1

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE - A.M. NO. 12-8-8-SC

Whereas, case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given the huge
volume of cases filed each year and the slow and cumbersome adversarial system
that the judiciary has in place;

Whereas, about 40% of criminal cases are dismissed annually owing to the fact that
complainants simply give up coming to court after repeated postponements;

Whereas, few foreign businessmen make long-term investments in the Philippines

because its courts are unable to provide ample and speedy protection to their
investments, keeping its people poor;

Whereas, in order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of
witnesses in cases under litigation, on February 21, 2012 the Supreme Court approved
for piloting by trial courts in Quezon City the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in
place of the direct testimonies of witnesses;

Whereas, it is reported that such piloting has quickly resulted in reducing by about two-
thirds the time used for presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the
hearing and adjudication of cases;

Whereas, the Supreme Court Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court,
headed by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, and the Sub-Committee on the
Revision of the Rules on Civil Procedure, headed by Associate Justice Roberto A.
Abad, have recommended for adoption a Judicial Affidavit Rule that will replicate
nationwide the success of the Quezon City experience in the use of judicial affidavits;
and

Whereas, the Supreme Court En Bane finds merit in the recommendation;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court En Bane hereby issues and promulgates the
following:

Section 1. Scope. - (a) This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents
requiring the reception of evidence before:

(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal
Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari' a Circuit Courts but shall
not apply to small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;

(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari' a District Courts;

(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the
Shari' a Appellate Courts;

(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive
evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and

(5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject
to disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of procedure
contravene the provisions of this Rule.1

(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating
officers shall be uniformly referred to here as the "court."
 2

Sec. 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies. -

(a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by
licensed courier service, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary
conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents, the
following:

(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such
witnesses' direct testimonies; and
(2) The parties' documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the
judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the
complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the
respondent or the defendant.

(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence
in his possession, he may, after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and
authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy or reproduction attached to
such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of that original. In addition, the party or
witness shall bring the original document or object evidence for comparison during the
preliminary conference with the attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which
the latter shall not be admitted.

This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in place of the

original when allowed by existing rules.

Sec. 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit. - A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the

language known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a
translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain the following:

(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;

(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination
of the witness and the place where the examination is being held;

(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully
conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false
testimony or perjury;

(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively
numbered, that:

1. Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he
testifies;
2. Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents;
and
3. Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their
authenticity in accordance with the Rules of Court;
 3

(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and

(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer
who is authorized by law to administer the same.

Sec. 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer.

(a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end, executed by the
lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect that:

1. He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the

corresponding answers that the witness gave; and
2. Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness
regarding the latter's answers.

(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action,
including disbarment.

Sec. 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or official, or the requested witness,

who is neither the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably
declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the
relevant books, documents, or other things under his control available for copying,
authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting party may avail himself
of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this
case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a
judicial affidavit shall be understood to be ex parte.

Sec. 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial affidavit.- The party presenting
the judicial affidavit of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of
such testimony at the start of the presentation of the witness. The adverse party may
move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found
in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if
granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets
under the initials of an authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of
excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

Sec. 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit. - The adverse party shall
have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits
attached to the same. The party who presents the witness may also examine him as
on re-direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in examining the witness to
determine his credibility as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers
that it needs for resolving the issues.

Sec. 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. - (a) Upon the termination of the
testimony of his last witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence
of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order,
stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit. (b) After each
 4

piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his
objection, if any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling
respecting that exhibit. (c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the
judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits
are simply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, and the rulings,
dispensing with the description of each exhibit.

Sec. 9. Application of rule to criminal actions. -

(a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:

1. Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
2. Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the
penalty involved; or
3. With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.

(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than
five days before the pre-trial, serving copies of the same upon the accused. The
complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such documentary or
object evidence as he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No
further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.

(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial
affidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as
well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten days from receipt of such
affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private prosecutor, including his
documentary and object evidence previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on.
These affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the accused and his witnesses
when they appear before the court to testify.

Sec. 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Affidavit Rule. -

(a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall
be deemed to have waived their submission. The court may, however, allow only once
the late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would not
unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less
than Php l,000.0 nor more than Php 5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the
scheduled hearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid
cause despite notice shall be deemed to have waived his client's right to confront by
cross-examination the witnesses there present.

(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the
content requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above.
The court may, however, allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant
replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid
reason and Judicial Affidavit Rule would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and
provided further, that public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and
submission pays a fine of not less than Php1,000.00 nor more than Php5,000.00, at
 5

the discretion of the court.

Sec. 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent rules. - The provisions of the Rules of

Court and the rules of procedure governing investigating officers and bodies
authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence are repealed or modified insofar
as these are inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule. The rules of procedure
governing quasi-judicial bodies inconsistent herewith are hereby disapproved.

Sec. 12. Effectivity.- This rule shall take effect on January 1, 2013 following its
publication in two newspapers of general circulation not later than September 15,
2012. It shall also apply to existing cases.

Manila, September 4, 2012.

EFFECTIVITY AND PURPOSE OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

[This is Part 2 of 11 of the discussion on the Judicial Affidavit Rule, so read

the Introduction first; See full text of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, approving the Judicial Affidavit
Rule]

The Judicial Affidavit Rule requires that direct examination of a witness, which is the
examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue,
shall be in the form of judicial affidavits, subject to the usual mode of cross-examination.

When is the Rule effective?

