RULE 130: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

1. CITIBANK, N.A. (Formerly First National City Bank) and INVESTORS

FINANCE CORPORATION, doing business under the name and style of FNCB
Finance vs. MODESTA R. SABENIANO
Statement of the Facts:
Modesta Sabeniano was a client of both Citibank and FNCB Finance.
Sabeniano filed a complaint against petitioners claiming that she made substantial
deposits and money market placements with petitioners. The proceeds were
supposedly deposited automatically to Sabenianos account with Citibank. However,
petitioners refused to return her deposits despite her repeated
demands.
Petitioners, claimed that Sabeniano obtained several loans from Citibank.
WhenSabeniano failed to pay, Citibank exercised its right to offset Sabenianos
outstanding loans with her deposits and money market placements pursuant to the
Declaration of Pledge and the Deeds of Assignment executed by Sabeniano. The
lower court declared the compensation illegal and ordered Citibank to refund the
amount toSabeniano. Sabeniano was also declared indebted to Citibank. The CA
affirmed. Upon Motion for Reconsideration, the CAdeleted the portion where it
ordered petitioners to return to Sabeniano the proceeds of her money market
placement with AIDC.
Statement of the Issue:
Whether or not the Court violated the Best Evidence Rule when it accepted
photocopies and microfilm copies of the PNs, etc.
Ruling:
This Court did not violate the best evidence rule when it considered and
weighed in evidence the photocopies and microfilm copies of the PNs, MCs, and
letters submitted by the petitioners to establish the existence of respondent's loans.
The terms or contents of these documents were never the point of contention in the
Petition at bar. It was respondent's position that the PNs in the first set never existed,
while the PNs in the second set were merely executed to cover simulated loan
transactions. As for the MCs representing the proceeds of the loans, the respondent
either denied receipt of certain MCs or admitted receipt of the other MCs but for
another purpose. Respondent further admitted the letters she wrote personally or
through her representatives to Mr. Tan of petitioner Citibank acknowledging the
loans, except that she claimed that these letters were just meant to keep up the ruse of
the simulated loans. Thus, respondent questioned the documents as to their existence
or execution, or when the former is admitted, as to the purpose for which the
documents were executed, matters which are, undoubtedly, external to the
documents, and which had nothing to do with the contents thereof. Alternatively,
even if it is granted that the best evidence rule should apply to the evidence presented
by petitioners regarding the existence of respondent's loans, it should be borne in
mind that the rule admits of the following exceptions under Rule 130, Section 5
(When the original document is unavailable). The execution or existence of the

RULE 130: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

original copies of the documents was established through the testimonies of
witnesses, such as Mr. Tan, before whom most of the documents were personally
executed by respondent. The original PNs also went through the whole loan booking
system of Citibank from the account officer in its Marketing Department, to the preprocessor, to the signature verifier, back to the pre-processor, then to the processor
for booking. It was only FNCB Finance who claimed that they lost the original
copies of the PNs when it moved to a new office. Citibank did not make a similar
contention; instead, it explained that the original copies of the PNs were returned to
the borrower upon liquidation of the loan, either through payment or roll-over.
Citibank proffered the excuse that they were still looking for the documents in their
storage or warehouse to explain the delay and difficulty in the retrieval thereof, but
not their absence or loss. The original documents in this case, such as the MCs and
letters, were destroyed and, thus, unavailable for presentation before the RTC only
on 7 October 1987, when a fire broke out on the 7th floor of the office building of
Citibank. There is no showing that the fire was intentionally set. The fire destroyed
relevant documents, not just of the present case, but also of other cases, since the 7th
floor housed the Control and Investigation Division, in charge of keeping the
necessary documents for cases in which petitioner Citibank was involved.

