Section 4B : The RTC Observation

Rena Marte-Lubag
Vs

DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
Civil Case No. 13-10225

Alexander Lubag

On February 17,2016, we, the herein court observers were fortunate

enough to witness and observe the sole Civil Case heard in the RTC Branch
73 located in Antipolo City, Province of Rizal because apparently, the hearing
for civil cases in the said court is normally scheduled every Thursday. Upon
arrival at the said court, we immediately inquire as to the schedule of the
civil cases to be heard on that specific day. We were advised to head straight
to Branch 73 of the RTC where they were greeted by the staff who were very
welcoming and warm. We were assisted by the young and very beautiful
Clerk of Court, Atty. Bravo and she informed us that the Civil Case will be
about Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. Since the exact time for the civil
case hearing was quite impossible to determine, we were then advised to
stay within the vicinity and that they will notify us just before the said
hearing will start.

After waiting for about an hour, we were then ushered to the Branch 73
court and took seats at the front row. The Judge sitting on the bench looked
so stern but her aura emulates a certain degree of authority.
Before the hearing started, the Honorable Judge acknowledged our
presence and asked us to stand and she then explained the nature of the
case, which, as already mentioned, is about a Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage. The hearing is already on the stage of the Presenting the
Petitioners Evidence.
The Petitioner on stand, the former friend and driver of the defendant,
submitted his judicial affidavit. The counsel for the petitioner submitted the
court that they are waiving their right to examine their own witness on redirect, the counsel of the adverse party proceeded to cross-examine the
witness based on his judicial affidavits and exhibits attached to the same.
Every question thrown by the adverse partys counsel in English was
translated by the courts interpreter for the witness and vice versa. There
was an instance when the counsel immediately asked another question
without waiting for the interpreter to translate the answer of the witness
pertaining to the formers previous question, the Judge then reminded the
counsel to wait for the interpreter before moving to his next question.
At the onset of the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner mentioned
that one of the grounds that they are contending was the Psychological
Incapacity of the respondent due to his severe addiction to gambling and
alleged womanizing. The Judge told the counsel to strike out the said ground
from the pleading because the witness he presented is not an expert in that
field, the latter being a tricycle driver.
During the cross examination, the witnessed said that he had been
friends with the respondent. He was the driver of the Alexander Lubag, and
that he knows Sir Alex through and through because they have been
together almost 24/7. He was attesting to the respondents alleged addiction
to gambling by stating that the latter was always going to the Bingo Bonanza
in Sta. Lucia Mall and stays there from 10am until 2pm. He also made
mention of the alleged womanizing of the respondent. That being the driver
of the respondent, he has personal knowledge of the other woman the latter
keeps, one in Sumulong and one in Cubao, Quezon City named Jen.
Due to the time limitation, and the volume of cases that needs to be
heard that day, the Honorable Judge Suarez set the hearing for continuance
which will be held on April 12th 2016.

5 EVALUATION
5.1 Rules of Court Application
A. Did Trial proceed in accordance to trial technique under the ROC?
B. What rules are observed during trial?
5.2: Demeanor of Witness and Court Personnel

6. Recommendation based on ROC.