Tito Sotto, one of the hosts of TV5’s “E.A.T.” and a former host of “Eat Bulaga,” said he submitted an affidavit but not the required judicial affidavit for the case filed by him, Vic Sotto, Joey de Leon, known as TVJ, and Jeny Ferre against the Television and Production Exponents Inc. (TAPE) and GMA Network. “I was prevented from testifying by the tape/gma lawyers wanting a separate judicial affidavit when in fact we had a submitted affidavit weeks ago. Yun ang totoo [That is the truth],” Sotto posted on X (formerly Twitter) on Aug. 1.  Tito, Vic and Joey (top) and TAPE Inc. are in legal dispute over the "Eat Bulaga" name (Photos from TVJ Official and TAPE Inc. Facebook accounts)
Sotto made the online post [after the second hearing set by the Marikina Regional Trial Court Branch 273 on July 31 was canceled](https://mb.com.ph/2023/8/1/tvj-tape-injunction-case-hearing-canceled-due-to-tito-sotto-s-lack-of-judicial-affidavit) about TVJ and Ferre’s application for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction in the copyright infringement and unfair competition case due to his non-submission of the judicial affidavit required by the court and for which he was fined P5,000.  TVJ and Ferre filed the case against TAPE, the producer of “Eat Bulaga,” and GMA Network for “Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition under R.A. No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, with Application for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.” The court is hearing first the part for the application for the issuance of a preliminary injunction before the main case. The first hearing was held on July 27 and the second hearing on July 31.   TVJ and Ferre are seeking an injunction to stop TAPE from replaying “Eat Bulaga” episodes, segments and audio-visual recordings done before May 31 this year and using the title “Eat Bulaga.”  Judicial affidavits replaced witnesses’ direct testimonies in court.  The Supreme Court imposed the Judicial Affidavit Rule starting in 2013 to speed up the resolution of cases.  It said pilot testing of the Judicial Affidavit Rule “resulted in reducing by about two-thirds the time used for presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and adjudication of cases.”  According to the Supreme Court, a judicial affidavit contains “a statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.”  In response to Sotto’s tweet, TAPE lawyer Maggie Abraham-Garduque said they did not prevent him from testifying in court.  “This is not true. The hearing was canceled on July 31 because Tito Sotto has no judicial affidavit. TAPE and GMA lawyers merely invoked the order of the court issued last July 14 that all witnesses of the parties must submit their JA's [judicial affidavits] within 3 days before July 27 otherwise their testimonies shall be considered waived,” she said.  She said only the judicial affidavits of Ferre and De Leon were submitted to the court.  “In the end, the court in the interest of justice allowed Tito Sotto to testify and directed him to submit his JA within 3 days from July 31 otherwise he will not be allowed to testify anymore. Since the submission of JA is likewise late, the court directed them to pay a fine in the maximum amount of Php5,000 in accordance with the judicial affidavit rule which is suppletory to intellectual property cases like this,” she added.  The lawyer said Ferre, who has a judicial affidavit, was absent in the July 31 court hearing.  “If she was present, the hearing on that day can proceed and the plaintiff's counsel can present her and we can conduct our cross exam but since she was not in court thereby no available witness for the plaintiff for injunction, then the hearing was canceled and reset to Aug 11 for the presentation of Tito Sotto and Aug. 25 for the presentation of Jeny Ferre,” said Abraham-Garduque.  She said Tito and Vic Sotto, and De Leon submitted a joint affidavit “but this is not a judicial affidavit in accordance with the judicial affidavit rule.”  De Leon earlier submitted a judicial affidavit that allowed him to be presented in court last July 27.  “The one executed by Joey was the judicial affidavit. Thus, Joey was presented [in court] on July 27. Judicial affidavit has certain forms and contents different from a simple affidavit,” she said.  According to the [Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 12-8-8-SC](https://lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_12-8-8-sc_2012.html). the content of a judicial affidavit should include the following:  “(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness; “(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness and the place where the examination is being held; “(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury; “(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that: “(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies; “(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and “(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in accordance with the Rules of Court; “(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and “(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by law to administer the same.” Related story: [TVJ-TAPE injunction case hearing canceled due to Tito Sotto’s lack of judicial affidavit ](https://mb.com.ph/2023/8/1/tvj-tape-injunction-case-hearing-canceled-due-to-tito-sotto-s-lack-of-judicial-affidavit)