Scunak Corporation and Alfonso Enriquez v. Roberto and c.

c. WON there was bad on faith on the part of Scunak (YES

Caesar Sylianteng (2014) – they were aware of the prior DOAs)

FACTS: SC: Best evidence rule doesn’t apply | Notarization proof of

(1) Petitioners and respondents are both claiming due execution and authenticity
ownership of two parcels of land (1250sqm and 990sqm) (1) Best evidence rule only applies when the content of a
located along Wilson Street, San Juan City. document is the subject of inquiry, NOT where the issue was
a. Scunak et al – claim that the lands were sold to them due execution, authenticity, or existence of the document.
by the sole heir (Ramon Pultaje) who inherited from the In the latter situations, testimonial evidence may be
original developer admissible even without the original.
b. Syliantengs – claim that the original developer (2) Notarization is evidence of authenticity and due
executed deeds of sale in favor of their mother who later execution. A notarized instrument is admissible even
transferred it to them. without further proof of its due execution since notarization
(2) RTC ruled in favor of Scunak et al. CA reversed and is:
ruled for Sylianteng. a. Conclusive as the truthfulness of its contents
(3) SC took cognizance of the case despite dealing with b. Enjoys the presumption of regularity.
questions of fact because of the conflicting decisions of the (3) CAB:
lower courts. a. Petitioners failed to present convincing evidence of
any irregularity in the notarization that would strip the DOAs
ISSUE: of their public character.
(1) Evidence: Petitioners claim that the duplicate/carbon b. Petitioners likewise did not dispute the fact that the
copy of the Deed of Sale in favor of Sylianteng violated the carbon copies were duplicates of the original. – “It is settled
best evidence rule R130.3. They also question its that a signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document
authenticity in general. (SC – best evidence rule doesn’t executed at the same time as the original is known as a
apply) duplicate original and may be introduced into evidence
without accounting for the non-production of the original”.
(2) Side issues: (See R130.4(b)).
a. WON the entry in the registrar of deeds was falsified
(NO)
b. WON civil code provision on double sale applies (NO)
G.R. No. 183034 March 12, 2014 • The cause of action is based on a document entitled
SPS FERNANDO and MA. ELENA SANTOS, Petitioners, vs. "Acknowledgment" apparently executed by hand by
LOLITA ALCAZAR, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact Fernando stating that: This is to certify that I acknowledge
DELFIN CHUA, Respondent. my obligation in the amount of P1,456,000 with LCC.
• Petitioners sought the dismissal of the Complaint,
alleging among others that –
DOCTRINE Paragraph 6 of the complaint is specifically denied as the
• The rule that the genuineness and due execution of same does not reflect the correct amount. The defendants[’]
the instrument shall be deemed admitted, unless the computation is that the amount of P600,000.00 is the only
adverse party specifically denies them under oath, applies amount due and the instrument used as the actionable
only to parties to such instrument. document does not reflect the correct substance of the
• While it is a basic rule of evidence that the original transaction and indicates a reformation of the actionable
copy prevails over a mere photocopy, there is no harm if in a document;
case, both the original and a photocopy thereof are • Petitioners filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which
authenticated, identified and formally offered in evidence by respondent opposed. Petitioners argued that the
the party proponent. Acknowledgment was not an original copy and thus
• The effect of the admission is such that "a prima facie inadmissible; petitioners’ receipt of the written demand was
case is made for the plaintiff which dispenses with the not proved; the alleged deliveries of paint and construction
necessity of evidence on his part and entitles him to a materials were not covered by delivery receipts; and
judgment on the pleadings unless a special defense of new respondent’s testimony was merely hearsay and
matter, such as payment, is interposed by the defendant." uncorroborated.
• Trial court denied petitioners’ demurrer for lack of
merit.
FACTS
• Lolita Alcazar, proprietor of Legazpi Color Center (LCC)
filed a Complaint for sum of money against the petitioners, RTC
Sps Fernando and Ma. Elena Santos, to collect the value of • The trial court essentially held that petitioners
paint and construction materials worth P1,456,000.00, admitted that they entered into transactions with the
which remained unpaid despite written demand. respondent for the delivery of paint and construction
materials, which remained unpaid; that from the
Acknowledgment, Exhibit "A," signed by Fernando and duly
presented, authenticated, and identified by respondent to present evidence, petitioners cannot now belatedly
during trial, petitioners admitted that their unpaid obligation question the document.
– including interest – amounted to P1,456,000.00; and that • Moreover, their claim of a lesser liability in the amount
petitioners’ plea for reformation has no basis. of P600,000.00 remained to be plain unsubstantiated
allegations as a result of their failure to refute respondent’s
CA evidence and present their own.
• CA held that petitioners failed to deny specifically
under oath the genuineness and due execution of the Petitioners’ Arguments
Acknowledgment; consequently, • Petitioners assert that only a photocopy of the
o 1) its genuineness and due execution are deemed Acknowledgment was presented and identified by
admitted respondent even as the original was not lost, the same
o 2) there was thus no need to present the original having been made part of the record of the case when
thereof, and respondent’s evidence was first presented ex parte.
o 3) petitioners’ liability was sufficiently established. • They argue that the photocopy presented and offered
in evidence is inadmissible and could not be the basis for
• CA held that in their Answer, petitioners admitted that arriving at a finding of liability on their part, pursuant to the
they owed respondent, albeit to the extent ofP600,000.00; best evidence rule.
this judicial admission of liability required no further proof. • Petitioners point out inconsistencies and erroneous
And with this admission of liability, the Acknowledgment assumptions made by the CA which formed the basis of its
which was duly authenticated and formally offered in decision, such as Ma. Elena’s undue inclusion in the
evidence was sufficient to establish their liability, and no judgment of liability, when it is evident from the
further proof in the form of receipts and statements of Acknowledgment that it was executed and signed by
account was required. Fernando alone.
• Fernando’s categorical admission of liability as
contained in the Acknowledgment as well as petitioners’ Respondent’s Arguments
admissions in their Answer sufficed. It held further that • Petitioners may no longer raise any issue pertaining to
respondent was competent to testify on the the Acknowledgment, the genuineness and due execution of
Acknowledgment as she was a signatory therein. which they are considered to have admitted; and that with
• Since they failed to oppose the Acknowledgment in the resolution by the CA of the issues revived in the Petition,
the court below as a result of their having waived their right petitioners are guilty of forum shopping.
SC WON THE FAILURE OF PETITIONERS TO DENY SPECIFICALLY
WON THE FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENT TO PRESENT THE UNDER OATH THE GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF
ORIGINAL COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RENDERED IT THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT IN THEIR ANSWER RESULTED AS
INADMISSIBLE. NO. AN ADMISSION. YES.

• Respondent’s failure to present the original copy of • The effect of this is that the genuineness and due
the Acknowledgment during the taking of her testimony for execution of the Acknowledgment is deemed admitted.
the second time, and the presentation of a mere photocopy • "There is no need for proof of execution and
thereof at said hearing, does not materially affect the authenticity with respect to documents the genuineness and
outcome of the case. due execution of which are admitted by the adverse party."
• It was a mere procedural inadvertence that could have • The Court believes that judgment may be had solely
been cured and did not affect petitioners’ cause in any on the document, and there is no need to present receipts
manner. As conceded by them, the original exists and was and other documents to prove the claimed indebtedness.
made part of the records of the case when respondent’s The Acknowledgment is "valid and binding between the
evidence was first taken. parties who executed it, as a document evidencing the loan
• Though respondent now claims that she had lost the agreement they had entered into."
original, the CA proclaimed that the document resides in the • The absence of rebutting evidence occasioned by
record. This would explain then why respondent cannot petitioners’ waiver of their right to present evidence renders
find it in her possession; it is with the court as an exhibit. the Acknowledgment as the best evidence of the
Besides, it evidently appears that there is no question raised transactions between the parties and the consequential
on the authenticity and contents of the photocopy that was indebtedness incurred.
presented and identified in court; petitioners merely insist • The effect of the admission is such that "a prima facie
that the photocopy is inadmissible as a result of respondent’s case is made for the plaintiff which dispenses with the
failure to present the original, which they nevertheless admit necessity of evidence on his part and entitles him to a
to exist and is found and included in the record of the case. judgment on the pleadings unless a special defense of new
• While it is a basic rule of evidence that the original matter, such as payment, is interposed by the defendant."
copy prevails over a mere photocopy, there is no harm if in
a case, both the original and a photocopy thereof are WON MA ELENA SHOULD BE BOUND BY THE
authenticated, identified and formally offered in evidence ‘ACKNOWLEDGMENT’. NO.
by the party proponent. • However, as correctly argued by petitioners, only
Fernando may be held liable for the judgment amount of
P1,456,000.00, since Ma. Elena was not a signatory to the
Acknowledgment. She may be held liable only to the extent
of P600,000.00, as admitted by her and Fernando in
paragraph 5 of their Answer; no case against her may be
proved over and beyond such amount, in the absence of her
signature and an acknowledgment of liability in the
Acknowledgment. The rule that the genuineness and due
execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted,
unless the adverse party specifically denies them under oath,
applies only to parties to the document.
• The admission of liability resulting from petitioners’
admission of indebtedness in their Answer and other
pleadings, their failure to specifically deny under oath the
genuineness and due execution of the Acknowledgment, as
well as their waiver of their right to present evidence – all
these did away with the necessity of producing receipts and
statements of account which would otherwise be required
under normal circumstances.
HEIRS OF PRODON vs HEIRS OF ALVAREZ – Buenaventura RTC rendered judgment in favor of Prodon.

Doctrine: The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the It opined that the contents of the deed of sale could be
terms of a written document are the subject of the inquiry. proved by secondary evidence in accordance with Section 5,
In an action for quieting of title based on the inexistence of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, upon proof of its execution or
a deed of sale with right to repurchase that purportedly cast existence and of the cause of its unavailability being without
a cloud on the title of a property, therefore, the Best bad faith when defendant Prodon swore that she purchased
Evidence Rule does not apply, and the defendant is not the land and her testimony has been confirmed by the
precluded from presenting evidence other than the original Notarial Register of Notary Public Eliseo Razon and by the
document. Primary Entry Book of the Register of Deeds of Manila.

