Salcedo-Ortanez v. Court of Appeals

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 110662. August 4, 1994.]
TERESITA SALCEDO-ORTANEZ , petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS, HON. ROMEO F. ZAMORA, Presiding Judge, Br. 94,
Regional Trial Court of Quezon city and RAFAEL S.
ORTANEZ, respondents.
SYLLABUS
REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; NOT AVAILABLE TO

CHALLENGE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OF TRIAL COURT; EXCEPTION; CASE AT
BAR. — The extraordinary writ of certiorari is generally not available to
challenge an interlocutory order of a trial court. The proper remedy in such
cases is an ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment, incorporating in said
appeal the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order. However, where the
assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal
would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court may allow certiorari
as a mode of redress. In the present case, the trial court issued the assailed
order admitting all of the evidence offered by private respondent, including
tape recordings of telephone conversations of petitioner with unidentified
persons. These tape recordings were made and obtained when private
respondent allowed his friends from the military to wire tap his home
telephone. Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled "An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire
Tapping and other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication, and for
other purposes" expressly makes such tape recordings inadmissible in
evidence. . . . . Clearly, respondents trial court and Court of Appeals failed to
consider the afore-quoted provisions of the law in admitting in evidence the
cassette tapes in question. Absent a clear showing that both parties to the
telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility
of the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.
DECISION
PADILLA, J : p
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which
seeks to reverse the decision * of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
28545 entitle "Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez versus Hon. Romeo F. Zamora,
Presiding Judge, Br. 94, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and Rafael S.
Ortanez". prcd
The relevant facts of the case are as follows:

On 2 May 1990, private respondent Rafael S. Ortanez filed with the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for annulment of marriage with
damages against petitioner Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez, on grounds of lack of
marriage license and/or psychological incapacity of the petitioner. The
complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-90-5360 and raffled to Branch 94,
RTC of Quezon City presided over by respondent Judge Romeo F. Zamora.
Private respondent, after presenting his evidence, orally formally offered
in evidence Exhibits "A" to "M"
Among the exhibits offered by private respondent were three (3) cassette
tapes of alleged telephone conversations between petitioner and unidentified
persons.
Petitioner submitted her Objection/Comment to private respondent's oral
offer of evidence on 9 June 1992; on the same day, the trial court admitted all
of private respondent's offered evidence. Cdpr
A motion for reconsideration from petitioner was denied on 23 June 1992.

A petition for certiorari was then filed by petitioner in the Court of Appeals
assailing the admission in evidence of the aforementioned cassette tapes.
On 10 June 1993, the Court of appeals rendered judgment which is the
subject of the present petition, which in part reads:
"It is much too obvious that the petition will have to fail, for two
basic reasons:
(1) Tape recordings are not inadmissible per se. They and any
other variant thereof can be admitted in evidence for certain purposes,
depending on how they are presented and offered and on how the trial
judge utilizes them in the interest of truth and fairness and the even
handed administration of justice.
(2) A petition for certiorari is notoriously inappropriate to

rectify a supposed error in admitting evidence adduced during trial.
The ruling on admissibility is interlocutory; neither does it impinge on
jurisdiction. If it is erroneous, the ruling should be questioned in the
appeal from the judgment on the merits and not through the special
civil action of certiorari. The error, assuming gratuitously that it exists,
cannot be anymore than an error of law, properly correctible by appeal
and not by certiorari. Otherwise, we will have the sorry spectacle of a
case being subject of a counterproductive 'ping-pong' to and from the
appellate court as often as a trial court is perceived to have made an
error in any of its rulings with respect to evidentiary matters in the
course of trial. This we cannot sanction.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari being devoid of merit, is
hereby DISMISSED". 1
From this adverse judgment, petitioner filed the present petition for
review, stating: Cdpr
"Grounds for Allowance of the Petition"

"10. The decision of respondent [Court of Appeals] has no
basis in law nor previous decisions of the Supreme Court.
10.1 In affirming the questioned order of respondent
judge, the Court of Appeals has decided a question of substance
not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court as the
question of admissibility in evidence of tape recordings has not,
thus, far, been addressed and decided squarely by the Supreme
Court.
11. In affirming the questioned order of respondent judge, the

Court of Appeals has likewise rendered a decision in a way not in
accord with law and with applicable decisions of the Supreme Court.
11.1 Although the questioned order is interlocutory in

nature, the same can still be [the] subject of a petition for
certiorari." 2
The main issue to be resolved is whether or not the remedy of certiorari

under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was properly availed of by the petitioner in
the Court of Appeals.
The extraordinary writ of certiorari is generally not available to challenge

an interlocutory order of a trial court. The proper remedy in such cases is an
ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment, incorporating in said appeal the
grounds for assailing the interlocutory order. LLpr
However, where the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and

the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the
court may allow certiorari as a mode of redress. 3
In the present case, the trial court issued the assailed order admitting all
of the evidence offered by private respondent, including tape recordings of
telephone conversations of petitioner with unidentified persons. These tape
recordings were made and obtained when private respondent allowed his
friends from the military to wire tap his home telephone. 4
Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled "An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping
and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication, and for other
purposes" expressly makes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence. The
relevant provisions of Rep. Act No. 4200 are as follows:
"Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being
authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken
word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as
a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-
recorder, or however otherwise described. . . ."
"Section 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the

existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of the same or any
part thereof, or any information therein contained, obtained or secured
by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not
be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation."
Clearly, respondents trial court and Court of Appeals failed to consider the
afore-quoted provisions of the law in admitting in evidence the cassette tapes
in question. Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone
conversations allowed to recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the
subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200. prLL
Additionally, it should be mentioned that the above-mentioned Republic

Act in Section 2 thereof imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than six
(6) months and up to six (6) years for violation of said Act. 5
We need not address the other arguments raised by the parties, involving
the applicability of American jurisprudence, having arrived at the conclusion
that the subject cassette tapes are inadmissible in evidence under Philippine
law.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 28545

is hereby SET ASIDE. The subject cassette tapes are declared inadmissible in
evidence.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Penned by Justice Emeterio C. Culi with Justices Jainal D. Rasul and Alfredo G.
Lagamon concurring.
1. Rollo, pp. 24-25.
2. Rollo, p. 11.
3. Marcelo v. de Guzman, G.R. No. L-29077, 29 June 1982, 114 SCRA 657.
4. TSN, 9 December 1992, p. 4.
5. "Sec. 2. Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit,
or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding
section or who violates the provisions of the following section or of any order
issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation shall, upon
conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months
or more than six years and with accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification from public office if the offender be a public official at the
time of the commission of the offense, and if the offender is an alien he shall
be subject to deportation proceedings."

Salcedo-Ortanez v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salcedo-Ortanez v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salcedo-Ortanez v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 110662. August 4, 1994.]

TERESITA SALCEDO-ORTANEZ , petitioner, vs. COURT OF

REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; NOT AVAILABLE TO

The relevant facts of the case are as follows:

A motion for reconsideration from petitioner was denied on 23 June 1992.

(2) A petition for certiorari is notoriously inappropriate to

"Grounds for Allowance of the Petition"

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

11. In affirming the questioned order of respondent judge, the

11.1 Although the questioned order is interlocutory in

The main issue to be resolved is whether or not the remedy of certiorari

The extraordinary writ of certiorari is generally not available to challenge

However, where the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and

"Section 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the

Additionally, it should be mentioned that the above-mentioned Republic

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 28545

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like