G.R. No. 187899, October 23, 2013 on May 6, 2002. Trial on the merits ensued. Justice Villarama PO3 Alfonso testified that after receiving a telephone call on December 1, 2001 regarding a vehicular accident, he Doctrine: Evidence is hearsay when its probative force immediately went to the place of the incident. Upon depends on the competency and credibility of some reaching the area at 9:30 p.m., PO3 Alfonso took persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to photographs of the two vehicles which were both heavily be produced. The exclusion of hearsay evidence is damaged. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene anchored on three reasons: (1) absence of cross- of the accident which showed that the Mitsubishi Lancer examination; (2) absence of demeanor evidence; and (3) was at the time travelling towards the south, while the absence of oath. Basic under the rules of evidence is that Nissan Patrol was bound for Isabela in the opposite a witness can only testify on facts within his or her direction; and that the debris denoting the point of personal knowledge. impact lay on the proper lane of the Mitsubishi Lancer. Facts: On December 1, 2001, at about 9:00 p.m., a PO3 Alfonso also submitted a Police Report which vehicular collision took place along the stretch of the indicated that the Nissan Patrol encroached on the proper Dofia Remedios Trinidad Highway in Brgy. Taal, Pulilan, lane of the Mitsubishi Lancer which caused the collision Bulacan involving a Mitsubishi Lancer registered under and ultimately the death of Eduardo. PO3 Alfonso opined the name of, and at that time driven by the late Eduardo that the Nissan Patrol was travelling too fast which Tuazon Angeles, husband of respondent Celerina Rivera- explains why it had to traverse 100 meters from the point Angeles and father of respondents Edward and Celine; of impact to where it finally stopped. and a Nissan Patrol Turbo Inter cooler model 2001 registered under the name of petitioner Robert Da Jose Celerina testified on the various damages and attorneys and at that time driven by petitioner Francisco Ocampo. fees prayed for in their complaint. A businessman during Eduardo was rushed by unidentified persons to the F.M. his lifetime, Celerina attested that Eduardo was earning a Cruz Orthopedic and General Hospital in Pulilan, Bulacan. yearly gross income of over P1,000,000. She also Despite treatment at said hospital, Eduardo died on the testified that at the time of his death, Eduardo was the same day due to Hemorrhagic Shock as a result of Blunt President of Jhamec Construction Corp., a family Traumatic Injury. enterprise, from which he derived an annual salary of more or less P300,000; Vice-President of Classic A criminal complaint for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Personnel, Inc. from which he received a regular annual Homicide and Damage to Property was filed on December allowance of P250,000 to P300,000; and part owner of 3, 2001 against Francisco before the Municipal Trial Court Glennis Laundry Haus per Joint Affidavit dated (MTC) of Pulilan, Bulacan. The MTC declared Francisco December 28, 1999 executed by Eduardo and his guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. partner, one Glennis S. Gonzales.
Respondents subsequently filed a Complaint for Damages
based on tort against Robert and Francisco before the Celine testified that Eduardo was a doting father and a who were also aboard the Nissan Patrol at the time of the good provider. To prove that Eduardo was gainfully accident were dispensed with. employed at the time, Celine identified cash vouchers which indicated that Eduardo received representation and RTC: It was recklessness or lack of due care on the part transportation allowances in the amount of P20,000 per of defendant Ocampo while operating the Nissan Patrol month from Glennis Laundry Haus, Classic Personnel, Inc. that was the proximate cause of the vehicular collision and Jhamec Construction Corp. Cash vouchers were also which directly resulted in the death of Eduardo T. Angeles presented showing that Eduardo received, among others, very soon thereafter. a fixed monthly salary in the amount of P20,000 from Glennis Laundry Haus for the period of January to CA: affirmed the RTC. The CA agreed with the RTCs November of 2001. findings that Francisco was clearly negligent in driving the Nissan Patrol and that such negligence caused the On the other hand, Francisco testified that he was vehicular collision which resulted in the death of Eduardo. employed as a driver by Robert. He claimed that while Like the RTC, the CA also dismissed Franciscos claim that they were travelling along the Doa Remedios Trinidad the Mitsubishi Lancers headlights were not on at the Highway, he tried to overtake a truck. However, he failed time of the incident and found that petitioners failed to to see the Mitsubishi Lancer coming from the opposite adduce any evidence to the contrary that Eduardo was of direction as its headlights were not on. After the collision, good health and of sound mind at the time. The CA thus the airbags of the Nissan Patrol deployed. Confronted ruled that no contributory negligence could be imputed with the Police Report, Francisco said that the same is against Eduardo. CA awarded P2,316,000.00 for lost correct except for the statement therein that the Nissan earnings of the deceased Eduardo T. Angeles. Patrol encroached on the lane of the Mitsubishi Lancer