FACTS: CA reversed. It said: “a party must first satisfactorily explain

The heirs of Spouses Maximo S. Alvarez, Sr. and Valentina the loss of the best or primary evidence before he can resort
Clave claimed that they could not locate the owner’s to secondary evidence. Xxx The correct order of proof is as
duplicate copy of TCT No. 84797 pertaining to the land they follows: existence, execution, loss, contents, although the
inherited from their parents, that the entry of the deed of court in its discretion may change this order if necessary."
sale with right to repurchase on the original TCT did not The CA found circumstances that put doubt on the existence
exist, and that the entry had been maliciously done by of the alleged deed of sale. Evidence on record showed that
Prodon. Maximo Alvarez was hospitalized between August 23, 1975
to September 3, 1975 and suffered from paralysis of half of
Prodon claimed that the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. had his body and blindness due to cataract. Maximo Alvarez was
executed the deed of sale with right to repurchase on again later hospitalized and died on October of 1975 without
September 9, 1975; and this had been registered with the having left the hospital.
Register of Deeds and duly annotated on the title. She had
then become the absolute owner of the property due to its ISSUE:
non-repurchase within the given 6-month period. WON the Best Evidence Rule applies in an action for quieting
of title based on the inexistence of a deed of sale with right
The custodian of the records of the property attested that to repurchase. - NO
the copy of the deed of sale with right to repurchase could
not be found in the files of the Register of Deeds of Manila. HELD: NO
SC: The CA and the RTC both misapplied the Best Evidence by other means that could only be secondary under the rules
Rule to this case. on evidence. Towards that end, however, it was not required
to subject the proof of the loss of the original to the same
This action does not involve the terms or contents of the strict standard to which it would be subjected had the loss or
deed of sale with right to repurchase. The principal issue was unavailability been a precondition for presenting secondary
whether or not the deed of sale with right to repurchase, evidence to prove the terms of a writing.
duly executed by the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr., had really A review of the records reveals that Prodon did not adduce
existed. proof sufficient to show the loss or explain the unavailability
of the original as to justify the presentation of secondary
The Best Evidence Rule was not applicable because the terms evidence. Camilon, one of her witnesses, testified that he
of the deed of sale with right to repurchase were not the had given the original to her lawyer, Atty. Anacleto Lacanilao,
issue . The lower court should have simply addressed and but that he (Camilon) could not anymore retrieve the original
determined whether or not the "existence" and "execution" because Atty. Lacanilao had been recuperating from his
of the deed as the facts in issue had been proved by heart ailment. Such evidence without showing the inability
preponderance of evidence. to locate the original from among Atty. Lacanilao’s
belongings by himself or by any of his assistants or
The presentation of evidence other than the original representatives was inadequate. Moreover, a duplicate
document, like the testimonies of Prodon and Jose Camilon, original could have been secured from Notary Public Razon,
the Notarial Register of Notary Eliseo Razon, and the Primary but no effort was shown to have been exerted in that
Entry Book of the Register of Deeds, would have sufficed direction.
even without first proving the loss or unavailability of the In contrast, the records contained ample indicia of the
original of the deed. improbability of the existence of the deed. Camilon claimed
that the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. had twice gone to his
The foregoing notwithstanding, good trial tactics still residence in Meycauayan, Bulacan, the first on September 5,
required Prodon to establish and explain the loss of the 1975, to negotiate the sale of the property in question, and
original of the deed of sale with right to repurchase to the second on September 9, 1975, to execute the deed of
establish the genuineness and due execution of the deed. sale with right to repurchase.
This was because the deed, although a collateral document, ------------------
was the foundation of her defense in this action for quieting
of title. Her inability to produce the original logically gave rise
to the need for her to prove its existence and due execution
Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court: greater than in the case of attempts at describing other
situations generally. The rule further acts as an insurance
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the against fraud. Xx Lastly, the rule protects against misleading
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be inferences resulting from the intentional or unintentional
admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following introduction of selected portions of a larger set of writings.
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 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 stipulates that in proving the terms of a

written document the original of the document must be produced in
court. The rule excludes any evidence other than the original writing
to prove the contents thereof, unless the offeror proves:
(a) the existence or due execution of the original;
(b) the loss and destruction of the original, or the reason for
its non-production in court; and
(c) the absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to
which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.

The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to ensure that the
exact contents of a writing are brought before the court, considering
that
(a) the 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, because a slight variation
in words may mean a great difference in rights;
(b) there is a substantial hazard of inaccuracy in the human
process of making a copy by handwriting or typewriting; and
(c) as respects oral testimony purporting to give from
memory the terms of a writing, there is a special risk of error,
MAYOR EMMANUEL L. MALIKSI, Petitioner, the physical ballots, which are instantaneously written in
vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HOMER T. the CF cards by the PCOS11 machines the moment the
SAQUILAYAN, Respondents. ballots are read and counted, are equivalent to the original
for the purpose of the best evidence rule. The COMELEC En
FACTS: Banc accorded higher evidentiary value to the ballot images
 Maliksi & Saquilayan - mayoralty candidates for the because their integrity are more secure for the following
Municipality of Imus reasons:
 Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed
Saquilayan as the duly elected municipal mayor (1) the digital images are encrypted to prevent unauthorized
 Maliksi filed an election protest before the RTC alteration or access;

RTC – declared Maliksi as the duly elected (2) the ballot images cannot be decrypted or in anyway
 Saquilayan filed an appeal before the COMELEC accessed without the necessary decryption key;

Resolution of the COMELEC First Division (3) the ballot images may only be decrypted using a special
 NULLIFY the pronouncement of the lower court system designed by the COMELEC and not by any ordinary
 In favor of saqui operating system or computer;
 En Banc – affirmed
 8,387 cases of double-shading were purposely (4) the CF cards storing the digital images of all the ballots
machinated. used in the 10 May 2010 elections are kept in a secured
facility within the Commission to prevent unauthorized
The COMELEC En Banc ruled that the decryption, printing, access.12
and examination of the ballot images in the CF cards are not
without basis since a Division, through its Presiding ISSUES
Commissioner, may take such measures as he may deem (1) whether Maliksi was deprived of due process when the
proper to resolve cases pending before it. The COMELEC En COMELEC First Division ordered on appeal the decryption,
Banc ruled that Maliksi was not denied due process because printing, and examination of the ballot images in the CF
he never questioned the Order of decryption by the cards;
COMELEC First Division nor did he raise any objection in any
of his pleadings. Further, the ballot images are not mere
secondary images, as Maliksi claimed. The digital images of
(2) whether the ballot images in the CF cards are mere produced by the same impression as the original, or from the
secondary evidence that should only be used when the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic recording, or by
physical ballots are not available; chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques
which accurately reproduces the original, such copies or
SC: dismiss petition duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
1. did not gravely abuse its discretion in using the ballot
images in the CF cards.  ballot images are the counterparts produced by
 Maliksi was aware of the decryption, printing, and electronic recording which accurately reproduce the
examination of the ballot images original, and thus are the equivalent of the original.
 Maliksi did not raise any allegation that the use of the
Evidentiary Value of the Digital Ballot Images ballot images falls under any of the exceptions under
MALIKSI: “best and most conclusive evidence are the Section 2, Rule 4 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC that would
physical ballots themselves,” make their use inadmissible as original ballots.
SC: NO; We have already ruled that the ballot images
in the CF cards, as well as the printouts of such images,
are the functional equivalent of the official physical
ballots filled up by the voters, and may be used in an
election protest.

2. Rule 4 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC36 is clear on this issue. It

states:

SECTION 1. Original of an Electronic Document. - An

electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of
an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a
printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown
to reflect the data accurately.

SECTION 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. - When a

document is in two or more copies executed at or about the
same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart
REPUBLIC V. MARCOS-MANOTOC Subsequently, respondents filed their respective Demurrers
to Evidence. The Sandiganbayan granted all of them except
the one filed by Imelda R. Marcos (due to her admission that
Republic of The Philippines vs. Ma. Imelda Imee R. Marcos- she and her husband owned properties enumerated in the
Manotoc, Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos, Jr., Gregorio Ma. Complaint), primarily because the originals of the evidence
Araneta III, Irene R. Marcos-Araneta, Yeung Chun Fan, Yeung were not presented in court, nor were they authenticated by
Chun Ho, Yeung Chun Kam, and Pantranco Employees the persons who executed them. Furthermore, the court
Association (PEA)-PTGWO G. R. No. 171701 | February 8, pointed out that petitioner failed to provide any valid reason
2012 | 2nd Div. | Sereno, J. why it did not present the originals in court. Republic filed its
Motion for Partial Reconsideration which is also denied by
FACTS: the Sandiganbayan.
This case involves P200 billion of the Marcoses alleged
accumulated ill-gotten wealth. It also includes the alleged ISSUE:
use of the media networks IBC-13, BBC-2 and RPN-9 for the WON the Republic observed the best evidence rule? (NO)
Marcos familys personal benefit; the alleged use of De Soleil
Apparel for dollar salting; and the alleged illegal acquisition HELD:
and operation of the bus company Pantranco North Express, No. Petitioner does not deny that what should be proved are
Inc. (Pantranco). the contents of the documents themselves. It is imperative,
therefore, to submit the original documents that could prove
One of the civil cases filed by PCGG before the petitioners allegations. Thus, the photocopied documents
Sandiganbayan to recover the Marcoses alleged ill-gotten are in violation Rule 130, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court,
wealth was Civil Case No. 0002. During the course of the otherwise known as the best evidence rule, which mandates
trial, the petitioner presented and formally offered its that the evidence must be the original document itself. The
evidence against the respondents. However, the latter origin of the best evidence rule can be found and traced to
objected to the offer primarily on the ground that the as early as the 18th century in Omychund v. Barker, wherein
documents violated the best evidence rule of the Rules of the Court of Chancery said, “The judges and sages of the law
Court, as these documents were unauthenticated; have laid it down that there is but one general rule of
moreover, petitioner had not provided any reason for its evidence, the best that the nature of the case will admit. The
failure to present the originals. Nonetheless, the rule is, that if the writings have subscribing witnesses to
Sandiganbayan admitted the pieces of evidence while them, they must be proved by those witnesses. The first
expressing some reservations regarding its evidentiary value. ground judges have gone upon in departing from strict rules,
is an absolute strict necessity. Secondly, a presumed generally prepared by the affiant, but by another one who
necessity. In the case of writings, subscribed by witnesses, if uses his or her own language in writing the affiant's
all are dead, the proof of one of their hands is sufficient to statements, parts of which may thus be either omitted or
establish the deed: where an original is lost, a copy may be misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover, the
admitted; if no copy, then a proof by witnesses who have adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-
heard the deed, and yet it is a thing the law abhors to admit examine the affiants. For this reason, affidavits are generally
the memory of man for evidence.” rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiants themselves
are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon.
In particular, it may not insist that the photocopies of the
documents fall under Sec. 7 of Rule 130 in relation to Secs. 3. As to the copy of the TSN of the proceedings before
19 and 20 of Rule 132. the PCGG, while it may be considered as a public document
since it was taken in the course of the PCGGs exercise of its
1. The fact that these documents were collected by the mandate, it was not attested to by the legal custodian to be
PCGG in the course of its investigations does not make them a correct copy of the original. This omission falls short of the
per se public records. Petitioner presented as witness its requirement of Rule 132, Secs. 24 and 25 of the Rules of
records officer Magno, who testified that these public and Court.
private documents had been gathered by and taken into the
custody of the PCGG in the course of the Commissions
investigation of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the
Marcoses. However, witnesses can testify only to those facts
which are of their personal knowledge; that is, those derived
from their own perception. Thus, Magno could only testify
as to how she obtained custody of these documents, but
not as to the contents of the documents themselves.