The Rule took effect on 1 January 2013. However, in criminal cases without private prosecutors,
the Supreme Court allowed public prosecutors in first- and second-level courts until the end of
2013 to utilize the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses prepared and submitted in
connection with the investigation and filing of the Information in court. Public prosecutors are
required to fully comply with the Rule by 1 January 2014.

During the one-year period when the concession is in effect, the attending public prosecutor,
upon presenting the witness, shall require the witness to affirm what the sworn statement
contains and may only ask the witness additional direct examination questions that have not been
amply covered by the sworn statement.

The concession does not apply in criminal cases where the private complainant is represented by
a duly empowered private prosecutor, who has the obligation to comply with the Rule.

The reasons for the issuance of the Rule

Case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given the huge volume of cases filed
each year and the slow and cumbersome adversarial system that the judiciary has in place. About
40% of criminal cases are dismissed annually owing to the fact that complainants simply give up
coming to court after repeated postponements. Few foreign businessmen make long-term
investments in the Philippines because its courts are unable to provide ample and speedy
protection to their investments, keeping its people poor.

In order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in cases under
litigation, on 21 February 2012 the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial courts in
Quezon City the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in place of the direct testimonies of
witnesses. It is reported that such piloting has quickly resulted in reducing by about two-thirds
 6

the time used for presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and
adjudication of cases. The adoption of the Rule hopes to replicate nationwide the success of the
Quezon City experience in the use of judicial affidavits.

These reasons for the issuance of the Judicial Affidavit Rule are contained in the “whereas”
clauses of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC.

Also read and discuss the following:

1. Introduction to and discussion of the Judicial Affidavit Rule

2. Effectivity and Purpose of the Judicial Affidavit Rule

3. Scope of Application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule

4. Service and filing of the Judicial Affidavit

5. Required contents of a judicial affidavit under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

6. Offer of Testimony and Objections under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

7. Documentary and Object Evidence under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

8. Cross-examination and Re-Direct Examination under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

9. Resort to subpoena under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

10. Formal offer of evidence under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

11. Effects of Non-Compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule

12 Comments

← SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE INTRODUCTION TO AND DISCUSSION ON

THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE →

12 COMMENTS

1. Edwin Buffe

April 30, 2013 at 10:47 am

the judicial affidavit rule is counter-productive and even costlier to litigants:

1. it deprives the judge the opportunity to observe the witness’ demeanor during direct-
exam;
2. overly cumbersome–in cases where litigant has de parte lawyer, compliance will take
at least 3 lawyers, one as the de parte, two as the examining notary public, and three, as
the notary public who will notarize the examining notary public’s affidavit. LOTS OF
PLACES IN PROVINCES DO NOT HAVE ONE LAWYER IN THE LOCALITY ON A DAY-TO-DAY
BASIS; so, kelangan pang mangibang-bayan para lang mag-judicial affidavit
3. impossible for the examining notary public to ask the right questions if he himself
does not know the case inside-out, top-to-bottom. So, the rule forces the notary public
 7

to, in effect, be the 2nd de parte counsel for the litigant. no notary public in his right
mind will take this huge burden willingly and seriously;

4. the examining notary public, due to the above burden on him to study the case, will
demand astronomical fees from the litigant just for the preparation of the judicial
affidavit–over and above the de parte counsel’s acceptance fee in the first place, who in
the first place will also demand higher fees for the added effort of compying with the
judicial affid rule. the rule is plainly unthinking!AND SURPRISE-SURPRISE OWING TO THE
APPREHENSION OF LAWYERS THAT THE CASE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE DRAMATICALLY
SHORTENED (which is actually false), they will demand higher acceptance fees, including
for the making of the judicial affidavit, which in the first place, should be drafted by the
examining notary public only

5. due to the extreme burden and expense imposed by the rule, the rule will simply
force litigants and lawyers to become liars. the de parte himself will be the one to make
the affidavit–pre-written–instead of the examining notary public being the one to ask
the questions and draft the affidavit. this latter lawyer will just have it notarized even
tho he himself did not propound the questions, just so to spare himself the huge
burden of examining the litigant. later, this lawyer will just swear to a falsity or that he
was the one who examined the litigant;
6. more expenses–instead of the usual registered-mail, service can now only be done
thru mail-courier service. that in itself adds at least P60 more to the mailing expense.
WHAT IF THE EXHIBITS ARE VOLUMINOUS? patay ka na;
7. instead of shortening the proceedings, it actually adds 2 or 3 re-settings to the pre-
trial conference while the parties are mustering their exhibits;
8. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE SUMMARY PROCEDURE, BUT WITH DEEP POCKETS !!! how are
the added burdens and expenses helpful? since speeding up cases was the rationale,
why not just make mandatory the summary-proceeding-nature in the summary rule, but
alongside the EXISTING ONE-DAY ONE WITNESS RULE? prohibit continuances of the
direct exam and cross-exams except for medical reasons and other UNFORESEEN
EVENTS, period. NOW THAT IS SPEEDY AND NON-EXPENSIVE

REPLY

1. JARULEZ

May 6, 2015 at 11:20 am

It has been two years since the implementation of the JA Rule began. By now, we
already know that these fears are unfounded.

1. Notaries Public do not examine the witness. There’s nothing in the rule that
requires that. That is the job of the counsel. They just ask the witness to present
competent evidence of identity, have the witness acknowledge that that is his
judicial affidavit and sign it in front of him, or acknowledge that the signature is
his.

