuts from the landholding; that he gathered nuts
and sold copra without notifying the respondent. The private respondent also prays that the
petitioner be dismissed as caretaker of her property and payment for damages. The trial court
ruled in favor of the private respondent, however, the petitioner instituted the present action to
question the decision of the trial court (Court of Agrarian Relations) alleging that the same
should not be valid since it was based solely on the testimony of the private respondent which
are self-serving.

Issue:

Whether or not the contention of the petitioner that the testimony of the private respondent is
self-serving hence, should not be admissible is proper.

Ruling:

The Court affirmed the ruling of the CAR, stating that “The law itself provide that a party or any
other person interested in the outcome of the case may testify. The testimony of an interested
witness, this Court has said, should not be rejected on the ground of bias alone, and must be
judged on its own merits, and if such testimony is clear and convincing and not destroyed by
other evidence on record, it may be believed.”. Also, it stated that the testimony of the private
respondent is not self-serving since a self-serving evidence is an evidence made by a party
out of court at one time; it does not include a party’s testiony as a witness in court.