2. Neither did petitioner present as witnesses the

affiants of these Affidavits or Memoranda submitted to the
court. Basic is the rule that, while affidavits may be
considered as public documents if they are acknowledged
before a notary public, these Affidavits are still classified as
hearsay evidence. The reason for this rule is that they are not
EBREO vs. EBREO Issue: Does an annotation in a tax declaration of an alleged
When original document is not available Deed of Sale sufficiently prove conveyance of title to a
property?
Facts:
• Felipe Ebreo died intestate in 1926 leaving behind as Held:
heirs his 5 children (Gil, Flaviano, Felino, Ignacio, and Felipa.) • The defendant-appellants rely on the Deed of Sale
• Defendants-spouses Antonio Ebreo and Evelyn Beraa supposedly executed by the heirs of Felipe Ebreo in favor of
are the son and daughter-in-law, respectively, of defendant Santiago Puyo. However, defendant-appellants failed to
Felino, one of the five children of Felipe Ebreo. produce the alleged Deed of Sale in violation of the Best
• Felipe Ebreo left to his children an untitled parcel of Evidence Rule.
land situated in Batangas and was subdivided into six lots • The best evidence rule, applied to documentary
identified as Lots A, B, C, D, E and F. evidence, operates as a rule of exclusion, that is, secondary
• As agreed upon by these heirs, Lot No. 9046-F, shall (or substitutionary) evidence cannot inceptively be
remain under the co-ownership of Gil, Flaviano, Felino, introduced as the original writing itself must be produced
Ignacio and the heirs of Felipa Ebreo. However, plaintiffs in court. Defendant-appellants miserably failed to prove
were surprised to discover that Lot 9046-F was declared for that their case is included among the exceptions to the
taxation purposes in the name of defendant Antonio Ebreo. Rule.
• Plaintiffs said that they alleged that they never sold,
ceded, conveyed or transferred their rights, share and co- To buttress the claim of sale by the heirs to Santiago Puyo:
ownership over Lot 9046- F. 1. Petitioners presented the testimony of Antonio
• Answering the complaint, the defendants countered Pajilan of the City Assessors Office of Batangas City who
that after the execution of the Kasulatan ng Pagbabahagi ng testified on the annotation in Tax Declaration No. 48221 but
Lupa, by and among the heirs of the late Felipe Ebreo, Lot ended up as inconclusive as he was not yet employed when
9046-F was sold by the heirs to Santiago Puyo. By virtue of the tax declaration was given to their office.
this sale, the corresponding Real Property Tax Declaration
was transferred in the name of Santiago Puyo as owner. 2. Petitioners also presented the testimony of Felino
However, the deed of sale evidencing this transaction was Ebreo, father of petitioner Antonio Ebreo, who testified that
never presented. the heirs of Felipe Ebreo sold Lot 9046 F to Santiago Puyo.
When queried on the whereabouts of the document of sale,
Felino alleged that it was borrowed by his niece Eleuteria
Cueto who is the daughter of one of the heirs, Felipa Ebreo.
According to Felino, Eleuteria refused to return the (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
document and even got angry when he tried to demand its notice;
return. From Felinos account, there are three copies of the
missing deed of sale. Lamentably, petitioners failed to (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
present any one of them. established from them is only the general result of the whole; and

3. Finally, petitioners presented Asuncion Aguado, step- (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office.
daughter of Santiago Puyo, who testified that her stepfather
Santiago Puyo bought the subject lot from the Ebreo heirs.
• Under this rule, it is axiomatic that before a party is
Similar to Pajilans testimony, Aguados testimony cannot be
allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents
given much weight in view of the fact that save for her bare
of the original of a deed or document, the party has to prove
allegations that Lot 9046-F was purchased by her stepfather
with the requisite quantum of evidence, the loss or
Santiago Puyo, she was not likewise present when the deed
destruction or unavailability of all the copies of the original
was executed. In her testimony she merely stated that her
of the said deed or document.
stepfather paid taxes for his real estate properties but could
not state with specificity if the payment was made for Lot
• In sum, considering that the annotation of the
9056-F.
disputed Deed of Sale in a tax declaration is not sufficient
• To summarize, the testimonies of the 3 are at most
proof of the transfer of property and inasmuch as the subject
secondary evidence; hence, they are inadmissible
of inquiry is the Deed of Sale, it was incumbent on the
considering that the petitioners, as offerors of the Deed of
petitioners to adduce in evidence the original or a copy of
Sale, thereof failed to prove any of the exceptions provided
the deed consistent with Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of
in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court and to establish
Court. In the absence of the said document, the exhortations
conditions for their admissibility. Even if they are admitted,
of petitioners regarding the existence of said deed of sale
they have no probative value.
must fail.
Rule 130 - 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;
Estrada vs Desierto; Estrada vs Arroyo (April 3, 2001) Second: Even assuming arguendo that the Angara Diary was
(topic is in issue #) an out of court statement, still its use is not covered by the
Puno, J. hearsay rule. Not at all hearsay evidence is inadmissible as
evidence. An examination of our rules of exclusion will show
Facts: that they do not cover admissions of a party and the Angara
This is an MR of the court’s resolution in Estrada vs Desierto Diary belongs to this class.
(March 2, 2001) which dismissed the petitions of Joseph
Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria Section 26 of Rule 130 provides that the act, declaration or
Macapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14th President of the omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
Republic. evidence against him. It has long been settled that these
admissions are admissible even if they are hearsay.
Petitioner devotes a large part of his arguments on the Admissions are not covered by the hearsay rule. The Angara
alleged improper use by this Court of the Angara Diary. It is Diary contains direct statements of petitioner which can be
urged that the use of the Angara Diary to determine the state categorized as admissions of a party.
of mind of the petitioner on the issue of his resignation • his proposal for a snap presidential election where he
violates the rule against the admission of hearsay evidence would not be a candidate;
• his statement that he only wanted the five-day period
Issue 1: W/N the use of the Angara Diary violates the rule promised by Chief of Staff Angelo Reyes;
against admission of hearsay evidence. NO. • his statements that he would leave by Monday if the
Petitioner: The Angara diaries were published in the second envelope would be opened by Monday and
Philippine Daily Inquirer and as such constitutes statements • Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na, masyado nang
made outside the court. masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga.
Third: The ban on hearsay evidence does not cover
SC: independently relevant statements. These are statements
First: The Angara Diary is part of the pleadings in the cases at which are relevant independently of whether they are true
bar. Petitioner cannot complain he was not furnished a copy or not. They belong to two (2) classes:
of the Angara Diary. Petitioner even cited in his Second (1) those statements which are the very facts in issue, and
Supplemental Reply Memorandum both the second and (2) those statements which are circumstantial evidence of
third parts of the diary. Thus, petitioner had all the the facts in issue.
opportunity to contest the use of the Diary but unfortunately
failed to do so.
The second class includes the following: In the Angara Diary, the options of Estrada started to dwindle
a) Statement of a person showing his state of mind, that when the armed forces withdrew its support from him as
is, his mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill will President and commander-in-chief. Thus, Executive
and other emotions; Secretary Angara had to ask Senate President Pimentel to
b) Statements of a person from which an inference may advise Estrada to consider the option of dignified exit or
be made as to the state of mind of another, that is, the resignation. Estrada did not object to the suggested option
knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the but simply said he could never leave the country. Estrada’s
latter; silence (to be treated as his reaction) on this and other
related suggestions can be taken as an admission by him [of
Where any mental state or condition is in issue, such as his intent to resign.]
motive, malice, knowledge, intent, assent or dissent, unless
direct testimony of the particular person is to be taken as Issue 3 (TOPIC): W/N the use of the Angara diary against him
conclusive of his state of mind, the only method of proof violated the rule on res inter alios acta.
available is testimony of others to the acts or statements of Petitioner: The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the
such person. rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration,
The Angara Diary is a testimony of another which contains or omission of another. This is embodied in Sec 28 of Rule
statements of the petitioner which reflect his state of mind 130 of the Rules of Court.
and are circumstantial evidence of his intent to resign. It also SC: Section 28 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, says: “The
contains statements of Secretary Angara from which we can rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration,
reasonably deduce petitioner’s intent to resign. They are or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.”
admissible and they are not covered by the rule on hearsay. The res inter alios acta rule has several exceptions. One of
them is provided in section 29 of Rule 130 with respect to
Issue 2: W/N the Angara Diary can be used against Estrada it admissions by a co-partner or agent.
not being his own diary. YES. Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. — The act or
Petitioner: The Angara Diary is not the diary of the petitioner, declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the
hence, non-binding on him. scope of his authority and during the existence of the
SC: The argument overlooks the doctrine of adoptive partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such
admission. An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence
statement or action by another person when it is reasonable other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to
to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other
stated or implied by the other person. person jointly interested with the party.
Executive Secretary Angara as such was an alter ego of the 4. WHETHER THE ANGARA DIARY IS INADMISSIBLE FOR
petitioner. He was the Little President. Indeed, he was BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE FOLLOWING RULES ON EVIDENCE:
authorized by the petitioner to act for him in the critical HEARSAY, BEST EVIDENCE, AUTHENTICATION, ADMISSIONS
hours and days before he abandoned Malacanang Palace. AND RES INTER ALIOS ACTA;
Under our rules of evidence, admissions of an agent
(Secretary Angara) are binding on the principal (petitioner). Petitioner also contends that the rules on authentication of
What is done, by agent, is done by the principal through him, private writings and best evidence were violated in our
as through a mere instrument. Decision, viz:
Example of Secretary’s Angara’s acts on behalf of President
Estrada: According to the Angara Diary, the petitioner told “The use of the Angara diary palpably breached
Secretary Angara: Mula umpisa pa lang ng kampanya, Ed, several hornbook rules of evidence, such as the rule on
ikaw na lang pinakikinggan ko. At hanggang sa huli, ikaw pa authentication of private writings”
rin. This statement of full trust was made by the petitioner
after Secretary Angara briefed him about the progress of the xxx
first negotiation. True to this trust, the petitioner had to ask
Secretary Angara if he would already leave Malacaang after A. Rule on Proof of Private Writings Violated
taking their final lunch on January 20, 2001 at about 1:00
p.m. The Angara Diary quotes the petitioner as saying to The rule governing private documents as evidence was
Secretary Angara: ed, kailangan ko na bang umalis? Secretary violated. The law provides that before any private
Angara told him to go and he did. Petitioner cannot deny that writing offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
Secretary Angara headed his team of negotiators that met due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
with the team of the respondent Arroyo to discuss the a) by anyone who saw the document executed or
peaceful and orderly transfer of power after his written, or b) by evidence of the genuineness of the
relinquishment of the powers of the presidency. The Diary signature or handwriting of the maker.
shows that petitioner was always briefed by Secretary
Angara on the progress of their negotiations. Secretary xxx
Angara acted for and in behalf of the petitioner in the crucial
days before respondent Arroyo took her oath as President. B. Best Evidence Rule Infringed
Consequently, petitioner is bound by the acts and
declarations of Secretary Angara. Clearly, the newspaper reproduction is not the best
evidence of the Angara diary. It is secondary evidence,
 of dubious authenticity. It was however used by this Production of the original may be dispensed with, in the
Honorable Court without proof of the unavailability of trial courts discretion, whenever in the case in hand the
the original or duplicate original of the diary. The Best opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the
Evidence Rule should have been applied since the document and no other useful purpose will be served by
contents of the diary are the subject of inquiry. requiring production.[24]