and the lacking information about the Mitsubishi Lancers Petitioners claim that the CA erred in admitting the headlights being off at the time of the incident. He also Glennis Laundry Haus cash vouchers as evidence to insisted that the Nissan Patrol was already in its proper prove loss of earnings as the said vouchers are purely lane when the collision occurred. hearsay evidence, hence, inadmissible and of no probative value. Petitioners argue that contrary to the For his part, Robert admitted that he is the registered findings of the CA that Celerina identified said vouchers, owner of the Nissan Patrol which was being driven by records show that it was Celine who actually identified Francis coat the time of the collision. In open court, them and that the latter acknowledged her non- Robert intimated his desire to have the matter settled participation in the preparation of the same. Absent and manifested his intention to pay the respondents Celines personal knowledge as to the due execution, because he felt that indeed they are entitled to a preparation and authenticity of the Glennis Laundry Haus compensation as a result of the incident. cash vouchers and consistent with the CAs ruling in disregarding the cash vouchers of Classic Personnel, Inc. By stipulation of the parties respective counsels, the and the Jhamec Construction Corp. as evidence, the cash corroborative testimonies of Roberts wife and the helper vouchers from Glennis Laundry Haus are considered Now, while it is true that respondents submitted cash hearsay evidence. vouchers to prove Eduardos income, it is lamentable as duly observed by the RTC that the officers and/or Respondents maintain that the CAs award for lost employees who prepared, checked or approved the same earnings in the amount of P2,316,000 is supported by were not presented on the witness stand. The CA itself in competent evidence on record and is a finding entitled to its assailed Decision disregarded the cash vouchers from great respect. They further argue that personal Classic Personnel, Inc. and the Jhamec Construction Corp. knowledge of a document does not require direct due to lack of proper identification and authentication. participation for it is enough that the witness can We find that the same infirmity besets the cash vouchers convince the court of her awareness of the documents from Glennis Laundry Haus upon which the award for loss genuineness, due execution and authenticity. Thus, if not of earning capacity was based. admitted or admissible as documentary proof, the document can be admissible as object evidence. It bears stressing that the cash vouchers from Glennis Respondents submit that the convergence of testimonial Laundry Haus were not identified by Celerina contrary to and documentary evidence in this case established a the findings of the CA but by Celine in her testimony preponderance of evidence in favor of respondents. before the RTC and Celine, under cross-examination, admitted by way of stipulation that she had no ISSUE: WON the CA erred in awarding the sum participation in the preparation thereof. of P2,316,000 for loss of earning capacity. (YES) We thus agree with the RTCs ruling that said cash Ratio: As a rule, documentary evidence should be vouchers though admitted in evidence, whether objected presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss to or not, have no probative value for being hearsay. of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends on absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased the competency and credibility of some persons other is self-employed and earning less than the minimum than the witness by whom it is sought to be produced. wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial The exclusion of hearsay evidence is anchored on three notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceaseds reasons: (1) absence of cross-examination; (2) absence of line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) demeanor evidence; and (3) absence of oath. Basic under the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning the rules of evidence is that a witness can only testify on less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. facts within his or her personal knowledge. This personal knowledge is a substantive prerequisite in accepting Based on the foregoing and in line with respondents testimonial evidence establishing the truth of a disputed claim that Eduardo during his lifetime earned more or fact. Corollarily, a document offered as proof of its less an annual income of P1,000,000, the case falls under contents has to be authenticated in the manner provided the purview of the general rule rather than the in the rules, that is, by the person with personal exceptions. knowledge of the facts stated in the document. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The interest at the rate of 6 per annum on the amounts award for the loss of earning capacity in the awarded shall be imposed, computed from the amount of P2,316,000 granted by the Court of time of finality of this Decision until full payment Appeals in its Decision dated August 29, 2008 in thereof. CA-G.R. CV No. 83309 in favor of respondents is hereby SET ASIDE. All the other monetary awards are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and American Statistical Association Are Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Journal of The American Statistical Association