When Courts Allow New Evidence Not Pre-Marked During Pre-Trial in Philippine Litigation

The general rule in Philippine litigation is clear: evidence not identified and pre-marked during pre-trial cannot be introduced during trial. But the Supreme Court has carved out a practical exception—when good cause is shown, trial courts may allow such evidence. In Heirs of Jose V. Lagon v. Ultramax Healthcare Supplies, Inc. (G.R. No. 246989, December 7, 2020), the Court explained when this exception applies and why procedural rules should not frustrate substantial justice.

The Case: A Falsified Deed and a Late-Blooming Document

The Lagon spouses owned two parcels of land in Koronadal City covered by Transfer Certificates of Title. In 2011, they discovered their titles had been cancelled and replaced with new ones in the name of Ultramax Healthcare Supplies, Inc. They filed a complaint for annulment of the new titles, alleging that a deed of absolute sale in Ultramax's favor was falsified.

During trial, the heirs of Jose Lagon (who had died) obtained a forensic examination from the National Bureau of Investigation showing that the signatures on the deed of absolute sale were indeed falsified. After the heirs rested their case, Ultramax sought to introduce a deed of mortgage executed by the Lagon spouses in 2009—not to prove an existing obligation, but to compare signatures and challenge the heirs' forensic findings.

The trial court admitted the supplemental judicial affidavit introducing the deed of mortgage, citing substantial justice and equity. The heirs objected, arguing the document was never mentioned in Ultramax's answer and had already been deemed inadmissible. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's discretion, and the Supreme Court agreed.

The Issue: Grave Abuse of Discretion or Proper Exercise of Judgment?

The central question was whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in allowing the deed of mortgage to be examined by a handwriting expert. In certiorari proceedings, courts only intervene when a lower court acts in a "capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner." Mere alleged errors in judgment do not warrant reversal.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court acted within its authority. The deed of mortgage was relevant because the main issue was the authenticity of signatures on the deed of absolute sale. Under Rule 128, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, evidence is relevant if it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. The signatures on the deed of mortgage could establish the probability or improbability of falsification.

The Rule and Its Exception: Good Cause Shown

Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule requires parties to submit their witnesses' judicial affidavits, together with documentary and object evidence, before pre-trial. The same provision, however, allows the trial court to admit additional evidence during trial if good cause is shown.

Citing Cruz v. People (810 Phil. 801 [2017]), the Court defined "good cause" as any substantial reason that affords a legal excuse. There is no hard and fast rule for determining what constitutes good cause—it depends on the circumstances of each case.

In this case, the need to introduce the deed of mortgage arose only after the pre-trial, when the forensic examination results were presented. The respondents needed an opportunity to refute the heirs' evidence. The trial court admitted the document not to prove an existing obligation, but to compare signatures—a legitimate purpose directly related to the issue of falsification.

Practical Takeaways

• Pre-marking matters, but it is not absolute. Evidence not identified and pre-marked during pre-trial may still be admitted if the court finds good cause. The rule exists to aid courts in resolving cases, not to create technical traps that frustrate justice.

• "Good cause" is flexible. Courts define it as a substantial reason that affords a legal excuse. The timing of when the evidence became necessary, its relevance, and the prejudice to the opposing party all factor into the analysis.

• Relevance is the key test. Under Rule 128, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, evidence must relate to the fact in issue. A document that may seem collateral—like a deed of mortgage in a case about a deed of absolute sale—can be relevant if it helps establish the probability or improbability of a key fact.

• Reservations in pre-trial orders can waive objections. If parties reserve the right to present additional evidence without objection, they may be deemed to have waived the application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule's pre-marking requirement.

• Certiorari is a narrow remedy. A trial court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed only for grave abuse of discretion. Unless the court acts arbitrarily or capriciously, appellate courts will generally defer to its judgment.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.