The rule is that, except in four (4) specific instances, xxx

[w]hen the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than Secondary evidence of the content of the writing will be
the original document itself.[23] received in evidence if no objection is made to its
reception.[26]
Petitioners contention is without merit. In regard to the
Best Evidence rule, the Rules of Court provides in sections 2 In regard to the authentication of private writings, the Rules
to 4 of Rule 1301: of Court provides in section 20 of Rule 132, viz:

Sec. 20. Proof of private document. Before any private

It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but only document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
Inquirer on February 4-6, 2001. In doing so, the Court, did
not, however, violate the best evidence rule. Wigmore, in his (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
book on evidence, states that: or

1 Sec. 2. Documentary evidence. Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing (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
letters, words, numbers, figures or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.
of the whole; and
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following
cases:
Sec. 4. Original of document. (a) The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject
of inquiry.
(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 a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents,
all such copies are equally regarded as originals.
(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 an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near
the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.
 blatant denial of elementary due process to the Government
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or but is palpably indicative of bad faith and partiality. In the
handwriting of the maker. instant cases, however, the petitioner had an opportunity to
object to the admissibility of the Angara Diary when he filed
Any other private document need only be identified as that his Memorandum dated February 20, 2001, Reply
which it is claimed to be. Memorandum dated February 22, 2001, Supplemental
Memorandum dated February 23, 2001, and Second
On the rule of authentication of private writings, Francisco Supplemental memorandum dated February 24, 2001. He
states that: was therefore not denied due process. In the words of
Wigmore, supra, petitioner had been given an opportunity
A proper foundation must be laid for the admission of to inspect the Angara Diary but did not object to its
documentary evidence; that is, the identity and authenticity admissibility. It is already too late in the day to raise his
of the document must be reasonably established as a pre- objections in an Omnibus Motion, after the Angara Diary has
requisite to its admission. (Rouw v. Arts, 174 Ark. 79, 294 been used as evidence and a decision rendered partly on the
S.W. 993, 52 A.L.R. 1263, and others) However, a party who basis thereof.
does not deny the genuineness of a proffered instrument
may not object that it was not properly identified before it
was admitted in evidence. (Strand v. Halverson, 220 Iowa
1276, 264 N.W. 266, 103 A.L.R. 835).[27]

Petitioner cites the case of State prosecutors v. Muro,[28]

which frowned on reliance by courts on newspaper
accounts. In that case, Judge Muro was dismissed from the
service for relying on a newspaper account in dismissing
eleven (11) cases against Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos.
There is a significant difference, however, between the Muro
case and the cases at bar. In the Muro case, Judge Muro
dismissed the cases against Mrs. Marcos on the basis of a
newspaper account without affording the prosecution the
basic opportunity to be heard on the matter by way of a
written comment or on oral argument. . .(this is) not only a
 relative and exchanged text messages with said respondent
for a possible pay-off for the Lagua’s provisional liberty. Atty.
Vidallon-Magtolis vs. Salud Madarang later discovered that the respondent did not
Facts: properly serve the copies of the Resolution and Order of
Respondent is charged and held liable for offenses on Release upon the accused-appellant and his counsel. but
inefficiency and incompetence of official duty; conduct gave them to a certain Art Baluran, allegedly Lagua’s relative.
grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service; and
directly and indirectly having financial and material interest Later on, Complainant called the respondent to her office.
in an official transaction considering his undue interest in the When confronted, the respondent denied extorting or
service of the order of release and actual release of Melchor receiving money for Lagua’s release, or in any other case. He,
Lagua. however, admitted serving the copies of resolution and
order of release intended for Lagua and his counsel to Art
Lagua was found guilty of homicide and was then detained Baluran. Complainant then lodged the complaint against the
at the Bureau of Prisons National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa respondent in a Letter dated November 14, 2003.
City. Lagua’s petition for bond was approved in a Resolution
where the appellate court directed the issuance of an order Issue:
of release in favor of Lagua. The resolution was brought to
the office of Atty. Madarang, Division Clerk of Court, for Whether or not the admission of text messages as evidence
promulgation. constitutes a violation of right to privacy of the accused?

Respondent served the resolution and order of release of Held:

Lagua at the National Penitentiary, where Lagua was
detained for homicide. No. The respondent’s claim that the admission of the text
messages as evidence against him constitutes a violation of
Meanwhile, Atty. Madarang received a call from a certain his right to privacy is unavailing. Text messages have been
Melissa Melchor, who introduced herself as Lagua’s relative, classified as “ephemeral electronic communication” under
asking how much more they had to give to facilitate Lagua’s Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, and
provisional liberty, and that they sought the help of a certain “shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a
Rhodora Valdez of RTC Pasig, but was told that they still had party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof.” Any
a balance. When Atty. Madarang was able to get the mobile question as to the admissibility of such messages is now
number of respondent, he represented himself as Lagua’s moot and academic, as the respondent himself, as well as his
counsel, already admitted that he was the sender of the first
three messages on Atty. Madarang’s cell phone.

This was also the ruling of the Court in the recent case of
Zaldy Nuez v. Elvira Cruz-Apao. In that case, the Court, in
finding the respondent therein guilty of dishonesty and grave
misconduct, considered text messages addressed to the
complainant asking for a million pesos in exchange for a
favorable decision in a case pending before the CA. The Court
had the occasion to state:

… The text messages were properly admitted by the

Committee since the same are now covered by Section 1(k),
Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which provides:

“Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone

conversations, text messages … and other electronic forms
of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
retained.”
Aznar v Citibank (supra case, Pretz) Even if examined under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which took
effect on August 1, 2001, and which is being invoked by Aznar in this
FACTS: case, the authentication of Exh. "G" would still be found wanting.
Aznar went to Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. When he used his
credit card at Indonesia, the same was not honored because it was Pertinent sections of Rule 5 read:
“DECL OVERLIMIT”. He sued Citibank because according to him, Section 1. Burden of proving authenticity. – The person seeking
Citibank “blacklisted” his card without valid cause. (ACTION FOR to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding
DAMAGES). has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner
provided in this Rule.
Aznar’s evidence consisted of: Section 2. Manner of authentication. – Before any private
1) Exh G.: a computer print-out, denominated as ON-LINE electronic document offered as authentic is received in
AUTHORIZATIONS FOREIGN ACCOUNT ACTIVITY REPORT, issued to evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the
him by Ingtan Agency at Indonesia with the signature of one Victrina following means:
Elnado Nubi (Nubi) (a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the
person purported to have signed the same;
ISSUE: WON the electronic document was properly authenticated (b) by evidence that other appropriate security
procedures or devices as may be authorized by the
HELD: NO Supreme Court or by law for authentication of
RATIO: As correctly pointed out by the RTC and the CA, however, such electronic documents were applied to the document; or
exhibit cannot be considered admissible as its authenticity and due (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability
execution were not sufficiently established by petitioner. to the satisfaction of the judge.

The prevailing rule at the time of the promulgation of the RTC Decision Aznar claims that his testimony complies with par. (c), i.e., it
is Section 20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. It provides that constitutes the "other evidence showing integrity and reliability of Exh.
whenever any private document offered as authentic is received in "G" to the satisfaction of the judge."
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by
(a) anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (b) by SC: is not convinced. Aznar’s testimony that the person from Ingtan
evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the Agency merely handed him the computer print-out and that he
maker. thereafter asked said person to sign the same cannot be considered as
sufficient to show said print-out’s integrity and reliability. As correctly
Aznar, who testified on the authenticity of Exh. "G," did not actually pointed out by Judge Marcos in his May 29, 1998 Decision, Exh. "G"
see the document executed or written, neither was he able to provide does not show on its face that it was issued by Ingtan Agency as Aznar
evidence on the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of Nubi, merely mentioned in passing how he was able to secure the print-out
who handed to him said computer print-out. from the agency; Aznar also failed to show the specific business
address of the source of the computer print-out because while the
name of Ingtan Agency was mentioned by Aznar, its business address
was not reflected in the print-out.

Indeed, Aznar failed to demonstrate how the information reflected on

the print-out was generated and how the said information could be
relied upon as true.

