Read Expertravel and Tours v Court of Appeals, Korean Airlines (2005) and answer the following as accurately as possible. Submit to marvic.leonen@gmail.com with the following subject address: Evidence, August 4 Exercise [family name, last name] on or before 10 am of August 4.
1. What is the nature of the action filed with the Supreme Court? In such types of remedies, can questions of fact be raised? What were the issues raised related to Evidence? Are these issues, questions of fact?
2. At what point in the procedure at the Regional Trial Court were there issues relating to evidence? Was the case already at the pre-trial stage? Was the case already at the trial stage?
3. What were the basic allegations of fact asserted in the certificate of forum shopping appended to the original complaint at the Regional Trial Court? Were these factual issues relevant to establish the cause of action? Are these facts considered as ultimate probandum? Or, should they be considered as penultimate probandum? Or, are they simply factum probandum or factum probans?
4. What would be the autoptic proferrence/s relevant to establish the allegations of Atty. Aguinaldo in his original Certificate of Non-forum Shopping attached to the original complaint with the Regional Trial Court? What would be the autoptic proferrence/s will be needed to establish the requirements for a Certification of Non-forum Shopping as required under section 5, rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court?
5. Should autoptic proferrence be actually necessary to prove compliance under section 5, rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court?
6. In this decision, what specific facts did the court say could be part of judicial notice? Why are this/these fact/s of judicial notice?
7. What fact/s did the court consider as basis for making the inference that Atty. Aguinaldo was not telling the truth? What are the warrants for each of these inferences? Was the Supreme Court correct in making these findings of fact? Which rule in evidence would be your legal basis to support your answer?
8. What was the relevance of the Court’s quotation of provisions from the Corporation Code? How do these provisions of substantive law relate to the evidential requirements of the facts in issue with the Supreme Court?
9. What is judicial notice? Based on the rule 129, what are the types of judicial notice?
10. Does it make sense to consider the credibility of facts that could be within the judicial notice of courts? Does it make sense to consider the relevance of facts that could be within the judicial notice of courts? Why or why not?
11. During the hearing required under rule 129, section 3 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, are the parties expected to present evidence? If the parties are expected to present evidence, for what purpose would the evidence be presented? Would it thus make sense to discuss the credibility of the evidence presented during that hearing? Would it also make sense to discuss its relevance? Why or why not?
12. During the hearing required under rule 129, section 3 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, what would be the presumption, i.e. the state of affairs should the evidence not be sufficient: (a) that the facts offered are within judicial notice; or (b) the facts offered are not within judicial notice?
13. Would there be any other facts that would not need presentation of evidence in order to establish its existence? Which section in rule 129 would be applicable to establish the textual scope of this exception?
14. What is implied by the second sentence of rule 129, section 4? What is meant by “contradict” as used in that provision? What would be the procedure to “contradict” the admission?
15. How is rule 129, section 4 on the one hand related to or different from rule 130 sections 26 to 32 on the other? How is rule 129 section 4 related to or different from rule 130 section 33?
16. What facts related to teleconferencing can be within the judicial notice of courts? Can courts take judicial notice of when teleconferencing was first introduced? What about when it was first introduced in the Philippines? What about the advantages and disadvantages of teleconferencing?
17. What are the three material requisites of matters of judicial notice? Do these requirements apply to all types of judicial notice? Do these requisites also apply for matters which are judicially admitted?
18. What does it mean for a matter to be “of common and general knowledge”? Are there matters which are really “well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain”? Would this be affected by science or culture? What is meant by the requirement that the matter must be “known within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court”? Does this last requirement qualify what is meant by “common and general knowledge”?
19. What exactly is meant by “notoriety”? Did the court provide perceptible criteria for determining whether a matter is of a sufficient degree of notoriety? Is the court clear as to whether there are separate requirements for matters of mandatory as opposed to matters of discretionary judicial notice?
20. What does this phrase mean: “....But a court cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is dependent on the existence or non-existence of a fact of which the court has no constructive knowledge”? What is meant by “constructive knowledge”?
21. Why did the court find for the petitioner? Was it because of its finding that the matters in question were not within the judicial notice of the trial court and the appellate court? Or was it because they found that the plaintiff’s lawyer lied?
Note: For August 4, you are expected to have read all required materials until "judicial notice" in the outline.
