Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Private Documents as Evidence d.

Pursuant to this, Phil Nails filed a motion to execute judgment pending appeal
G.R. No. 138084 – Malayan Insurance vs. Phil. Nails & Wires Corp. (April 10, 2002) – this was granted. Trial court then issued the corresponding writ.
Quisumbing, J. e. Malayan filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for TRO to enjoin the
implementation of the writ with the CA.
Phil. Nails and Wires Corp. insured against all risks its shipment of steel billets with Malayan f. CA granted the prayer for TRO. The writ of execution was likewise stayed by
Insurance. The shipment delivered was short by 377.168 metric tons. Phil. Nails claimed trial court which favorably considered Malayan's urgent motion to stay
insurance for the shortage but Malayan refused to pay. Phil. Nails filed a complaint against execution pending appeal and to approve the supersedeas bond.
Malayan. Malayan moved to dismiss the complaint but it was denied. An amended complaint g. In addition, Malayan’s notice of appeal was given due course.
was filed. Phil. Nails moved to declare Malayan in default. The trial court granted the motion 5. In the CA, Malayan argued that TC erred, among others, in awarding damages based
and allowed the presentation of evidence ex parte. Phil. Nails presented its lone witness, on unauthenticated documentary evidence and hearsay; and in admitting documentary
Jeanne King, and documentary evidence to support her testimony. The Court ruled that the evidence which is irregular in nature and not in accordance with the Rules of Court.
documents were private, and that they were not authenticated; thus they cannot be admitted a. However, the CA just affirmed the trial decision in toto; hence, this petition for
as evidence to prove the liability of Malayan. review.

ISSUE with HOLDING


DOCTRINE 1. W/N Jeanne King’s testimony was hearsay, thus without probative value – YES
Under the rules on evidence, documents are either public or private. Private documents are a. Malayan’s arguments:
those that do not fall under any of the enumerations in Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of i. Jeanne King’s testimony was hearsay because she had no personal
Court. knowledge of the execution of the documents supporting
respondent’s cause of action, such as the sales contract, invoice,
Under Section 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court, before a private document is admitted in packing list, bill of lading, SGS Report, and the Marine Cargo
evidence, it must be authenticated either by the person who executed it, the person before Policy.
whom its execution was acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it executed, ii. Even though King was personally assigned to handle and monitor
or who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures, or the person to whom the the importation of Phil. Nails, this cannot be equated with personal
parties to the instruments had previously confessed execution thereof knowledge of the facts which gave rise to the latter’s cause of action.
iii. Although she personally prepared the summary of weight of steel
billets received by Phil. Nails, she did not have personal knowledge
FACTS of the weight of steel billets actually shipped and delivered because
1. Phil. Nails and Wires Corp. insured its shipment of 10,053.400 metric tons of steel she based the summary only on the receipts prepared by other
billets1 valued at P67,156,300 against all risks with Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. persons.
2. The shipment delivered was short by 377.168 metric tons so Phil. Nails claimed b. Court:
insurance for P2,698,637.04 representing the value of the undelivered steel billets from i. Phil. Nails’ cause of action is founded on breach of insurance
Malayan. Malayan refused to pay. contract covering cargo consisting of imported steel billets. To hold
3. Phil. Nails files a complaint against Malayan for sum of money with RTC-Pasig Malayan liable, respondent has to prove the ff:
representing the lost or undelivered cargo. 1. 1st, Its importation of 10,053.400 metric tons of steel billets
a. Malayan moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state valued at P67,156,300.00, and
a cause of action, and was filed in the wrong venue. RTC denied the MTD. 2. 2nd, The actual steel billets delivered to and received by
b. So, Malayan filed a petition for prohibition with the CA, which was also denied. them.
c. Upon MR, the petition (for prohibition) was reinstated but was eventually ii. With regard to proving the 1st: King, was assigned to handle Phil.
dismissed by the CA; and this became final and executory. Nails’ importations, including their insurance coverage; thus she has
4. Phil. Nails filed a motion to admit an amended complaint, which was granted by the trial personal knowledge of the volume of steel billets being imported,
court. Malayan was sent summons and a copy of the complaint, and was given until and therefore competent to testify thereon.
Oct. 31, 1993 to file its answer. iii. As to the 2nd, she is not qualified to testify on the shortage in the
a. Nov. 4: Phil. Nails moved to declare Malayan in default. Trial court granted delivery of the imported steel billets because even if she prepared
and allowed the presentation of evidence ex parte. Phil. Nails presented its the summary of the received steel billets, she based the summary
lone witness, Jeanne King, and documentary evidence: sales contract, only on the receipts prepared by other persons.
invoice, packing list, bill of lading, SGS Report, and the Marine Cargo Policy.
b. Nov. 11: Malayan filed its answer with compulsory counterclaim. Upon Phil. 2. W/N the documentary evidence Phil. Nails submitted at the trial should be
Nails’ motion, trial court expunged such from the records due to late filing. authenticated – YES
c. TC rendered a judgment by default. It ordered Malayan to pay Phil Nails. a. Malayan’s arguments:

1
Steel billets are the second-stage product of steel production. They are hot-rolled and are
taken out directly during casting process of steel. They are highly ductile and soft.
1
i. The following documentary evidence were submitted during trial:
sales contract, invoice, packing list, bill of lading, SGS Report, DIGESTER: Liana
and the Marine Cargo Policy.
ii. King failed to properly authenticate the documentary evidence.
1. Under Sec. 20, Rule 132 ROC, before a private document
is admitted in evidence, it must be authenticated either by
the person who executed it, the person before whom its
execution was acknowledged, any person who was
present and saw it executed, or who after its execution,
saw it and recognized the signatures, or the person to
whom the parties to the instruments had previously
confessed execution thereof.
2. King was none of the aforementioned persons.
b. Court:
i. Under the rules on evidence, documents are either public or private.
Private documents are those that do not fall under any of the
enumerations in Sec. 19, Rule 132 ROC.2
1. The documentary exhibits in this case are private
documents. They are not among those enumerated in
Sec. 19, thus, their due execution and authenticity
need to be proved before they can be admitted in
evidence.
ii. Sec. 20, Rule 132 ROC provides that before a private document is
admitted in evidence, it must be authenticated either by: (1) the
person who executed it, (2) the person before whom its execution
was acknowledged, (3) any person who was present and saw it
executed, or who after its execution, saw it and recognized the
signatures, or the person to whom the parties to the instruments had
previously confessed execution thereof; (4) or by evidence of the
genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
1. Phil. Nails admits that King was none of the persons
mentioned in the said rule.
2. With the exception concerning the summary of the weight
of the steel billets imported, Phil. Nails presented no
supporting evidence concerning the authenticity of its
documentary evidence.
3. Thus, they cannot be utilized to prove less of the insured
cargo and/or the short delivery of the imported steel billets.
iii. In sum, the Court finds no sufficient competent evidence to prove
Malayan’s liability.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated
September 30, 1998 and its resolution on March 25, 1999 in CA-G.R. CV No. 45547 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, Civil Case No. 63445 is hereby ordered
DISMISSED.

2
Rule 132, Section 19. Classes of documents. b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private. c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered
Public documents are: therein.
a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies All other writings are private. (20a)
and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
2