ATTY. NERI: Now, paragraph 12 also states and I quote: "its entry in the
"hot" list was confirmed to be authentic"

Now, who confirmed that the blacklisting of your Preferred Citibank

Mastercard was authentic?
Aznar: Okey. When I presented this Mastercard, my card rather, at the
Merchant’s store, I do not know, they called up somebody for
verification then later they told me that "your card is being denied".
So, I am not in a position to answer that. I do not know whom they
called up; where they verified. So, when it is denied that’s presumed
to be blacklisted.
Torres v PAGCOR 5. On May 4, 2007, the CIU served petitioner with a Memorandum
of Charges for dishonesty, serious misconduct, fraud and violation of
DOCTRINE: A facsimile transmission is not considered as an electronic office rules and regulations which were considered grave offenses
evidence under the Electronic Commerce Act. In MCC Industrial Sales where the penalty imposable is dismissal.
Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, 6. On August 4, 2007, petitioner received a letter dated August 2,
2007 from Atty. Lizette F. Mortel, Managing Head of PAGCOR's Human
We determined the question of whether the original facsimile Resource and Development Department, dismissing him from the
transmissions are "electronic data messages" or "electronic service.
documents" within the context of the Electronic Commerce Act, and 7. On September 14, 2007, petitioner filed with the CSC a
We said: Complaint against PAGCOR and its Chairman Efraim Genuino for illegal
dismissal,
We, therefore, conclude that the terms "electronic data message" and 8. Respondent PAGCOR filed its Comment wherein it alleged,
"electronic document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act among others, that petitioner failed to perfect an appeal within the
of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a period and manner provided by the Uniform Rules on Administrative
facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It Cases in the Civil Service Law.
is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence 9. CSC: treating petitioner's complaint as an appeal from the
Rule and is not admissible aselectronic evidence. PAGCOR's decision dismissing petitioner from the service, issued
Resolution No. 081204 denying petitioner's appeal.
Facts: a. In so ruling, the CSC found that the issue for resolution was
1. Petitioner was a Slot Machine Operations Supervisor of whether petitioner's appeal had already prescribed which the former
PAGCOR. answered in the positive.
2. On the basis of an alleged intelligence report of padding of the b. The CSC did not give credit to petitioner's claim that he sent a
Credit Meter Readings (CMR) of the slot machines at PAGCOR-Hyatt facsimile transmission of his letter reconsideration within the period
Manila, then Casino Filipino-Hyatt (CF Hyatt), which involved the slot prescribed by the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
machine and internal security personnel of respondent PAGCOR, and Service.
in connivance with slot machine customers, respondent PAGCOR's c. It found PAGCOR's denial of having received petitioner's letter
Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) allegedly conducted an investigation more credible as it was supported by certifications issued by its
to verify the veracity of such report. employees.
3. The CIU discovered the scheme of CMR padding which was d. It found that a verification of one of the telephone numbers
committed by adding zero after the first digit of the actual CMR of a where petitioner allegedly sent his letter reconsideration disclosed
slot machine or adding a digit before the first digit of the actual CMR. that such number did not belong to the PAGCOR's Office of the Board
4. Based on the CIU's investigation of all the CMR receipts and slot of Directors; and that petitioner should have mentioned about the
machine jackpot slips issued by CF Hyatt for the months of February alleged facsimile transmission at the first instance when he filed his
and March 2007, the CIU identified the members of the syndicate who complaint and not only when respondent PAGCOR raised the issue of
were responsible for such CMR padding, which included herein prescription in its Comment.
petitioner.
10. Petitioner's motion for a reconsideration was denied 19, 2007. However, records do not show that petitioner had filed his
11. CA issued its decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit. motion for reconsideration. In fact, the CSC found that the non-receipt
a. Petitioner failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that of petitioner's letter reconsideration was duly supported by
he had filed a motion for reconsideration. certifications issued by PAGCOR employees.
b. It found insufficient to merit consideration petitioner's claim
that he had sent through a facsimile transmission a Even assuming arguendo that petitioner indeed submitted a letter
letter/reconsideration dated August 13, 2007 addressed to PAGCOR's reconsideration which he claims was sent through a facsimile
Chairman, members of the Board of Directors and the Merit Systems transmission, such letter reconsideration did not toll the period to
Protection Board; that assuming arguendo that a letter reconsideration appeal. The MODE USED BY PETITIONER IN FILING HIS
was indeed sent through a facsimile transmission, such facsimile RECONSIDERATION IS NOT SANCTIONED BY THE UNIFORM RULES ON
transmission is inadmissible as electronic evidence under the ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE. As we stated earlier,
Electronic Commerce Act of 2000; and that a review of the CSC assailed the motion for reconsideration may be filed only in two ways, either by
resolution revealed that the telephone numbers where petitioner mail or personal delivery.
claimed to be the recipient of the faxed document sent was not that of
PAGCOR's Office of Board of Directors. The CA found baseless and Garvida v Sales:
conjectural petitioner's claim that PAGCOR can easily deny having
received the letter by giving orders to their employees to execute an A facsimile or fax transmission is a process involving the transmission
affidavit of denial under pain and threat of administrative sanction or and reproduction of printed and graphic matter by scanning an original
termination from service. copy, one elemental area at a time, and representing the shade or tone
of each area by a specified amount of electric current. The current is
Issue: W/N the P’s period for which to appeal expired. YEP transmitted as a signal over regular telephone lines or via microwave
relay and is used by the receiver to reproduce an image of the
Under the uniform rules on Admin Cases in the Civil Service: elemental area in the proper position and the correct shade. The
- A motion for reconsideration may either be filed by mail or receiver is equipped with a stylus or other device that produces a
personal delivery. printed record on paper referred to as a facsimile.
- When a motion for reconsideration was sent by mail, the same
shall be deemed filed on the date shown by the postmark on the x x x A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at best,
envelope which shall be attached to the records of the case. an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original. Without the
- On the other hand, in case of personal delivery, the motion is original, there is no way of determining on its face whether the
deemed filed on the date stamped thereon by the proper office. And facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally signed
the movant has 15 days from receipt of the decision within which to by the party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading. x x x
file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal therefrom.
See doctrine.
Petitioner received a copy of the letter/notice of dismissal on August
4, 2007; thus, the motion for reconsideration should have been DENY PETITION
submitted either by mail or by personal delivery on or before August
G.R. No. 206162, December 10, 2014 - ALEX M. VALENCERINA, 8. With respect to Mallari, his conviction was premised on the
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. findings by the Sandiganbayan that he strongly recommended the
Ecobel bond application for evaluation notwithstanding its infirmities;
that he approved and subsequently signed the subject bond on behalf
1. The Sandiganbayan found Valencerina, a high-ranking officer of of GSIS; and that he knew beforehand that PVB was not the obligee of
the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), guilty of giving the loan as manifested in the correspondence he had with accused
unwarranted benefits to Ecobel Land Incorporated (Ecobel) on account Boright, thus, highlighting his active participation in the negotiation
of his participation in the unjustified issuance of GSIS Surety Bond GIF with Bear and Stearns International, Ltd. on the subject bond.
No. 029132 (subject bond) covering the amount of Ten Million US 9. did he participate in the giving of undue benefits to Ecobel with
Dollars (US$10,000,000.00). evident bad faith, or manifest partiality, as punishable under Sec. 3(e)
2. Valencerina upon the instructions of accused Mallari, who was of R.A. No. 3019, when the bond was issued and used by Ecobel to
then the Senior Vice-President of the GSIS General Insurance Group secure a foreign denominated loan?
prepared a memo which also included Mallari’s strong 10. In finding Valencerina guilty of giving undue advantage or
recommendation through a marginal note with the words “Strong preference to Ecobel, in violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti Graft and
reco. Based on info & collateral herein stated.” In short, Valencerina Corrupt Practices Act, the Sandiganbayan was convinced that the
helped approve the issuance of a surety bond for Ecobel. elements of the crime were duly established. These elements, as
3. On March 30, 1998, Valencerina certified that the subject bond enumerated by the Court in Bautista v. Sandiganbayan,16 are as
could be redeemed if Ecobel would default in paying the loan. follows:
4. In a letter, dated March 7, 2000, URSA Minor Limited, the  the offender is a public officer;
assignee of BSIL (Bear Stearns), demanded payment from Ecobel. A  the act was done in the discharge of the public officer’s official,
notice of failure was sent by Banker’s Trust, informing GSIS of Ecobel’s administrative or judicial functions;
failure to pay the obligation which became due on March 9, 2001.  the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith,
5. On April 5, 2000, Aon Financial Products, Inc., also a subsequent or gross inexcusable negligence; and
assignee of BSIL, sent a Notice of Demand to the then Secretary of  the public officer caused any undue injury to any party,
Finance, Pardo de Tavera, calling on the guarantee of the Republic of including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits,
the Philippines under the subject bond. advantage or preference.
6. Thus, for having participated in, or contributed to the release
or issuance of the subject surety bond, an Information was filed before Issue: WON petitioner is guilty under the anti graft and corrupt
the Sandiganbayan, against Valencerina, along with Campaña, Mallari, practices act given his defense that the corpus delicti of the crime—
Leticia G. Bernardo, Josephine Edralin Boright, and Estela J. Edralin for that a loan has actually been extended to Ecobel by BSIL was not
7. After the trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered the assailed presented as evidence?
decision, finding Valencerina and Mallari guilty beyond reasonable
doubt because of Valencerina’s declaration that the bond was fully
secured by collaterals was taken by the Sandiganbayan against him as
he already knew that the said collaterals were defective.
Held: YES The Court, moreover, notes the finding of the Sandiganbayan that
The Sandiganbayan correctly relied on the testimonies of the Valencerina also participated in the negotiations of the loan using the
witnesses, which were based primarily on the January 27, 1998 guarantees available under the bond. It appears from the records that
Memorandum, and the Certifications, dated March 30, 1998 and BSIL required Ecobel to verify the authenticity of the signatures in the
January 14, 1999, issued by Valencerina himself. subject bond. Boright then requested Mallari to issue certifications
containing declarations that he was authorized to sign the subject
These documents purportedly showed his resignation to favor Ecobel bond, including a certification that he was authorized to sign certain
in the issuance of the subject bond as well as his alleged participation letters that were requested apparently referring to the certifications
in the negotiation of the loan sought to be guaranteed under the bond, that Valencerina himself issued on January 14, 1999, together with the
thus, making him guilty of the offense charged. first one he issued on March 30, 1998, both directed to an unnamed
addressee. The certifications read as follows:
In this case, Valencerina clearly extended, with evident bad faith,
undue advantage to Ecobel in the process of issuing and negotiating The Court finds no value either to Valencerina’s submission that no
the subject bond. His act of endorsing Ecobel’s application to the PGM crime was proven to have been committed because no evidence had
despite his knowledge that the obligee of the loan was not PVB but a been presented showing that BSIL actually granted a loan of US $10
foreign lender, clearly shows his disregard for the policy of GSIS million to Ecobel, it being the corpus delicti of the second mode of
requiring the existence of governmental interest in the transaction. In committing the offense under Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The reason is
the observation of the GSIS audit team, as it appeared in a report simple.
before the Sandiganbayan, PVB was merely used to show that GSIS has
an insurable interest in the loan. The truth, however, is that BSIL was The corpus delicti of the crime is not dependent upon whether a loan
the funder and obligee of the credit sought to be guaranteed by the had been granted to Ecobel, but more on proving the fact of giving
bond. unwarranted preference or benefit to another with evident bad faith,
manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence. It is sufficient that
Valencerina’s defense that the memorandum was prepared and issued such fact has been established, as the prosecution did in this case.
pursuant to the instructions of Mallari, who was higher in rank, cannot
exculpate him from liability. As Vice-President, his duties were not Besides, the Court gives credence to the report and findings of the
mere perfunctory in the greater scheme of the process. audit investigation team, affirmed by the Sandiganbayan, that Ecobel
He knew that GSIS could only issue a guarantee payment bond if it had failed to pay the loan from BSIL, which then gave rise to a notice making
an interest in the transaction, and that the bond must be secured by known the decision of the assignee under the loan to collect on the
adequate collaterals. Yet, he still endorsed the Ecobel application surety bond subject of this case. This by itself cemented the fact that,
which he could have denied at sight. He could have at least made some indeed, Ecobel received benefit by reason of the unjustified actions
remarks as to the propriety of the application in light of his information committed by no less than the high-ranking officers of GSIS.’
that a foreign funder was the obligee of the loan which would violate
GSIS policies in the issuance of a high-risk bond, but he did not.
RELEVANT TOPIC: A Yes, sir. It is me, sir.
In a last ditch attempt to save himself, Valencerina argues that the Q Why did you prepare this document?
documents, especially the above certifications from which the A This document was prepared upon the request of Senior Vice-
testimonies of the witnesses and eventually his conviction were based, President Amalio Mallari to simply draft a statement of facts and
could not be used as evidence against him for being incompetent and procedures in relation to the bond itself, Ecobel bond.
hearsay as they were mere photocopies that were not properly Q We noticed, Mr. Valencerina, that this document was addressed to
authenticated. "To Whom It May Concern". Could you inform the Honorable Court
Indeed, these documents serve as the bedrock of the prosecution’s why you addressed it to"To whom it may concern"?
position that he violated Sec. 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt A It is actually a generic statement, simply a statement of facts and
Practices Act. It is true that these were mere photocopies and, as a procedures and it is basically a GSIS policy, for information only.
general rule, if the original copy cannot be produced, a photocopy, can Q And what are the facts and procedures that you are referring to
only be admitted in evidence if it is shown that the original is which you mentioned in thisparticular memorandum?
unavailable21 by proving (1) the existence or due execution of the A These are actually referring tothe drawing conditions which actually
original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its refer to the event in which case there is a default in the bond. So are
non-production in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence the documents that must be presented by the obligee. Q Are you
of bad faithto which the unavailability of the original can be referring to this bond which is mentioned in this memorandum, Bond
attributed.22 The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, No. 092132, issued on March 11, 1998 and maturing on 11 March
execution, loss, and contents.23 2000?
Here, Valencerina claims that the prosecution failed to even attempt A Yes, sir, I am referring to that particular transaction, sir.
to prove the authenticity and due execution of the memorandum and Q The prosecution also marked Exhibit "D-17". It was testified to by a
the certifications it presented and, thus should be enough reason to witness and offered in evidence by the prosecution which is a
conclude that the Sandiganbayan based its conviction on mere memorandum by one Alex M. Valencerina dated 14 January 1999.
conjectures. The Court finds the argument untenable. Could you please go over this memorandum and inform the Honorable
Valencerina cannot now say that the certifications were not properly Court if you are aware of that memorandum?
authenticated and their existence not properly proved because the A Yes, sir, I am aware of this letter.
records would show that, during the trial, hehimself adopted their Q Why did you prepare this memorandum?
contents and admitted that he indeed issued the same certifications. A Again, this letter or this memorandum actually is requested upon by
For instance, he testified as follows: my Senior Vice-President Amalio Mallari, sir.
Q The prosecution offered a document purportedly a Certification by Q Again, this is addressed only "To whom it amy concern" and not to
one Alex Valencerina dated March 30, 1998 which the prosecution anybody in particular. Why did you address it only to "To whom it may
marked as Exhibit D-14 which I am now showing you. Could you please concern"?
go over this document and inform the Honorable Court if you are A Again, it is a statement of facts and procedures which practically
aware of such a document? govern the policies of the GSIS, sir.24 (Emphases supplied)
A Yes, sir, I am aware of this document, sir.
Q Now, this is a certification prepared by one Alex Valencerina. Are you By testifying as to the contents of the certifications he himself signed,
the same Alex Valencerina who prepared this particular document? Valencerina, in effect, admitted that the said documents exist and
that the same were duly executed by him. He himself built upon the
said documents to draw his defense that the certifications were mere
statements of facts and procedures. He did not contradict their
existence but even went further to elaborate as to the reasons behind
their issuance. As such, the Court cannot give merit to his position that,
being mere photocopies, the certifications could not be relied on in
determining his culpability. Conversely, the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, assuming they had no personal knowledge of
the contents and due execution of the said documents, would now be
a superfluity as he himself used the certifications to forward his
defense.
The Court finds no value either to Valencerina’s submission that no
crime was proven to have been committed because no evidence had
been presented showing that BSIL actually granted a loan of US $10
million to Ecobel, it being the corpus delicti of the second mode of
committing the offense under Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The reason is
simple. The corpus delicti of the crime is not dependent upon whether
a loan had been granted to Ecobel, but more on proving the factof
giving unwarranted preference or benefit to another with evident bad
faith, manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence. It is sufficient
that such fact has been established, as the prosecution did in this case.
Besides, the Court gives credence tothe report and findings of the audit
investigation team, affirmed by the Sandiganbayan, that Ecobel failed
to pay the loan from BSIL, which then gave rise to a notice making
known the decision of the assignee under the loan to collect on the
surety bond subject of this case. This by itself cemented the fact that,
indeed, Ecobel received benefit by reason of the unjustified actions
committed by no less than the high-ranking officers of GSIS.
G.R. No. 191696 April 10, 2013 agreed to sell 352 square meters of the lot to Julio Maghinang on
ROGELIO DANTIS, Petitioner, vs. JULIO MAGHINANG, JR., installment. Defendant was then 11 years old in 1952
Respondent.
RTC rendered its decision declaring Rogelio as the true owner of the
Rogelio alleged that he was the registered owner of a parcel of land entire 5,657-square meter lot located in Sta. Rita, San Miguel, Bulacan,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-125918, with an as evidenced by his TCT over the same.
area of 5,657 square meters, located in Sta. Rita, San Miguel, Bulacan;
that he acquired ownership of the property through a deed of The RTC did not lend any probative value on the documentary evidence
extrajudicial partition of the estate of his deceased father, Emilio of sale adduced by Julio, Jr. consisting of:
Dantis (Emilio), dated December 22, 1993; that he had been paying the 1) Exhibit 3: an affidavit allegedly executed by Ignacio
realty taxes on the said property; that Julio, Jr. occupied and built a Dantis (Ignacio), Rogelio’s grandfather, whereby said affiant
house on a portion of his property without any right at all; that attested, among others, to the sale of the subject lot made by
demands were made upon Julio, Jr. that he vacate the premises but the his son, Emilio, to Julio, Sr. and
same fell on deaf ears; and that the acts of Julio, Jr. had created a cloud 2) Exhibit 4: an undated handwritten receipt of initial
of doubt over his title and right of possession of his property downpayment in the amount of ₱100.00 supposedly issued by
Emilio to Julio, Sr. in connection with the sale of the subject lot
Evidence: Extrajudicial Partition of Estate of Emilio Dantis, executed
in December 1993 which land was titled later on under his name, The RTC ruled that even if these documents were adjudged as
Rogelio Dantis, married to Victoria Payawal; competent evidence, still, they would only serve as proofs that the
purchase price for the subject lot had not yet been completely paid
Maghinang claimed that he was the actual owner of the 352 square and, hence, Rogelio was not duty-bound to deliver the property to
meters (subject lot) of the land covered by TCT No. T-125918 where he Julio, Jr. The RTC found Julio, Jr. to be a mere possessor by tolerance
was living; that he had been in open and continuous possession of the
property for almost thirty (30) years; the subject lot was once tenanted CA reversed the RTC. It held that Exhibit "4" was an indubitable proof
by his ancestral relatives until it was sold by Rogelio’s father, Emilio, to of the sale of the 352-square meter lot between Emilio and Julio, Sr. It
his father, Julio Maghinang, Sr. (Julio, Sr.); that later, he succeeded to also ruled that the partial payment of the purchase price, coupled with
the ownership of the subject lot after his father died on March 10, the delivery of the res, gave efficacy to the oral sale and brought it
1968; and that he was entitled to a separate registration of the subject outside the operation of the statute of frauds
lot on the basis of the documentary evidence of sale and his open and
uninterrupted possession of the property ISSUE: The fundamental question for resolution is whether there is a
perfected contract of sale between Emilio and Julio, Sr.
Evidence: He presented an affidavit executed on September 3, 1953 by
Ignacio Dantis, grandfather of Rogelio Dantis and the father of Emilio SC: Rogelio was able to establish a prima facie case in his favor
Dantis. The latter was, in turn, the father of Rogelio Dantis. The tending to show his exclusive ownership of the parcel of land. From
affidavit, according to affiant Ignacio Dantis, alleged that Emilio Dantis the records, it appears that TCT No. T-125918 is a derivative of TCT No.
T-256228, which covered a bigger area of land measuring 30,000
square meters registered in the name of Emilio Dantis; that Emilio died exclusion of secondary or substitutionary evidence, pursuant to Rule
intestate on November 13, 1952; that Emilio’s five heirs, including 130, Section
Rogelio, executed an extra-judicial partition of estate on December 22,
1993 and divided among themselves specific portions of the property A secondary evidence is admissible only upon compliance with Rule
covered by TCT No. T-256228, which were already set apart by metes 130, Section 5, which states that: when the original has been lost or
and bounds; that the land known as Lot 6-D-1 of the subdivision plan destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of
Psd-031421-054315 with an area of 5,657 sq. m. went to Rogelio, the its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without
property now covered by TCT No. T-125918; and that the property was bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital
declared for realty tax purpose in the name of Rogelio for which a tax of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of
declaration was issued in his name; and that the same had not been witnesses in the order stated.
transferred to anyone else since its issuance.
Accordingly, the offeror of the secondary evidence is burdened to
The affidavit of Ignacio, is hearsay evidence and, thus, cannot be satisfactorily prove the predicates thereof, namely: (1) the execution
accorded any evidentiary weight. Evidence is hearsay when its or existence of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original
probative force depends on the competency and credibility of some or its non-production in court; and (3) the unavailability of the original
persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to be produced. is not due to bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror. Proof of
The exclusion of hearsay evidence is anchored on three reasons: 1) the due execution of the document and its subsequent loss would
absence of cross-examination; 2) absence of demeanor evidence; and constitute the basis for the introduction of secondary evidence.
3) absence of oath. Guided by these norms, the Court holds that Julio, Jr. failed to prove
the due execution of the original of Exhibit "4" as well as its subsequent
Jurisprudence dictates that an affidavit is merely hearsay evidence loss.
where its affiant/maker did not take the witness stand. The sworn
statement of Ignacio is of this kind. The affidavit was not identified and A perusal of the receipt/ Exhibit 4 would readily show that it does not
its averments were not affirmed by affiant Ignacio. Accordingly, Exhibit specify a determinate subject matter. Nowhere does it provide a
"3" must be excluded from the judicial proceedings being an description of the property subject of the sale, including its metes and
inadmissible hearsay evidence. It cannot be deemed a declaration bounds, as well as its total area.
against interest for the matter to be considered as an exception to the
hearsay rule because the declarant was not the seller (Emilio), but his
father (Ignacio).