2. It also does not lead to multiple resettings of the pre-trial conference. The
rule is clear – submit your JAs at least 5 days before the PTC. The deadline is set,
and JAs have to be submitted, regardless of whether or not the PTC actually
 8

pushes through. Besides, JA Rule or no JA Rule, exhibits should already be made

available for comparison for the pretrial conference, and for that matter, even
before the Complaint or Answer is filed. The JA Rule forces litigants to disclose
to each other at an early stage their evidence, so they can have a sober
assessment of the strength of their respective cases. This also helps a lot during
JDR.

3. Courier fees are quite minimal compared to the cost of litigation. I don’t see
why this is even an issue.

4. The One-day witness rule has been in the books for decades now so most
lawyers do not ask for a continuance. Usually, it is the judge that will stop the
examination of the witness because she have 30+ other cases for trial on the
same setting.

2. leah lara

September 20, 2013 at 10:24 am

We, the students of the University of Cebu College of Law, would like to request for your
assistance in filling up this survey. Through this survey, we would like to get results and
opinions from lawyers, judges and the public regarding our group’s suggested reform
on the establishment of a Judical Management System in order to lessen the use of
paper while at the same implementing the Judicial Affidavit Rule. Results of this survey
will be presented to you and the rest of the respondents.

http://www.surveyshare.com/t/A-Judicial-Management-System-and-the-Judicial-
Affidavit-Rule-Leah

REPLY

3. Howard

March 22, 2014 at 3:11 pm

Hello Sir, I would just like to ask… is the JAR applicable to Summary Procedure cases?
Thanks!

REPLY

1. mazapiqua

March 23, 2014 at 12:46 am

hi. yes, jar is mandatory in first level courts; summary procedure in mtc’s.

2. INO MANGADAY
 9

May 17, 2016 at 1:53 pm

In my humble opinion, it is not applicable to cases falling unde

ATTYATWORK.COM
Life, Law and Everything in Between.

 SEARCH
 ABOUT
 CONTACT
 FAMILY LAW
 HR
 BUSINESS
 BAR EXAMS
 LIFE
 MISC

Search for:
EFFECTIVITY AND PURPOSE OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

[This is Part 2 of 11 of the discussion on the Judicial Affidavit Rule, so read

the Introduction first; See full text of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, approving the Judicial Affidavit Rule]

The Judicial Affidavit Rule requires that direct examination of a witness, which is the
examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the
issue, shall be in the form of judicial affidavits, subject to the usual mode of cross-
examination.

When is the Rule effective?

The Rule took effect on 1 January 2013. However, in criminal cases without private prosecutors,
the Supreme Court allowed public prosecutors in first- and second-level courts until the end of
2013 to utilize the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses prepared and submitted in
connection with the investigation and filing of the Information in court. Public prosecutors are
required to fully comply with the Rule by 1 January 2014.

During the one-year period when the concession is in effect, the attending public prosecutor,
upon presenting the witness, shall require the witness to affirm what the sworn statement
contains and may only ask the witness additional direct examination questions that have not
been amply covered by the sworn statement.

The concession does not apply in criminal cases where the private complainant is represented
by a duly empowered private prosecutor, who has the obligation to comply with the Rule.

The reasons for the issuance of the Rule

Case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given the huge volume of cases filed
each year and the slow and cumbersome adversarial system that the judiciary has in place.
About 40% of criminal cases are dismissed annually owing to the fact that complainants simply
give up coming to court after repeated postponements. Few foreign businessmen make long-
 10

term investments in the Philippines because its courts are unable to provide ample and speedy
protection to their investments, keeping its people poor.

In order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in cases under
litigation, on 21 February 2012 the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial courts in
Quezon City the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in place of the direct testimonies of
witnesses. It is reported that such piloting has quickly resulted in reducing by about two-thirds
the time used for presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and
adjudication of cases. The adoption of the Rule hopes to replicate nationwide the success of the
Quezon City experience in the use of judicial affidavits.

These reasons for the issuance of the Judicial Affidavit Rule are contained in the “whereas”
clauses of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC.

Also read and discuss the following:

1. Introduction to and discussion of the Judicial Affidavit Rule

2. Effectivity and Purpose of the Judicial Affidavit Rule

3. Scope of Application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule

4. Service and filing of the Judicial Affidavit

5. Required contents of a judicial affidavit under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

6. Offer of Testimony and Objections under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

7. Documentary and Object Evidence under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

8. Cross-examination and Re-Direct Examination under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

9. Resort to subpoena under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

10. Formal offer of evidence under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

11. Effects of Non-Compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule

12 Comments

← SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE INTRODUCTION TO AND

DISCUSSION ON THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE  →

12 COMMENTS

1. Edwin Buffe

April 30, 2013 at 10:47 am

the judicial affidavit rule is counter-productive and even costlier to litigants:

 11

1. it deprives the judge the opportunity to observe the witness’ demeanor during direct-
exam;
2. overly cumbersome–in cases where litigant has de parte lawyer, compliance will take
at least 3 lawyers, one as the de parte, two as the examining notary public, and three, as
the notary public who will notarize the examining notary public’s affidavit. LOTS OF
PLACES IN PROVINCES DO NOT HAVE ONE LAWYER IN THE LOCALITY ON A DAY-TO-DAY
BASIS; so, kelangan pang mangibang-bayan para lang mag-judicial affidavit
3. impossible for the examining notary public to ask the right questions if he himself
does not know the case inside-out, top-to-bottom. So, the rule forces the notary public
to, in effect, be the 2nd de parte counsel for the litigant. no notary public in his right
mind will take this huge burden willingly and seriously;