RULE 130: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

2. THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION
(SOLIDBANK) v.DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS, INC., NARCISO G.
MORALES, AND SPOUSE, [G.R. NO. 143338 July 29, 2005]
Statement of the Facts:
Petitioner, a domestic banking and trust corporation extended in favor of
respondents a loan in as evidenced by a promissory note executed by respondents on
the same date. The respondents defaulted on their monthly installments and despite
petitioners oral and written demands upon respondents to settle their obligation
respondents still failed to pay their indebtedness.
During the trial on the merits of this case, petitioner presented as its sole
witness, Liberato A. Lavarino, then the manager of its Collection Departmentto
testify as to the fact of the existence of the loan and that the defendants failed to pay
notwithstanding the demands made by the petitioner. Petitioner, to prove the
existence of the promissory note (Exhibit A), made its formal offer of evidence.
However, as the original copy of Exhibit "A" could no longer be found, petitioner
instead sought the admission of the duplicate original of the promissory note which
was identified and marked as Exhibit "E."
The trial court initially admitted into evidence Exhibit "E" and granted
respondents' motion that they be allowed to amend their respective answers to
conform with this new evidence. Respondent corporation however, opposed and
claims that Exhibit "E" should not have been admitted as it was immaterial,
irrelevant, was not properly identified and hearsay evidence. Such opposition was
granted by the trial court. The respondents then, separately filed their motions to
dismiss on the similar ground that with the exclusion of Exhibits "A" and "E,"
petitioner no longer possessed any proof of respondents' alleged indebtedness.
Petitioner filed a motion praying that the presiding judge, of the court a quo
inhibit himself from this case maintaining that the latter rushed into resolving its
motion for reconsideration thereby depriving it the opportunity of presenting proof
that the original of Exhibit "A" was delivered to respondents. This motion to inhibit
was denied by the trial court. Which was further affirmed by the appellate court
hence this petition for review on certiorari.
Statement of the Issues:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it found that private
respondents denied the material allegations of petitioner solidbank's complaint,
despite the presence of indubitable facts clearly pointing to the fact that said private
respondents admitted the genuineness and due execution of the subject promissory
note
Whether or not secondary evidence may be allowed since the evidence in
question is in the possession of the adverse party

RULE 130: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Ruling:
We hold otherwise.
The pertinent portion of the Rules of Court on the matter provides:
SEC. 8. How to contest such documents. - When an action or defense is founded
upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as
provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath,
specifically denies them and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the
requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a
party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the
original instrument is refused.
In this case, both the court a quo and the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that
respondents were able to specifically deny the allegations in petitioner's complaint in
the manner specifically required by the rules. In effect, respondents had, to all intents
and purposes, admitted the genuineness and due execution of the subject promissory
note and recognized their obligation to petitioner.
The appellate court likewise sustained the ruling of the trial court that the "best
evidence rule or primary evidence must be applied as the purpose of the proof is to
establish the terms of the writing - meaning the alleged promissory note as it is the
basis of the recovery of the money allegedly loaned to the defendants (respondents
herein)."
The "best evidence rule" is encapsulated in Rule 130, Section 3, of the
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which provides:
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. - When the subject of
inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against
whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable
notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which
cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office.
The "best evidence rule," xxx was used to describe rules which were already
existing such as the rule that the terms of a document must be proved by the
production of the document itself, in preference to evidence about the document; it
was also utilized to designate the hearsay rule or the rule excluding assertions made
out of court and not subject to the rigors of cross-examination; and the phrase was
likewise used to designate the group of rules by which testimony of particular classes
of witnesses was preferred to that of others.
xxx "the only actual rule that the 'best evidence' phrase denotes today is the rule
requiring the production of the original writing" the rationale being:
cralawlibrary

RULE 130: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

(1) that precision in presenting to the court the exact words of the writing is of more
than average importance, particularly as respects operative or dispositive
instruments, such as deeds, wills and contracts, since a slight variation in words may
mean a great difference in rights, (2) that there is a substantial hazard of inaccuracy
in the human process of making a copy by handwriting or typewriting, and (3) as
respects oral testimony purporting to give from memory the terms of a writing, there
is a special risk of error, greater than in the case of attempts at describing other
situations generally. In the light of these dangers of mistransmission, accompanying
the use of written copies or of recollection, largely avoided through proving the
terms by presenting the writing itself, the preference for the original writing is
justified.
Bearing in mind that the risk of mistransmission of the contents of a writing
is the justification for the "best evidence rule," we declare that this rule finds no
application to this case. It should be noted that respondents never disputed the terms
and conditions of the promissory note thus leaving us to conclude that as far as the
parties herein are concerned, the wording or content of said note is clear enough and
leaves no room for disagreement. In their responsive pleadings, respondents'
principal defense rests on the alleged lack of consideration of the promissory note. In
addition, respondent Morales also claims that he did not sign the note in his personal
capacity. These contentions clearly do not question the "precise wording" of the
promissory note which should have paved the way for the application of the "best
evidence rule." It was, therefore, an error for the Court of Appeals to sustain the
decision of the trial court on this point.
Besides, the "best evidence rule" as stated in our Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure is not absolute. As quoted earlier, the rule accepts of exceptions one of
which is when the original of the subject document is in the possession of the
adverse party. As pointed out by petitioner in its motion to inhibit, had it been given
the opportunity by the court a quo, it would have sufficiently established that the
original of Exhibit "A" was in the possession of respondents which would have
called into application one of the exceptions to the "best evidence rule."
Significantly, and as discussed earlier, respondents failed to deny specifically
the execution of the promissory note. This being the case, there was no need for
petitioner to present the original of the promissory note in question. Their judicial
admission with respect to the genuineness and execution of the promissory note
sufficiently established their liability to petitioner regardless of the fact that
petitioner failed to present the original of said note.
Indeed, when the defendant fails to deny specifically and under oath the due
execution and genuineness of a document copied in a complaint, the plaintiff need
not prove that fact as it is considered admitted by the defendant. xxx

