Practice question
Two ordinary trial courts hear comparable civil disputes with no applicable special evidentiary rule. One judge announces that witness competence in that courtroom depends on the party's wealth. Is that justified by Rule 128's uniformity provision?
- Yes; each judge may replace the common rule freely
- Yes; wealth automatically creates a statutory exception
- No; personal courtroom preference is not an exception provided by law or the Rules
- Yes; civil litigants have no evidentiary protections
- No; because only criminal courts may receive testimony
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/pdf/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.pdf — A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, effective May 1, 2020; Rules 128 §§1–4, 130 §§1–2, 131 §1, and 133 §§1–2,6.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/apr2025/gr_263794_2025.html — CIR v. Marily Development Corporation, G.R. No. 263794, April 2, 2025, MAIN decision (justified evidentiary reopening and opportunity to examine and object).
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/apr2022/gr_248304_2022.html — Agapito v. Aeroplus Multi-Services, Inc., G.R. No. 248304, April 20, 2022, MAIN decision (limits on procedural and evidentiary liberality).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.