Short answer. Yes. Rule 132, Section 38 of the Rules of Court provides that while the reason for sustaining or overruling an objection generally need not be stated, if the objection was based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining it on one or some of them must specify which ground or grounds were relied upon.
What the law says
if the objection is based on two (2) or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one (1) or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon
Rule 132, Section 38 — Ruling. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated.
Rule 132, Section 38 — Ruling. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made
Rule 132, Section 38 — Ruling. Read the full provision →
The specific-grounds exception
Rule 132, Section 38 provides that if the objection is based on two (2) or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one (1) or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. Since your objection rested on several distinct legal grounds, this exception applies directly: if the judge sustains it, the ruling has to identify which specific ground or grounds actually carried the ruling.
The general rule this exception departs from
The same section opens with the ordinary rule: the reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. For a single-ground objection, a judge can simply say sustained or overruled without explaining why. The multiple-grounds situation is treated differently precisely because, without specifying which ground the ruling relied on, neither party would know which of the several grounds actually succeeded.
Why specifying the ground matters
Knowing which specific ground the judge relied on tells the parties what the ruling actually establishes going forward in the case, and what it does not. A general sustained on a multi-ground objection would leave it unclear whether the other grounds were rejected, found unnecessary to reach, or simply not addressed — the specification requirement removes that ambiguity for exactly the situation your question describes. That matters most when the excluded evidence is offered again in another form, or when the ruling is later questioned: the ground the judge specified is what the parties, and any reviewing court, have to work with.
When this ruling has to be made
Section 38 also requires that the ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, unless the court needs reasonable time to inform itself on the question, though the ruling must still always be made during the trial and in time for the losing party to respond. The specify-the-ground requirement applies within that same timing framework, whenever the ruling on a multi-ground objection is eventually made.