JUDICIAL NOTICE IS THE COGNIZANCE OF CERTAIN FACTS THAT JUDGES MAY PROPERLY TAKE AND ACT ON WITHOUT PROOF BECAUSE THESE FACTS ARE ALREADY KNOWN TO THEM.

Put differently, it is the assumption by a court of a fact without need of further traditional evidentiary support. The principle is based on convenience and expediency in securing and introducing evidence on matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are not bona fide disputed. The foundation for judicial notice may be traced to the civil and canon law maxim, manifesta (or notoria) non indigent probatione. (Jovito R. Salonga, Philippine Law of Evidence, p. 540, 2nd ed., 1958) The taking of judicial notice means that the court will dispense with the traditional form of presentation of evidence. In so doing, the court assumes that the matter is so notorious that it would not be disputed.

         The concept of judicial notice is embodied in Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Rule 129 either requires the court to take judicial notice, inter alia, of “the official acts of the x x x judicial departments of the Philippines,” or gives the court the discretion to take judicial notice of matters “ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.” On the other hand, a party-litigant may ask the court to take judicial notice of any matter and the court may allow the parties to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice of the matter involved. In the present case, after the petitioner filed its Urgent Motion and/or Request for Judicial Notice, the respondents were also heard through their corresponding oppositions.  In adjudicating a case on trial, generally, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding that both cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge. (Manuel V. Moran, 5 Comments on the Rules of Court, 1980 ed., p. 409) This rule though admits of exceptions. (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 4th Division, G.R. No. 152375, December 16, 2011, Brion, J.).