RULE 130: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

3. PACIFICO B.ARCEO JR. VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR No. 142641, July 17, 2006
Statement of the Facts:
Petitioner Arceo obtained a loan from private complainant JosefinalCenizal
in the amount of P100, 00.00, several weeks after Arceo, obtained an additional
amount of P50,000.00. In consideration Arceo issued BPI check No. 163255 post
dated August 04, 1991. Cenizal did not immediately deposit the check due to verbal
promise of Arceo to replace the check with cash. However, Arceo did not ascend to
his promise. Cenizal brought the check to the bank for encashment, the check
bounced due to insufficiency of fund. Cenizal tried to inform Arceo but he can no
longer be located. Cenizal filed violation of BP 22 and estafa against the petitioner.
The check in question andthe return slip were however lost by Cenizal as a result of
a fire that occurred near his residence. Trial court convicted Arceo. Arceo appealed to
the CA on the ground that Cenizal failed to present the dishonoured check during the
trial. CA affirmed they decision.
Statement of the Issue:
Whether or not Arceo should be acquitted for failure of the prosecution to
present the dishonored check during the trial and such is in violation of Best
Evidence Rule
Ruling:
No, the rule on the applicability of the best evidence rule applies only where
the content of the document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is the
execution or existence of the document or the circumstances surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is
admissible.
The due execution of the check was sufficiently established by Cenizal,
Arceo admitted that he issued the check.

RULE 130: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

4. ENGR. BAYANI MAGDAYAO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR No. 152881, August 17, 2004
Statement of the Facts:
Petitioner Magdayao, drew and issued to private complainant Olvis PNB
check No. 399967 dated September 30, 1991, in the amount of P600,000.00. Olvis
deposited in his account with the BPI-family Ban, Dipolog City Branch, but it was
Dishonored by the drawee bank due to insufficiency of fund. Olvis informed
petitioner that his check was dishonored. Petitioner pleaded for time to pay petitioner
offered to pay Olvisby retrieving the dishonored check and replacing with two other
check, one for P400,000.00 and P200,000.00 payable to Olvis. Olvis then returned
the original copy of the check to the petitioner, but again petitioner failed to pay his
obligation to Olvis. The trial court convicted petitioner Magdayao for violation of
BP22. H then appealed to the CA on the ground of violation Rule 129 Section 1 of
the revised rules on evidence, but the same was affirmed by the trial court.
Statement of the Issue:
Whether or not there is violation of Rule 129, section of the revised rules of
evidence, Best Evidence Rule
Ruling:
The purpose of the rule requiring the production by the offeror of the best
evidence is the prevention of fraud, because if a party is in possession of such
evidence and withholds it and present inferior or secondary evidence in its place, the
presumption is that the latter evidence is withheld from the court and adverse party
for a fraudulent or devious purpose which its production would expose and defeat.
Secondary Evidence of a writing maybe admitted when the original is in the
custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and
fails to produce it after reasonable notice. The offeror must prove that he has done all
power to secure the best evidence by giving notice to the said party to produce said
document.
Olvis testified that after the check was dishonored by the drawee bank due to
inssufiency of funds, he returned it to the petitioner. Petitioner Magdayao admitted
that he received the original copy of the dishonored check from the private
complainant, and he caused the nonpayment of the dishonored check. The petitioner
cannot feign ignorance of the need for the production of the original copy of the PNB
check, and the fact that the prosecution was able to present in evidence only a
photocopy thereof because the original was in his possession.

