LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SPS.

VICENTE BANAL and LEONIDAS ARENAS-BANAL

G.R. NO. 143276, July 20, 2004

FACTS: Spouses Banal, respondents, are the registered owners of 19+ hectares of agricultural land
situated in Camarines Norte. A portion of the land was compulsorily acquired by DAR pursuant to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. Petitioner Landbank valued the expropriated portion at
P173,918.55. Unsatisfied with the Landbank valuation and the subsequent affirmance of such by PARAD,
Respondents filed before the RTC a petition for determination of just compensation impleaded as
respondents were the DAR and the Landbank. After the pre-trial, the court issued an Order dispensing
with the hearing and directing the parties to submit their respective memoranda. Trial court computed
the just compensation for a total of P703,137.00, which is beyond respondents valuation of
P623,000.00. In concluding that the valuation of respondents property, RTC merely took judicial notice
of the average production figures in another case pending before it and applied the same to instant case
without conducting a hearing.

ISSUE: Whether or not a court may take judicial notice of the records of one case pending before it and
apply the same to another case also pending with it without conducting trial and without the knowledge
or consent of the parties.

HELD: The answer is in the negative. Well-settled is the rule that courts are not authorized to take
judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are
pending in the same court or before the same judge. They may only do so in the absence of objection
and with the knowledge of the opposing party, which are not obtaining here.

Section 3, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence is explicit on the necessity of a hearing before a
court takes judicial notice of a certain matter, to wit:

SEC. 3.Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. During the trial, the court, on its own initiative,
or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and
allow the parties to be heard thereon.

After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on
request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.

The RTC failed to observe the above provisions.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAILON KULAIS et al.
G.R. Nos. 100901-08, July 16, 1998

FACTS: On August 22, 1990, five Informations for kidnapping for ransom and three informations for
kidnapping were filed before the RTC of Zamboanga City against Carlos Falcasantos, Jailon Kulais,
Jumatiya Amlani, Norma Sahiddan de Kulais, Jalina Hassan de Kamming, Salvador Mamaril, Hadjirul
Plasin, Jaimuddin Hassan, Imam Taruk Alah, Freddie Manuel and several John and Jane Does. The
informations for kidnapping for ransom, which set forth identical allegations, save for the names of the
victims. The three informations for kidnapping, also under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code,
likewise alleged identical facts and circumstances, except the names of the victims. Of the twelve
accused, only nine were apprehended.

The trial court found Appellant Kulais guilty of five counts of kidnapping for ransom and one count of
kidnapping a woman and public officer, for which offenses it imposed upon him six terms of life
imprisonment. It also found him guilty of two counts of slight illegal detention for the kidnapping of
Monico Saavedra and Calixto Francisco.

On appeal, Kulais argues that he was denied due process when the trial court took judicial notice of the
testimony given in another case by one Lt. Melquiades Feliciano, who was the team leader of the
government troops that captured him and his purported cohorts. Because he was allegedly deprived of
his right to cross- examine a material witness in the person of Lieutenant Feliciano, he contends that the
latter’s testimony should not be used against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not a court may take judicial notice of the testimony of one witness in a case pending
before it and use the same to another case also pending with it.

HELD: No. As a general rule, courts should not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other
proceedings, even if these have been tried or are pending in the same court, or have been heard and are
actually pending before the same judge. This is especially true in criminal cases, where the accused has
the constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.

Having said that, we note, however, that even if the court a quo did take judicial notice of the testimony
of Lieutenant Feliciano, it did not use such testimony in deciding the cases against the appellant. Hence,
Appellant Kulais was not denied due process. His conviction was based mainly on the positive
identification made by some of the kidnap victims. These witnesses were subjected to meticulous cross-
examinations conducted by appellant’s counsel.
MENANDRO B. LAUREANO vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED
G.R. No. 114776. February 2, 2000

FACTS: Sometime in 1978, plaintiff is an expatriate employed by Respondent Singapore Airlines Limited
on a contractual basis which is stipulated to last for five (5) years. However, due to recession,
Respondent decided to terminate some of their pilots, included in the termination is herein plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed the instant case for damages due to illegal termination of contract of services before the
court a quo. Defendant contends that the complaint is for illegal dismissal together with a money claim
arising out of and in the course of plaintiff’s employment "thus it is the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC who
have the jurisdiction pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code" and that, since plaintiff was employed in
Singapore, all other aspects of his employment contract and/or documents executed in Singapore. Thus,
defendant postulates that Singapore laws should apply and courts thereat shall have jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether or not courts may take judicial notice of foreign law.

HELD: The answer is in the negative. The Philippine Courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of
Singapore. The Supreme Court concurred in the assumption of jurisdiction by the RTC which rightly ruled
on the application of Philippine laws. The SC further stated that neither can the court determine
whether the termination of Laureano is legal and under Singapore laws because of the Airline’s failure to
show which proves the applicability of the foreign law. It is a well settled rule that the party who claims
the applicability of a foreign law has the burden of proof and where said party has failed to discharge
the burden, Philippine laws apply. The defendant has failed to do so. Therefore, Philippine law should
be applied.