[G.R. No. 154115. June 28, 2006] PHILIP S. YU, petitioner v. HN. !UR" # $PP%$LS, S%!N& &I'ISIN, $N& 'I'%!$ LI( YU, re)pon*ent
Facts: On 15 March 1994, Viveca Lim Yu (private respondent) brouht aainst her husband, !hi"ip #$ Yu (petitioner), an action %or "ea" separation and disso"ution o% con&ua" partnership on the rounds o% marita" in%ide"it$ and ph$sica" abuse' he case as %i"ed be%ore the *+ o% !asi' urin tria", private respondent Lim Yu moved %or the issuance o% a subpoena duces tecum and ad testifican testificandum, dum, to certain o%%icers o% -nsu"ar Li%e .ssurance +o' Ltd' to compe" production o% the insurance po"ic$ and app"ication o% a person suspected to be petitioner/s i""eitimate i""eitimate chi"d' he tria" court denied the motion, -t ru"ed that the insurance contract is inadmissib"e evidence in vie o% +ircu"ar Letter 0o' 112333, issued b$ the -nsurance +ommission hich presumab"$ prevents insurance companies companiesaen aents ts %rom divu"in divu"in con%ident con%identia" ia" and privi"eed privi"eed in%ormat in%ormation ion pertainin pertainin to insurance insurance po"icies' -t added that the production o% the app"ication and insurance contract ou"d vio"ate .rtic"e 23 o% the +ivi" +ode and #ection 5 o% the +ivi" *eistr$ La, both o% hich prohibit the unauthori6ed identi%ic identi%icatio ation n o% the parents o% an i""eiti i""eitimate mate chi"d' !rivate !rivate respondent respondent souht souht reconside reconsideratio ration n o% the Order , but the motion as denied b$ the tria" court' On appea" to the +., private respondent as mere"$ see7in the production o% the insurance app"ication and contract, and as not $et $et o%%erin the same as part o% her evidence' hus, it dec"ared that petitioner/s petitioner/s ob&ection to the admission o% the documents as premature, and the tria" court/s pronouncement that the documents are inadmissib"e, precipitate'
-ssue:
1'
8hether or not an insurance po"ic$ and its correspondin app"ication %orm can be admitted as evidence to prove a part$/s etramarita" a%%airs in an action %or "ea" separation
2'
8hether or 0ot the +. committed an error o% &udment in den$in petitioner/s Motion'
*u"in: he insurance app"ication and the insurance po"ic$ ere $et to be presented in court, much "ess %orma""$ o%%ered o%%ered be%ore it' -n %act, private responde respondent nt as mere"$ as7in %or the issuance issuance o% subpoena duces tecum and tecum and subpoena subpoena ad testificandum hen the tria" court issued the assai"ed Order. ;ven assumin that the documents ou"d eventua""$ be dec"ared inadmissib"e, the tria" court as not then in a position to ma7e a dec"aration to that e%%ect e%%ect at that point' hus, it barred the production production o% the sub&ect documents documents prior to the assessment o% its probab"e orth' .s observed b$ petitioners, the assai"ed Order as not a mere ru"in on the admissibi"it$ o% evidence it as, more important"$, a ru"in a%%ectin the proper conduct o% tria"' ;cess o% &urisdiction re%ers to an$ act hich a"thouh %a""in ithin the enera" poers o% the &ude is not authori6ed authori6ed and is conse
and inadmissib"e even be%ore the$ ere %orma""$ o%%ered, much "ess presented be%ore it, the tria" court acted in ecess o% its discretion' .nent the issue o% hether the in%ormation contained in the documents is privi"eed in nature, the same as c"ari%ied and sett"ed b$ the -nsurance +ommissioner/s opinion that the circu"ar on hich the tria" court based its ru"in as not desined to obstruct "a%u" court orders' =ence, there is no more impediment to presentin the insurance app"ication and po"ic$' #ec'43' ender o% ec"uded evidence'>-% documents or thins o%%ered in evidence are ec"uded b$ the court, the o%%eror ma$ have the same attached to or made part o% the record' -% the evidence ec"uded is ora", the o%%eror ma$ state %or the record the name and other persona" circumstances o% the itness and the substance o% the proposed testimon$' -t is thus apparent that be%ore tender o% ec"uded evidence is made, the evidence must have been %orma""$ o%%ered be%ore the court' .nd be%ore %orma" o%%er o% evidence is made, the evidence must have been identi%ied and presented be%ore the court' 8hi"e private respondent made a ? Tender of Excluded Evidence,” such is not the tender contemp"ated b$ the above