RULE 130: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

5. PEOPLE v. TANDOYC.R. No. 80505, 4 December 1990, 192 SCRA 28
Statement of the Facts:
Accused was convicted of a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. He
appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the trial court erred, in violation of
the Best Evidence Rule, in admitting a xerox copy of the bill allegedly used as buybust money.
Statement of the Issue:
Whether the xerox copy of the marked bill is admissible in evidence
Ruling:
The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the contents of the document are
the subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only: as to whether or not such document
was actually expected, or exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding
its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is
admissible. Since the photocopy of the marked money was presented by the
prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents,
other substitutionary evidence, like a xerox copy, is therefore admissible without
accounting for the original. Closely related to the best evidence rule is the
rule that ca document or writing which is merely" collateral" to the
issue involved in the case on trial need not be produced. This is the
collateral facts rule.
Thus, where the purpose of presenting a document is not to prove its
contents, but merely to give coherence to, or to make intelligible, the
testimony of a witness regarding a fact contemporaneous to the writing, the original
of the document need not be presented. In this case, the contents of the document
.are not sought to be proven, but are simply incidental to the fact being testified to.
Thus, the best evidence rule cannot apply.

6. CITIBANK V. TEODORO, GR No. 150905, 23 Sept 2003, 411 SCRA 577

RULE 130: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Statement of the Facts:

Petitioner operates a credit card system through which it extends credit
accommodations to its cardholders for the purchase of goods and services from its
member establishments. The purchases are later on paid for by cardholders upon
receipt of the billings or statements of account from the company. Respondent Efren
S. Teodoro was one such cardholder. Respondent made various purchases through
his credit card. Accordingly, he was billed by petitioner for those purchases, for
which he tendered various payments.Petitioner claims that as of January 20, 1995,
the obligations of respondent stood at P191,693.25, inclusive of interest and service
charges. Several times it demanded payment from him, but he refused to pay,
claiming that the amount demanded did not correspond to his actual obligations. His
refusal prompted petitioner to file a Complaint for collection on January 25, 1996
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Wherein, he presented Xerox
copy of Sales Invoices as evidence.
Statement of the Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing and setting aside the
decision of the trial courts for insufficiency of evidence to support its findings
Ruling:
Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents
of the original sales invoices, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence
or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the
reason for its nonproduction in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence
of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.The correct
order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents. At the sound
discretion of the court, this order may be changed if necessary. In the present case,
the existence of the original sales invoices was established by the photocopies and
the testimony of Hernandez. Petitioner, however, failed to prove that the originals
had been lost or could not be produced in court after reasonable diligence and good
faith in searching for them.
Finally, when more than one original copy exists, it must appear that all of
them have been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before secondary
evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy may not be used without accounting
for the other originals.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.

7. SHANGRI-LA V. BF CORP, GR No. 145842, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 25

RULE 130: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Statement of the Facts:

Both petitions stemmed from a construction contract denominated
as Agreement for the Execution of Builders Work for the EDSA Shangri-la Hotel
Project that ESHRI and BF executed for the construction of the EDSA Shangri-la
Hotel starting May 1, 1991. Among other things, the contract stipulated for the
payment of the contract price on the basis of the work accomplished as described in
the monthly progress billings. Under this arrangement, BF shall submit a monthly
progress billing to ESHRI which would then re-measure the work accomplished and
prepare a Progress Payment Certificate for that months progress billing.
Petitioners fault offered as evidence the photocopies of Progress Billing Nos.
14 to 19 and the complementing PMIs and the WVOs.
Respondent BF, on the other hand, avers having complied with the layingthe-basis requirement. Defending the action of the courts below in admitting into
evidence the photocopies of the documents aforementioned, BF explained that it
could not present the original of the documents since they were in the possession of
ESHRI which refused to hand them over to BF despite requests.
Statement of the Issue:
Whether or not the court erred in admitting secondary evidence produced
Ruling:
Secondary evidence of the contents of a written instrument or document
refers to evidence other than the original instrument or document itself. A party may
present secondary evidence of the contents of a writing not only when the original is
lost or destroyed, but also when it is in the custody or under the control of the
adverse party. In either instance, however, certain explanations must be given before
a party can resort to secondary evidence.
In our view, the trial court correctly allowed the presentation of the
photocopied documents in question as secondary evidence. Any suggestion that BF
failed to lay the required basis for presenting the photocopies of Progress Billing
Nos. 14 to 19 instead of their originals has to be dismissed.