4. the examining notary public, due to the above burden on him to study the case, will
demand astronomical fees from the litigant just for the preparation of the judicial
affidavit–over and above the de parte counsel’s acceptance fee in the first place, who in
the first place will also demand higher fees for the added effort of compying with the
judicial affid rule. the rule is plainly unthinking!AND SURPRISE-SURPRISE OWING TO THE
APPREHENSION OF LAWYERS THAT THE CASE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE DRAMATICALLY
SHORTENED (which is actually false), they will demand higher acceptance fees, including
for the making of the judicial affidavit, which in the first place, should be drafted by the
examining notary public only

5. due to the extreme burden and expense imposed by the rule, the rule will simply
force litigants and lawyers to become liars. the de parte himself will be the one to make
the affidavit–pre-written–instead of the examining notary public being the one to ask
the questions and draft the affidavit. this latter lawyer will just have it notarized even
tho he himself did not propound the questions, just so to spare himself the huge
burden of examining the litigant. later, this lawyer will just swear to a falsity or that he
was the one who examined the litigant;
6. more expenses–instead of the usual registered-mail, service can now only be done
thru mail-courier service. that in itself adds at least P60 more to the mailing expense.
WHAT IF THE EXHIBITS ARE VOLUMINOUS? patay ka na;
7. instead of shortening the proceedings, it actually adds 2 or 3 re-settings to the pre-
trial conference while the parties are mustering their exhibits;
8. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE SUMMARY PROCEDURE, BUT WITH DEEP POCKETS !!! how are
the added burdens and expenses helpful? since speeding up cases was the rationale,
why not just make mandatory the summary-proceeding-nature in the summary rule, but
alongside the EXISTING ONE-DAY ONE WITNESS RULE? prohibit continuances of the
direct exam and cross-exams except for medical reasons and other UNFORESEEN
EVENTS, period. NOW THAT IS SPEEDY AND NON-EXPENSIVE

REPLY

1. JARULEZ

May 6, 2015 at 11:20 am

It has been two years since the implementation of the JA Rule began. By now, we
already know that these fears are unfounded.
 12

1. Notaries Public do not examine the witness. There’s nothing in the rule that
requires that. That is the job of the counsel. They just ask the witness to present
competent evidence of identity, have the witness acknowledge that that is his
judicial affidavit and sign it in front of him, or acknowledge that the signature is
his.

2. It also does not lead to multiple resettings of the pre-trial conference. The
rule is clear – submit your JAs at least 5 days before the PTC. The deadline is set,
and JAs have to be submitted, regardless of whether or not the PTC actually
pushes through. Besides, JA Rule or no JA Rule, exhibits should already be made
available for comparison for the pretrial conference, and for that matter, even
before the Complaint or Answer is filed. The JA Rule forces litigants to disclose
to each other at an early stage their evidence, so they can have a sober
assessment of the strength of their respective cases. This also helps a lot during
JDR.

3. Courier fees are quite minimal compared to the cost of litigation. I don’t see
why this is even an issue.

4. The One-day witness rule has been in the books for decades now so most
lawyers do not ask for a continuance. Usually, it is the judge that will stop the
examination of the witness because she have 30+ other cases for trial on the
same setting.

2. leah lara

September 20, 2013 at 10:24 am

We, the students of the University of Cebu College of Law, would like to request for your
assistance in filling up this survey. Through this survey, we would like to get results and
opinions from lawyers, judges and the public regarding our group’s suggested reform
on the establishment of a Judical Management System in order to lessen the use of
paper while at the same implementing the Judicial Affidavit Rule. Results of this survey
will be presented to you and the rest of the respondents.

http://www.surveyshare.com/t/A-Judicial-Management-System-and-the-Judicial-
Affidavit-Rule-Leah

REPLY

3. Howard

March 22, 2014 at 3:11 pm

Hello Sir, I would just like to ask… is the JAR applicable to Summary Procedure cases?
Thanks!

REPLY
 13

1. mazapiqua

March 23, 2014 at 12:46 am

hi. yes, jar is mandatory in first level courts; summary procedure in mtc’s.

2. INO MANGADAY

May 17, 2016 at 1:53 pm

In my humble opinion, it is not applicable to cases falling under the summary

procedure. JAs replace the direct testimonies of witnesses. As I understand it,
there are no direct testimonies in summary procedure as there’s no trial to be
conducted therein. Under the summary procedure, the court will decide the case
based on the affidavits submitted. Although the court may call to the stand any
party for purposes of clarificatory questions only. So the JAs have no place in
summary procedure. It would just prolong the procedure which is contrary to its
purpose.

4. ralph i. banaag

May 27, 2014 at 2:05 pm

hi sir. i just would like to ask if the lawyer who conducted the question and answer of
the witness should also be the one who will notarize it? thanks sir.

REPLY

1. al

October 1, 2015 at 7:14 am

ralp.. the answer is yes.. why? because i’ve seen it actual at the office of the
prosecutor..

5. Dan

March 16, 2016 at 6:31 am

Kalokohan lang yan JAR na yan, mas maganda yung dating procedure

REPLY

6. Dan
 14

March 16, 2016 at 6:33 am

Nagiging tool for injustice lang yan JAR na yan

REPLY

7. Kerri

May 3, 2017 at 6:35 pm

I have fun with, result in I discovered exactly what I was having a

look for. You have ended my 4 day lengthy hunt!