Exhibit "4," on the other hand, is considered secondary evidence being

a mere photocopy which, in this case, cannot be admitted to prove the
contents of the purported undated handwritten receipt. The best
evidence rule requires that the highest available degree of proof must
be produced. For documentary evidence, the contents of a document
are best proved by the production of the document itself to the
 o Lagman cannot unilaterally cancel them
Country Bankers Insurance Corp. v. Lagman - CA: reversed RTC decision; case dismissed
TOPIC: Secondary evidence – sec. 5 when original document not o 1990 superseded the 1989 bonds
available o Lagman was not a signatory in the alleged 1990 Indemnity
Agreement
Facts:
- Nelson Santos applied for a license with the NFA to engage in Country Bankers argues:
the business of storing sacks of palay in his warehouse at Camiling, o By express terms, the 1989 bonds shall remain in full force and
Tarlac effect until cancelled by NFA Administrator
- Under Act No. 3893 or the General Bonded Warehouse Act, the o Under Insurance Code (Sec. 177), bond may only be cancelled
approval for such license was conditioned upon posting of a cash bond, by the obligee Republic, by the Insurance Comm’r or by a competent
a bond secured by real estate or a bond signed by a duly authorized court
bonding company o Spurious existence of the 1990 bond since Lagman failed to
- In 1989, Country Bankers issued 2 Warehouse Bonds through produce the original; neither did Country Bankers process such nor the
its agent, Antonio Lagman, in favor of Santos who, together with NFA had in its possession the same
Lagman and several others, in turn executed Indemnity Agreements o Lagman failed to prove that NFA accepted the 1990 bond in
- Santos then secured a loan using his warehouse receipts as replacement of the 1989 bonds
collateral
- Santos defaulted on those loans, and since the sacks of palay Issue (1):
covered by warehouse receipts were no longer in the bonded w/n 1989 bonds were valid for only 1 year
warehouse, Country Bankers was compelled to pay Php 1.1M
- Country Bankers filed a collection suit before the RTC Manila Holding and Ratio:
against the co-signors No. The official receipts which evidence the payment of premiums for
- Santos and others were either could no longer be found or were the 1989 bonds only serve as proof of payment of the premium for 1
declared in default year. They do not however automatically mean that the surety bonds
- Lagman’s Answer: were only effective for 1 year.
o 1989 Warehouse bonds were valid only for 1 year from the date
of issuance Under Sec. 177 of the Insurance Code:
o Bonds were never renewed The surety is entitled to payment of the premium as soon as the
o Although Country Bankers executed another bond in 1990, he contract of suretyship or bond is perfected and delivered to the
did not execute an indemnity agreement to cover for them (or at least, obligor. No contract of suretyship or bonding shall be valid and binding
he was not a party, if there was any) unless and until the premium therefor has been paid, except where the
o 1990 Bond superseded the 1989 bonds obligee has accepted the bond, in which case the bond becomes valid
- RTC: Lagman solidarily liable to pay Country Bankers and enforceable irrespective of whether or not the premium has been
o Bonds remained in force unless cancelled by the NFA paid by the obligor to the surety
Administrator
The 1989 bonds have identical provisions that the bonds shall remain Despite knowledge of the existence and whereabouts of these
in force until cancelled by the Administrator of the NFA. These bonds duplicate originals, Lagman merely presented a photocopy.
were in the nature of continuing bonds, where there is no fixed
expiration date, and thus the cancellation may be made only by the He admitted that he kept a copy of the 1990 Bond but he could no
obligee, by the Insurance Comm’r or by the court. longer produce it because he had already severed his ties with Country
Bankers. However, he did not explain why severance of ties is by itself
Issue (2): TOPICAL reason enough for the non-availability of his copy of the bond
w/n the 1990 bond existed and novated the 1989 bonds considering that, as it appears from the 1989 Bonds, Lagman himself is
Holding and Ratio: a bondsman. Neither did Lagman explain why he failed to secure the
No. Under the best evidence rule, the original document must be original from any of the three other custodians he mentioned in his
produced whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry. (cf. ROC testimony. While he apparently was able to find the original with the
130.3) NFA Loan Officer, he was merely contented with producing its
Lagman presented a mere photocopy of the 1990 bond, and such photocopy. Clearly, Lagman failed to exert diligent efforts to produce
photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is not admissible unless the original.
it is shown that the original is unavailable. Under ROC 130.5:
SEC.5 When original document is unavailable. When the Fueling further suspicion regarding the existence of the 1990 Bond is
original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be the absence of an Indemnity Agreement. While Lagman argued that a
produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or 1990 Bond novates the 1989 Bonds, he raises the defense of non-
existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith existence of an indemnity agreement which would conveniently
on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of exempt him from liability.
its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony
of witnesses in the order stated. Consequently, because the 1990 bond does not exist, there can be no
Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to novation to speak of. Thus, under the Indemnity Agreements covering
prove the contents of the original, the offeror must prove the the 1989 bonds which still subsist, Lagman is solidarily liable to
following: indemnify Country Bankers for any damage or loss sustained on
(1) the existence or due execution of the original; account of the execution of the bond. Moreover, the bonds contained
(2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its Incontestability Clauses which prohibit Lagman from questioning his
non-production in court; and liability under them.
(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.
Here, Lagman mentioned during the direct examination that there are
actually four (4) duplicate originals of the 1990 Bond: the first is kept
by the NFA, the second is with the Loan Officer of the NFA in Tarlac,
the third is with Country Bankers and the fourth was in his possession.
Xerxes Abadiano v. Spouses Martir Defendants Roberto et al
TOPIC: Secondary evidence – sec. 5 when original document not o Denied that Lot B was sold by Ramon and David
available o Consequently, Roberto inherited the same from Ramon his
Facts: father
- Lot No. 1318, owned by Inocentes Baares and Felicidad o Roberto had demanded that the spouses Martir pay him
Villanueva, was partitioned among their heirs: reasonable rental for the land but they refused
o A – Demetrio Baares o Sometime in 1981, Roberto and the spouses Martir came to an
o B – Ramon and David Abadiano agreement that the former will continue to cultivate the remaining
o C – Amando Baares stalks of sugarcane left by the latter
- David who was absent during the execution of the Deed of - Xerxes Abadiano intervened as successor-in-interest of Ramon
Partition, executed a Deed of Confirmation acknowledging and who likewise disputed the supposed sale
ratifying the document of partition
- OCT No. 20461 was administratively reconstituted, and in lieu
thereof OCT No. RO-8211 (20461) was issued in the name of the RTC: in favor of spouses Martir
original owners o Compra Y Venta in favor of spouses was not null and void for
- Demetrio sold his share to his son, Leopoldo failure of David to sign
- Leopoldo filed before CFI Negros Occidental a petition praying o David’s Confirmation pertained only to the Deed of Partition
for confirmation of the Deed of Partition and the issuance of a new and not to the sale; therefore, he did not authorize Ramon to sell his
certificate of title over the property share
- CFI ordered the cancellation of the reconstituted title, and the o As co-owner, Ramon could validly alienate his inchoate share in
issuance of a new TCT No. T-31862 in the names of Leopoldo, Amando, Lot B, and as a consequence, only his share was transferred
Ramon and David o The fact that the Compa Y Venta was not annotated on the OCT
- Spouses Martir filed an action for quieting of title and/or or the reconstituted OCT did not make the sale invalid; such annotation
recovery of possession, claiming that: is required only to bind third persons
o prior to the issuance of said TCT, Ramon and David sold Lot B to o As to the Compra Y Venta containing the same notarial
a certain Victor Garde who in turn sold it to Jose Garde inscription as the Deed of Partition, RTC said it was an error that did
o said Jose Garde sold the Lot B to them not nullify the document; its effect would be only make the document
o Roberto, the son of Ramon, allegedly entered the property and non-registrable
cultivated the stalks of sugarcane that they planted; Roberto also o Spouses and their predecessors-in-interest were in possession
refused to vacate the property of the property for more than 60 years; defendants are guilty of laches
o the following year, Roberto, together with several others, again - Defendants’ appeal was summarily dismissed for failure to pay
harvested sugarcane not only on Lot B, but also on Lot C, which by then docket fees within the required period; thus, only Xerxes Abadiano’s
had been acquired by Lolita Martir from her adoptive father, Amando appeal was entertained
Baares - CA: affirmed in toto RTC decision
- Xerxes argues:
o RTC and CA disregarded the primordial issue of whether or not Here, the spouses failed to establish that the offer in evidence of the
the Deed of Sale is a spurious document document was made in accordance with any of the exceptions allowed
o They were not guilty of laches under the abovequoted rule, and yet, the trial court accepted the
document as genuine and proceeded to determine its validity based on
Issue (1): such assumption.
w/n the deed of sale between Ramon and Victor Garde was spurious
Holding and Ratio: Re: On the notarial inscription being the same on the Deed of Partition
Yes. Spouses Martir only attached a photocopy of the Compra Y Venta and the Compra Y Venta:
to their complaint. According to Lolita, the original was in the office of
the Register of Deeds. They allegedly tried to obtain a copy from said The trial court likewise brushed aside the apparent defect that the
office but were refused. No other evidence but these bare assertions, document presented contained the same notarial inscription as the
however, was presented to prove that the original is indeed in the Agreement on Partition. Indeed, the Deed of Partition and the Compra
custody of the Register of Deeds or that respondents due and diligent Y Venta, though executed on different days, were notarized on the
search for the same was unsuccessful. same day, and both documents contained the signatures of the same
Under ROC 130.3: witnesses and the same notarial inscription.
Original document must be produced; exceptions. When the
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence While it is true that the error in the notarial inscription would not have
shall be admissible other than the original document itself, invalidated the sale if indeed it took place the same error would have
except in the following cases: meant that the document cannot be treated as a notarial document
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be and thus, not entitled to the presumption of regularity. The document
produced in court without bad faith on the part of the offeror; would be taken out of the realm of public documents whose
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of genuineness and due execution need not be proved.
the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter
fails to produce it after reasonable notice; Issue (2):
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other w/n the defendants were guilty of laches
documents which cannot be examined in court without great Holding and Ratio:
loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is No. Under the Property Registration Decree, no title to registered land
