Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Canque v.

CA (Short title) RULING & RATIO

G.R. No. 96202 | | April 13, 1999 - NO
Petitioner: ROSELLA D. CANQUE 1. The admission in evidence of entries in corporate books requires the
Respondents: CA and SOCOR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION satisfaction of the following conditions:
a. The person who made the entry must be dead, outside the country
FACTS or unable to testify;
1. Rosella D. Canque is a contractor under the name of RDC Construction. b. The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to
which they refer;
She had contracts with the government. Most of her project is to repair
c. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
d. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the
2. In connection to her projects, she entered into two contracts with Socor
performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or
Construction Corporation, the latter as a sub-contractor.
religious; and
3. Socor sent a bill to Canque. However, Canque refused to pay and calimed
e. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business
that Socor failed to submit the delivery receipts showing actual weight in
or duty.
metric tons of the items delivered and acceptance by the government.
2. Necessity is given as a ground for admitting entries, in that they are the best
a. Hence, Socor filed a complaint to recover the money.
available evidence
4. Canque, in her anwer, admitted the existence of contract, but she disputed
3. Aday admitted that she had no personal knowledge of the facts constituting
the correctness of the bill. However, later on, she amended her answer and
denied that she entered into sub-contracts with Socor. the entry. She said she made the entries based on the bills given to her. But
she has no knowledge of the truth or falsity of the facts stated in the bills.
5. During the trial, Socor, presented its vice-president and bookkeeper. While
Canque’s evidence was only her testimony.
- NO
TC: Ruled in favor of Socor. The court ordered Canque to pay the sum of money.
1. Under the above provision (Rule 132, 10), the memorandum used to refresh
- Analyzing Socor’s Book of Collectible Accounts, the Court is convinced that the memory of the witness does not constitute evidence, and may not be
the entries (both payments and billings) recorded thereat are credible. admitted as such, for the simple reason that the witness has just the same
CA: Affirmed the decision of Trial Court. to testify on the basis of refreshed memory.
2. In other words, where the witness has testified independently of or after his
Hence, this Petition. testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute,
such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence.
Canque’s Contention:
-the business entries in question do not meet the first and third requisites. Dolores HOWEVER, in the case at bar, the court granted the collection of sum of money
Aday, who made the entries, was presented by private respondent to testify on the because Socor presented other documents to support the entries recorded. Also,
account of RDC Construction. Caque received the billings and never object regarding the amount. Thus, Art. 1235,
CC, when the oblige accepts the performance, knowing its incompleteness and
-It was in the course of her testimony that the entries were presented and marked in without expressing any objection, the obligation is deem complied with.
evidence. Hence, neither justification nor necessity for the presentation of the entries
as the person who made them was available to testify in court. DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

1. W/N the court can admit in evidence as “entries in the course of business”, the
entries of Socor, considering that the person who made the entries has no
personal knowledge.
2. W/N the entries can be admitted under Rule 132, Sec. 10.

Page !1 of !1