God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye http://www.goldenegarde.de/index.php?

site=profile&id=19297

REPLY

8. Pingback: Effects of Non-Compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule – AttyAtWork.com

LEAVE A REPLY

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Post Comment

G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015

NG MENG TAM, Petitioner, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before this Court is a direct recourse from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via
petition1 for review on the question of whether Section 52 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule
(JAR) applies to hostile or adverse witnesses.  The petition seeks to annul and set aside
 15

the May 28, 20143 and August 27, 20144 Orders of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City in
Civil Case No. 08-1028.

This case stemmed from a collection suit filed by China Banking Corporation (China
Bank) against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company Inc. (Ever), the heirs of Go Tong,
Vicente Go, George Go and petitioner Ng Meng Tam sometime in December 2008. 
China Bank alleged that it granted Ever a loan amounting to P5,532,331.63.  The loan
was allegedly backed by two surety agreements executed by Vicente, George and
petitioner in its favor, each for P5,000,000.00, and dated December 9, 1993 and May 3,
1995, respectively.  When Ever defaulted in its payment, China Bank sent demand
letters collectively addressed to George, Vicente and petitioner.  The demands were
unanswered.  China Bank filed the complaint for collection docketed as Civil Case No.
08-1028, which was raffled off to RTC Branch 62, Makati City.

In his Answer, petitioner alleged that the surety agreements were null and void since
these were executed before the loan was granted in 2004. Petitioner posited that the
surety agreements were contracts of adhesion to be construed against the entity which
drafted the same.  Petitioner also alleged that he did not receive any demand letter.

In the course of the proceedings, petitioner moved that his affirmative defenses be
heard by the RTC on the ground that the suit is barred by the statute of limitations and
laches.5 The motion was denied by the court.6 On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in
its December 22, 2010 Decision7 ruled that a preliminary hearing was proper pursuant
to Section 6,8 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court due to the grounds cited by petitioner. 
There being no appeal, the decision became final and executory on August 28, 2011.9 redarclaw

On March 15, 2011, petitioner served interrogatories to parties10 pursuant to Sections

111 and 6,12 Rule 25 of the Rules of Court to China Bank and required Mr. George C.
Yap, Account Officer of the Account Management Group, to answer.

On June 22, 2011, George Yap executed his answers to interrogatories to parties.13 redarclaw

In the meantime, having failed mediation and judicial dispute resolution, Civil Case No.
08-1028 was re-raffled off to RTC Branch 139, Makati City.

Petitioner again moved for the hearing of his affirmative defenses.  Because he found
Yap’s answers to the interrogatories to parties evasive and not responsive, petitioner
applied for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum against
George Yap pursuant to Section 6,14 Rule 25 of the Revised Rules of Court.

On April 29, 2014, when the case was called for the presentation of George Yap as a
witness, China Bank objected citing Section 5 of the JAR.  China Bank said that Yap
cannot be compelled to testify in court because petitioner did not obtain and present
George Yap’s judicial affidavit.  The RTC required the parties to submit their motions on
the issue of whether the preparation of a judicial affidavit by George Yap as an adverse
or hostile witness is an exception to the judicial affidavit rule.15
redarclaw

Petitioner contended that Section 5 does not apply to Yap because it specifically
excludes adverse party witnesses and hostile witnesses from its application.  Petitioner
insists that Yap needed to be called to the stand so that he may be qualified as a hostile
witness pursuant to the Rules of Court.

China Bank, on the other hand, stated that petitioner’s characterization of Yap’s
answers to the interrogatories to parties as ambiguous and evasive is a declaration of
what type of witness Yap is.  It theorizes that the interrogatories to parties answered by
Yap serve as the judicial affidavit and there is no need for Yap to be qualified as a
hostile witness.

In its May 28, 2014 Order, the RTC denied for lack of merit petitioner’s motion to
examine Yap without executing a judicial affidavit.  The RTC in interpreting Section 5 of
the JAR stated:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
 16

x x x  The aforementioned provision, which allows the requesting party to avail himself
of the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of Court finds applicability to: (a) a
government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is neither the witness
of the adverse party nor a hostile witness and (b) who unjustifiably declines to execute
a judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the relevant books,
documents, or other things under his control available for copying, authentication, and
eventual production in court.

In the case at bar, witness George Yap is being utilized as an adverse witness for the
[petitioner].  Moreover, there was no showing that he unjustifiably declines to execute
a judicial affidavit.  In fact, it was [China Bank]’s counsel who insisted that said witness’
judicial affidavit be taken. Thus, Section 5 of the [JAR] which [petitioner] invoked to
exempt him from the Rule finds no application.  Unless there is contrary ruling on the
matter by the Supreme Court, this court has no choice but to implement the rule as
written.

