Case Digest (G.R. No. 110662)
Facts:
Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110662, August 04, 1994, Supreme Court Second Division, Padilla, J., wrote the decision.
On May 2, 1990, private respondent Rafael S. Ortanez filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for annulment of marriage with damages against Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez on grounds of lack of marriage license and/or psychological incapacity; the case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-905360 and raffled to Branch 94 of the RTC, presided over by Judge Romeo F. Zamora.
After presenting his evidence at trial, private respondent orally offered Exhibits A to M, which included three cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between petitioner and unidentified persons. Petitioner lodged an objection/comment to the oral offer on June 9, 1992, but the trial court admitted all exhibits the same day; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 23, 1992. The trial record (TSN, Dec. 9, 1992) indicated that the cassette tapes were made when private respondent allowed friends from the military to wiretap his home telephone.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. SP No. 28545), challenging the trial court’s order admitting the cassette tapes. On June 10, 1993, the Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition, holding that tape recordings are not inadmissible per se and that certiorari is an inappropriate remedy for interlocutory evidentiary rulings, which should be raised on appeal from the final judgment. Petitioner elevated the matter to this Court by a petition for r...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 a proper remedy to assail the trial court’s interlocutory order admitting the cassette tapes?
- Were the cassette tape recordings admissible in evidence under Phi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)