see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/april2013/185518.pdf
"x x x.
Petitioners claim that the CA erroneously considered this testimony in
Civil Case No. Q-95-22865. They cite the general rule that courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other
cases. This rule, however, admits of exceptions. As early as United States v. Claveria, this Court has stated: “In the absence of objection and as a matter of convenience, a court may properly treat all or part of the original record of a former case filed in its archives, as read into the record of a case pending before it, when, with the knowledge of the opposing party,
reference is made to it for that purpose by name and number or in some
other manner by which it is sufficiently designated.”13
We reiterated this stance in Adiarte v. Domingo,14 in which the trial
court decided the action pending before it by taking judicial notice of the
records of a prior case for a sum of money. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the Complaint, after it considered evidence clearly showing that the subject matter thereof was the same as that in the prior litigation. In a 1993 case, Occidental Land Transportation Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled:
The reasons advanced by the respondent court in taking judicial notice of Civil Case No. 3156 are valid and not contrary to law. As a general rule, “courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in the adjudication of cases pending before them, 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 the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge.”
The general rule admits of exceptions as enumerated in Tabuena v. Court of Appeals, the Court, citing U.S. v. Claveria, which We quote:
x x x (I)n the absence of objection, and as a matter of convenience to all
parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a
case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it,
when, with the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made to it for
that purpose, by name and number or in some other manner by which it is
sufficiently designated; or when the original record of the former case or
any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court's
direction, at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending.
It is clear, though, that this exception is applicable only when, ‘in the absence of objection,’ ‘with the knowledge of the opposing party,’ or ‘at the request or with the consent of the parties’ the case is clearly referred to or ‘the original or part of the records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives' and 'admitted as part of the record of the case then pending.’
xxxx
And unlike the factual situation in Tabuena v. CA, the decision in Civil Case No. 3156 formed part of the records of the instant case (Civil Case No. 2728) with the knowledge of the parties and in the absence of their objection. (Emphases supplied, citations omitted).15
This doctrine was restated in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, viz: “As a matter of convenience to all the parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it, when, with the knowledge of, and absent an objection from, the adverse party, reference is made to it for that purpose,
by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently
designated; or when the original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives at the court’s direction, at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending.”16 (Underscoring supplied)
x x x."