On this note, this Court also finds no merit on the contention of [China Bank] that the
answer to the written interrogatories by witness George Yap already constitutes his
judicial affidavit. Inasmuch as the Court strictly implemented the [JAR] on the part of
[petitioner], so shall it rule in the same manner on the part of [China Bank].  As
correctly pointed out by [petitioner], the said answer to interrogatories does not comply
with Section 3 of the [JAR] which provides for the contents of the judicial affidavit.16

In essence, the RTC ruled that Section 5 did not apply to Yap since he was an adverse
witness and he did not unjustifiably decline to execute a judicial affidavit.  It stated:
LawlibraryofCRAlaw

In view of the foregoing, the motion of the [petitioner] that witness George Yap be
examined without executing a Judicial Affidavit is hereby DENIED FOR LACK OF
MERIT.17

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC in its August 27,
2014 Order.18  The RTC reiterated its position and stated: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

It must be pointed out that the [petitioner] [was] the [one] who invoked the provisions
of Section 5 of the [JAR] to compel the attendance of witness George Yap and as such,
it is their duty to show the applicability of the said provisions to the case at bar.  As
stated in the challenged Order, Section 5 of the [JAR] finds applicability to: (a) a
government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is neither the witness
of the adverse party nor a hostile witness and (b) who unjustifiably declines to execute
a judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the relevant books,
documents, or other things under his control available for copying, authentication, and
eventual production in court.  In the case at bar, [petitioner] [does] not deny that
witness George Yap is to be utilized as [his] adverse witness.  On this score alone, it is
clear that the provisions invoked do not apply.19

The RTC stressed that Section 5 of the JAR required the requested witness’ refusal to
be unjustifiable. It stated:
LawlibraryofCRAlaw

x x x the [JAR] requires that the refusal must be unjustifiable and without just cause. 
It must be pointed out that [China Bank]’s previous motions to quash the subpoena
was grounded on the claim that having already submitted to this court his sworn
written interrogatories, his being compelled to testify would be unreasonable,
oppressive and pure harassment. Thus, witness’ refusal to testify cannot be considered
unjustifiable since he raised valid grounds.20

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner contends that the RTC committed a grave error when it interpreted Section 5
to include adverse party and hostile witnesses.  Based on the wording of Section 5,
adverse party and hostile witnesses are clearly excluded.
 17

China Bank asserts that Yap neither refused unjustifiably nor without just cause refused
to a judicial affidavit.  It cited the RTC’s August 27, 2014 Order where the court said
that Yap had answered the interrogatories and to compel him to testify in open court
would be “unreasonable, oppressive and pure harassment.”  Moreover, it stated that
based on the language used by Section 2 of the JAR the filing of judicial affidavits is
mandatory.

The petition is anchored on the following arguments: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

RTC BR. 139-MAKATI COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT INTERPRETED SEC. 5

OF THE [JAR] CONTRARY TO ITS WORDINGS.

II

RTC BR. 139-MAKATI COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT INTERPRETED SEC. 5

[OF THE JAR] CONTRARY TO ITS PRACTICAL INTENTION AND COMMON SENSE.

III

RTC BR. 139-MAKATI COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT EFFECTIVELY

DISREGARDED THE RELEVANT RULES ON MODE OF DISCOVERY WHICH GOVERN THE
PRESENTATION OF ADVERSE WITNESSES.

IV

ON A POLICY LEVEL AND IN THE EVENT RTC BR. 139-MAKATI’S INTERPRETATION AND
APPLICATION OF SEC. 5 OF THE [JAR] IS CORRECT (I.E., THAT OPPOSING PARTY WHO
INTENDS TO PRESENT ADVERSE OR HOSTILE WITNESS MUST GET AND SUBMIT THAT
WITNESS’ JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT NO MATTER WHAT) IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED, WITH
THE UTMOST INDULGENCE OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT, THAT THE SAME
RULE BE IMPROVED OR AMENDED BY PROVIDING SANCTIONS IN THE EVENT THE
ADVERSE OR HOSTILE WITNESS REFUSES TO ANSWER OR EXECUTE JUDICIAL
AFFIDAVIT AS REQUIRED BY THE OPPOSING PARTY.21

We grant the petition.

THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

APPLIES TO PENDING CASES

On September 4, 2012, the JAR was promulgated to address case congestion and
delays in courts.  To this end, it seeks to reduce the time needed to take witnesses’
testimonies.22  The JAR took effect on January 1, 2013 and would also apply to pending
cases pursuant to Section 12 to wit: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

Sec. 12. Effectivity. – This rule shall take effect on January 1, 2013 following its
publication in two newspapers of general circulation not later than September 15,
2012.  It shall also apply to existing cases.  (Emphasis supplied)

The Court En Banc gave public prosecutors in first and second level courts one year of
modified compliance.23  The JAR thus took full effect on January 1, 2014.

Here, parties were presenting their evidence for the RTC’s consideration when the JAR
took effect.  Therefore, pursuant to Section 12 the JAR applies to the present collection
suit.

SECTION 5 OF THE JAR DOES NOT

APPLY TO ADVERSE PARTY WITNESSES

The JAR primarily affects the manner by which evidence is presented in court.  Section
2(a) of the JAR provides that judicial affidavits are mandatorily filed by parties to a case
 18

except in small claims cases.  These judicial affidavits take the place of direct testimony
in court.  It provides: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

Sec. 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies. –  (a)
The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by
licensed courier service, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary
conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents, the
following:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such
witnesses’ direct testimonies; and

(2) The parties’ documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the
judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the
complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the
respondent or the defendant.

xxxx

Section 324  of the JAR enumerates the content of a judicial affidavit.

Under Section 10,25 parties are to be penalized if they do not conform to the provisions
of the JAR. Parties are however allowed to resort to the application of a subpoena
pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Court in Section 5 of the JAR in certain situations. 
Section 5 provides: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

Sec. 5. Subpoena. – If the government employee or official, or the requested witness,

who is neither the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably
declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the
relevant books, documents, or other things under his control available for copying,
authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting party may avail himself
of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this
case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial
affidavit shal1 be understood to be ex parte.

