Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
444
445
VOL. 476, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 445
446
TINGA, J.:
_______________
447
_______________
8 Art. 280. When the father or the mother makes the recognition
separately, he or she shall not reveal the name or the person with whom
he or she had the child; neither shall he or she state any circumstance
whereby the other person may be identified.
9 Act No. 3753, Section 5, fourth paragraph reads:
In case of an illegitimate child, the birth certificate shall be signed and sworn
to jointly by the parents of the infant or only the mother if the father refuses.
In the latter case, it shall not be permissible to state or reveal in the document
the name of the father who refuses to acknowledge the child or to give therein
any information by which such father could be identified.
10 Rollo, p. 109.
11 Id., at p. 128.
12 Id., at pp. 62-75.
13 Id., at p. 36.
448
449
ance application 18
and policy ruled out by the trial court
would contain.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper
remedy to correct errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of
discretion tantamount to lack 19
or excess of jurisdiction
committed by a lower court. Where a respondent does not
have the legal power to determine the case and yet he does
so, he acts without jurisdiction; where, „being clothed with
power to determine the case, oversteps his authority as
determined by 20
law, he is performing a function in excess of
jurisdiction.‰
Petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals passed upon
errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction, since it delved
into the propriety of the denial of the subpoena duces tecum
and subpoena ad testificandum. The argument must fail.
While trial courts have the discretion to admit or
exclude evidence, such power is exercised
21
only when the
evidence has been formally offered. For a long time, the
Court has recognized that during the early stages of the
development of proof, it is impossible for a trial court judge
to know with certainty whether evidence is relevant or not,
and thus the practice of excluding evidence on22 doubtful
objections to its materiality should be avoided. As well
elucidated
23
in the case of Prats & Co. v. Phoenix Insurance
Co.:
_______________
450
_______________
24 Rollo, p. 316.
451
_______________
452
··o0o··
453