While we agree with the RTC that Section 5 has no application to Yap as he was
presented as a hostile witness we cannot agree that there is need for a finding that
witness unjustifiably refused to execute a judicial affidavit.

Section 5 of the JAR contemplates a situation where there is a (a) government

employee or official or (b) requested witness who is not the (1) adverse party’s witness
nor (2) a hostile witness.  If this person either (a) unjustifiably declines to execute a
judicial affidavit or (b) refuses without just cause to make the relevant documents
available to the other party and its presentation to court, Section 5 allows the
requesting party to avail of issuance of subpoena ad testificandum or duces
tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court.  Thus, adverse party witnesses and hostile
witnesses being excluded they are not covered by Section 5.  Expressio unius est
exclusion alterius: the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies
the exclusion of all others.26 redarclaw

Here, Yap is a requested witness who is the adverse party’s witness.  Regardless of
whether he unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just
cause to present the documents, Section 5 cannot be made to apply to him for the
reason that he is included in a group of individuals expressly exempt from the
provision’s application.

The situation created before us begs the question: if the requested witness is the
adverse party’s witness or a hostile witness, what procedure should be followed?

The JAR being silent on this point, we turn to the provisions governing the rules on
 19

evidence covering hostile witnesses specially Section 12, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
which provides: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

SEC. 12.  Party may not impeach his own witness. – Except with respect to witnesses
referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing a witness is not
allowed to impeach his credibility.

A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court

upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his
having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.

The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party,
may be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called
by the adverse party, except by evidence of his bad character. He may also be
impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must
only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief.

Before a party may be qualified under Section 12, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the
party presenting the adverse party witness must comply with Section 6, Rule 25 of the
Rules of Court which provides: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

SEC. 6.  Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories. – Unless thereafter allowed by

the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served
with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give
testimony in open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal.

In Afulugencia v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co.,27 this Court stated that “in civil cases,
the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed, unless
written interrogatories are first served upon the latter.”28  There petitioners Spouses
Afulugencia sought the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to
compel the officers of the bank to testify and bring documents pertaining to the
extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of a certain parcel of land.  Metrobank moved to
quash the issuance of the subpoenas on the ground of non-compliance with Section 6,
Rule 25 of the Rules of Court.  In quashing the issuance of the subpoena, the Court
reminded litigants that the depositions are a mechanism by which fishing expeditions
and delays may be avoided. Further written interrogatories aid the court in limiting
harassment and to focus on what is essential to a case. The Court stated: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

One of the purposes of the above rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless
delays; it is there to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial.  It will be
presumed that a party who does not serve written interrogatories on the adverse party
beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case if it later opts to
call the adverse party to the witness stand as its witness. Instead, the process could be
treated as a fishing expedition or an attempt at delaying the proceedings; it produces
no significant result that a prior written interrogatories might bring.

Besides, since the calling party is deemed bound by the adverse party’s testimony,
compelling the adverse party to take the witness stand may result in the calling party
damaging its own case. Otherwise stated, if a party cannot elicit facts or information
useful to its case through the facility of written interrogatories or other mode of
discovery, then the calling of the adverse party to the witness stand could only serve to
weaken its own case as a result of the calling party’s being bound by the adverse
party’s testimony, which may only be worthless and instead detrimental to the calling
party’s cause.

Another reason for the rule is that by requiring prior written interrogatories, the court
may limit the inquiry to what is relevant, and thus prevent the calling party from
straying or harassing the adverse party when it takes the latter to the stand.

Thus, the rule not only protects the adverse party from unwarranted surprises or
harassment; it likewise prevents the calling party from conducting a fishing expedition
or bungling its own case. Using its own judgment and discretion, the court can hold its
 20

own in resolving a dispute, and need not bear witness to the parties perpetrating unfair
court practices such as fishing for evidence, badgering, or altogether ruining their own
cases. Ultimately, such unnecessary processes can only constitute a waste of the
court’s precious time, if not pointless entertainment.29 (Citation omitted)

In this case, parties, with the approval of the Court, furnished and answered
interrogatories to parties pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of Court.  They therefore
complied with Section 6 of Rule 25 of the Rules of Court. Before the present
controversy arose, the RTC had already issued subpoenas for Yap to testify and produce
documents.  He was called to the witness stand when China Bank interposed its
objection for non-compliance with Section 5 of the JAR.  Having established that Yap, as
an adverse party witness, is not within Section 5 of the JAR’s scope, the rules in
presentation of adverse party witnesses as provided for under the Rules of Court shall
apply.  In keeping with this Court’s decision in Afulugencia, there is no reason for the
RTC not to proceed with the presentation of Yap as a witness.

In sum, Section 5 of the JAR expressly excludes from its application adverse party and
hostile witnesses.  For the presentation of these types of witnesses, the provisions on
the Rules of Court under the Revised Rules of Evidence and all other correlative rules
including the modes of deposition and discovery rules shall apply.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The May 28, 2014 and August 27, 2014
Orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 139, Makati City are
hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez,* and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

*
 Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special
Order No. 2084 dated June 29, 2015.

1
 Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.  Rollo, pp. 3-21.

2
 JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE, Section 5 provides: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

Sec. 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or official, or the requested witness,

who is neither the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably
declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the
relevant books, documents, or other things under his control available for copying,
authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting party may avail himself
of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this
case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial
affidavit shal1 be understood to be ex parte.

3
Rollo, pp. 22-A to 24.  Signed by Presiding Judge Benjamin T. Pozon.

4
 Id. at 25-27.

5
 Id. at 65.

6
 RTC Order dated January 4, 2010, id. at 66.

7
Rollo, pp. 63-75.  Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with
Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Franchito N. Diamante concurring.
 21

8
 Rules of Court, Rule 16, Section 6 provides: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

SEC. 6.  Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses. – If no motion to dismiss has been

filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an
affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the court, a preliminary
hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed.

9
Rollo, p. 76.

10
 Id. at 77-79.

11
 RULES OF COURT, Rule 25, Section 1 provides: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

SECTION 1.  Interrogatories to parties; service thereof. – Under the same conditions

specified in section 1 of Rule 23, any party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts
from any adverse parties shall file and serve upon the latter written interrogatories to
be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private
corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer thereof competent to testify
in its behalf.

12
 Id., Section 6 provides: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

SEC. 6. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories. – Unless thereafter allowed by

the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served
with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give
testimony in open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal.

13
Rollo, pp. 80-85.  Sent via registered mail on June 23, 2011.

14
 Supra note 12.

15
Rollo, pp. 86-87.

16
 Id. at 23.

17
 Id.

18
 Supra note 4.

19
 Id. at 26.

20
 Id.

21
 Id. at 9-10.

22
 JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE, 4th Whereas Clause provides: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

xxxx

Whereas, in order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of
witnesses in cases under litigation, on February 21, 2012 the Supreme Court approved
for piloting by trial courts in Quezon City the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in
place of the direct testimonies of witnesses;

xxxx

23
 Resolution dated January 8, 2013, rollo (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC), pp. 37-39.

24
 JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE, Section 3 provides: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

Sec. 3. Contents of Judicial Affidavit. – A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the

 22

language known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a

translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain the following:
LawlibraryofCRAlaw

(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;

(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of
the witness and the place where the examination is being held;

(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully
conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false
testimony or perjury;

(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively
numbered, that: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he
testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents;
and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their
authenticity in accordance with the Rules of Court;

(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and

(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer
who is authorized by law to administer the same.

25
 Id., Section 10 provides: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

Sec. 10. Effect of non-compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule. – (a) A party who fails
to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have
waived their submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late submission
of the same provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the
opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than Pl,000.00 nor more
than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the
scheduled hearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid
cause despite notice shall be deemed to have waived his client's right to confront by
cross-examination the witnesses there present.

(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the
content requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above.
The court may, however, allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant
replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason
and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and provided further, that public or
private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less
than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

26
 Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services, Inc.
(IDEALS, INC.) v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation
(PSALM), G.R. No. 192088, October 9, 2012, 682 SCRA 602, 649.

27
 G.R. No. 185145, February 5, 2014, 715 SCRA 399.

28
 Id. at 412.

29
 Id. at 413-414.
 23

Back to Home | Back to Main

Search
 

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

RECENT COMMENTS

 2015 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results  (4088)
o ???? ??????: ? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ? ???
? ????? ?...
 Credit Cards and Unfair Collection Practices  (2600)
o Tutti_COtton: @ jay Just ignore. CA will do everything para takutin ka, pag natakot ka at
nagpaapekto ka..yan ang...
 Principal Office Address: Amending the Articles of Incorporation  (1)
o Agnes: Under fourth paragraph, Item No. 2 of the Memorandum Circular No. 16, Series
of 2014, a corporation is not...
 2016 (Remedial Law) Bar Exam Questions (2)
o akosicasil: may naka kuha na ba ng diploma sa SC sa mga passers?
 Primer on Taxation of Philippine Cooperatives  (1)
o Nathaniel Durias: Hi Sir, Good Morning, we are a cooperative based in Pasig City. We are
wondering as to the real...
 Rules on e-Filing (A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC; full text)  (2)
o HORATIO DANTE MAURICIO: kindly consider updating these guidelines for CDs are not
in general use anymore.
 2020 Bar Exams: Information, Discussions, Questions and Results  (72)
o bakla: True

NEWEST POSTS
 24

 The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

 Summary of Remedies under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA) in the
Philippines
 Areas under ECQ/GCQ/MECQ; Omnibus Guidelines for Community Quarantine
 Results of the 2019 Bar Examinations: Full List
 Percentage of Bar Exam Passers (2000-2018)
 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, to Take Effect 1 May 2020
 Financial Assistance for Filipino Workers and OFWs
 30-Day Grace Period for Loans and Rents during the COVID-19 Lockdown
 2020 Bar Exams: Information, Discussions, Questions and Results
 No Parking, No Car (Proof-of-Parking Space Act, Senate Bill No. 201)

 PHIL. ELEGAL FORUM

 One-Year Prescriptive Period for Online Libel: House Bill No. 7010
 Community Quarantine Classifications Starting 16 June 2020: IAT Resolution No. 46-A
 Extension of Deadline on Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies (BIR RMC 61-2020)
 Decision in People vs. Reynaldo Santos, Jr., Maria Angelita Ressa and Rappler, re Online Libel (Full Text)

P&L Law * PH e-Legal Forum * VisitPinas.com * ChatTimeWithJulia

 VISITPINAS.COM

 What Travelers / Tourists Should Know when Traveling in the Philippines under the “New Normal”
 List of Typhoons: 2020 (Philippines)
 Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For
 How Much We Miss the Outdoors: Let Us Count the Ways

P&L LAW * PELF * VISITPINAS.COM * CHATTIMEWITHJULIA * PROUDLY

POWERED BY WORDPRESS · THEME: SUITS BY THEME WEAVER