only the general result of the whole; in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a prescription or adverse possession. Indefeasibility and
public officer or is recorded in a public office. imprescriptibility are the cornerstones of land registration
Thus, when the original document is unavailable, has been lost or proceedings. Barring any mistake or use of fraud in the procurement
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of of the title, owners may rest secure on their ownership and possession
its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without once their title is registered under the protective mantle of the Torrens
bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital system.
of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order stated.
Nonetheless, even if a Torrens title is indefeasible and imprescriptible, his (the fathers) inheritance was in the possession of their uncle,
the registered landowner may lose his right to recover the possession Amando Baares who knew likewise that the property was theirs.
of his registered property by reason of laches. That petitioner and his co-heirs waited until the death of Amando
Laches has been defined as neglect or omission to assert a right, taken Baares to try and occupy the land is understandable. They had to be
in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing careful about the actions they took, lest they sow dissent within the
prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity. It is a family. Furthermore, they knew that their parents revered Amando.
delay in the assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another
because of the inequity founded on some change in the condition or OTHER FACTORS AGAINST LACHES:
relations of the property or parties. It is based on public policy which, - Lack of annotation of the deed of sale on the OCT or the
for the peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a stale reconstituted OCT
demand which otherwise could be a valid claim. - Even at the time of issuance of new TCT, not annotation of the
The four basic elements of laches are: (1) conduct on the part of the alleged 1922 sale to Victor Garde
defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation - Neither the spouses nor their predecessors-in-interest
of which complaint is made and for which the complaint seeks a participated in the proceedings involving the OCT, reconstituted OCT,
remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the or the TCT
complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendants - Compra Y Venta was only annotated on TCT in 1982
conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute suit; (3)
lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the
complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4)
injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to
the complainant or the suit is not held to be barred.
The reason for the rule is not simply the lapse of time during which the
neglect to enforce the right has existed, but the changes of condition
which may have arisen during the period in which there has been
neglect. In other words, where a court finds that the position of the
parties will change, that equitable relief cannot be afforded without
doing injustice, or that the intervening rights of third persons may be
destroyed or seriously impaired, it will not exert its equitable powers
in order to save one from the consequences of his own neglect.
Though laches applies even to imprescriptible actions, its elements
must be proved positively. Laches is evidentiary in nature and cannot
be established by mere allegations in the pleadings.
Xerxes had reasonable ground to believe that the property, being still
in the name of his predecessor in interest, continued to be theirs,
especially considering that the annotation of the purported sale was
done only in 1982. According to petitioner, his father had told him that
Edsa Shangri-La Hotel and Resort Inc. v. BF Corp. purpose the required Builders Work Summary, the monthly progress
When original document is in adverse party;s custody or control billings, including an evaluation of the work in accordance with the
Project Manager's Instructions (PMIs) and the detailed valuations
FACTS: contained in the Work Variation Orders (WVOs) for final re-
• Before us are these two (2) consolidated petitions for review measurement under the PMIs.
under Rule 45 to nullify certain issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA): • BF said that the values of the WVOs were contained in the
progress billings under the section "Change Orders".
1. In the first petition, docketed as G.R. No. 145842, petitioners Edsa • From May 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992, BF submitted a total of 19
Shangri-la Hotel and Resort, Inc. (ESHRI), assail the Decision of CA progress billings following the procedure agreed upon. Based on
affirming the Decision (RTC), that ordered them to pay jointly and Progress Billing Nos. 1 to 13, ESHRI paid BF PhP86,501,834.05.
severally respondent BF Corporation (BF) a sum of money with • According to BF, however, ESHRI, for Progress Billing Nos. 14 to
interests and damages 19, did not re-measure the work done, did not prepare the Progress
2. In the second petition, docketed as G.R. No. 145873, petitioner Payment Certificates, let alone remit payment for the inclusive periods
Cynthia Roxas-del Castillo also assails the aforementioned CA Decision covered. In this regard, BF claimed having been misled into working
it adjudged her jointly and severally liable with ESHRI, et al. to pay the continuously on the project by ESHRI which gave the assurance about
monetary award decreed in the RTC the Progress Payment Certificates already being processed.
• After several futile attempts to collect the unpaid billings, BF
• Both petitions stemmed from a construction contract filed before the RTC a suit for a sum of money and damages.
denominated as Agreement for the Execution of Builder's Work for the • In its defense, ESHRI claimed having overpaid BF for Progress
EDSA Shangri-la Hotel Project that ESHRI and BF executed for the Billing Nos. 1 to 13 and, by way of counterclaim with damages, asked
construction of the EDSA Shangri-la Hotel starting May 1, 1991. that BF be ordered to refund the excess payments. ESHRI also charged
• Among other things, the contract stipulated for the payment of BF with incurring delay and turning up with inferior work
the contract price on the basis of the work accomplished as described accomplishment.
in the monthly progress billings.
• Under this arrangement, BF shall submit a monthly progress The RTC found for BF
billing to ESHRI which would then re-measure the work accomplished
and prepare a Progress Payment Certificate for that month's progress • RTC, on the main finding that BF, as plaintiff a quo, is entitled
billing. to the payment of its claim covered by Progress Billing Nos. 14 to 19
• ESHRI laid out the collection procedure BF was to follow, to wit: and to the retention money corresponding to Progress Billing Nos. 1 to
(1) submission of the progress billing to ESHRI's Engineering 11, with interest in both instances, rendered judgment for BF.
Department; (2) following-up of the preparation of the Progress • ESHRI subsequently moved for reconsideration, but the motion
Payment Certificate with the Head of the Quantity Surveying was denied by the RTC, prompting ESHRI to appeal to the CA.
Department; and (3) following-up of the release of the payment with • Pending the resolution of CA-G.R. CV No. 57399, the following
one Evelyn San Pascual. events and/or incidents transpired:
• BF adhered to the procedures agreed upon in all its billings for (1)The trial court granted BF's motion for execution pending appeal.
the period from May 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992, submitting for the The account was garnished- 35 million
(2) CA a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the trial court from
carrying out its Order upon ESHRI's posting of a PhP1 million bond. In HELD: The petition has no merit.
a supplemental resolution issued on the same day, the CA issued a writ
of preliminary mandatory injunction directing the trial court judge Admissibility of Photocopies of Progress Billing Nos. 14 to 19, PMIs and
and/or his branch sheriff acting under him: WVOs
(a) to lift all the garnishments and levy made under the enjoined order • Petitioners fault the CA, and necessarily the trial court, on the
of execution pending appeal; (b) to immediately return the garnished matter of the admission in evidence of the photocopies of Progress
deposits to PNB instead of delivering the same to ESHRI; and (c) if the Billing Nos. 14 to 19 and the complementing PMIs and the WVOs.
garnished deposits have been delivered to BF, the latter shall return According to petitioners, BF, before being allowed to adduce in
the same to ESHRI's deposit account. evidence the photocopies adverted to, ought to have laid the basis for
the presentation of the photocopies as secondary evidence,
(3) By a Decision dated June 30, 1997 in CA-G.R. SP No. 43187, the CA conformably to the best evidence rule.
set aside the trial court's January 21, 1997 Order. The CA would later • Respondent BF, on the other hand, avers having complied with
deny BF's motion for reconsideration. the laying-the-basis requirement. Defending the action of the courts
below in admitting into evidence the photocopies of the documents
(4) Aggrieved, BF filed before this Court a petition for review of the CA aforementioned, BF explained that it could not present the original of
Decision , the Court affirmed the assailed decision of the CA with the the documents since they were in the possession of ESHRI which
modification that the recovery of ESHRI's garnished deposits shall be refused to hand them over to BF despite requests.
against BF's bond. • We agree with BF. The only actual rule that the term "best
evidence" denotes is the rule requiring that the original of a writing
We denied the motions for reconsideration of ESHRI and BF. must, as a general proposition, be produced and secondary evidence
of its contents is not admissible except where the original cannot be
(5) Forthwith, ESHRI filed, and the CA by Resolution of August 13, 1999 had. Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court enunciates the best
granted, an application for restitution or damages against BF's bond. evidence rule:
Consequently, BF and Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc., the bonding
company, filed separate motions for reconsideration. RULE 130 - SEC. 3.Original document must be produced; exceptions. —
On November 12, 1999, in CA-G.R. CV No. 57399, the CA rendered a When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
Decision resolving (1) the aforesaid motions of BF and its surety and (2) shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in
herein petitioners' appeal from the trial court's Decision dated the following cases:
September 23, 1996. AFFIRMED RTC. (a)When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; EaHcDS
ISSUE: (b)When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
Whether or not the [CA] committed grave abuse of discretion in against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
disregarding issues of law raised by petitioners in their appeal after reasonable notice;(Emphasis added.)
[particularly in admitting in evidence photocopies of Progress Billing Complementing the above provision is Sec. 6 of Rule 130, which reads:
Nos. 14 to 19, PMIs and WVOs].
SEC. 6.When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. (1) there is proof of the original document's execution or existence;
— If the document is in the custody or under control of the adverse (2) there is proof of the cause of the original document's unavailability;
party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and
and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the (3) the offeror is in good faith.
document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of loss.
When such party has the original of the writing and does not voluntarily
• Secondary evidence of the contents of a written instrument or offer to produce it or refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may be
document refers to evidence other than the original instrument or admitted.
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. The stenographic notes of the following exchanges
between Atty. Andres and Atty. Autea, counsel for BF and ESHRI,
respectively, reveal that BF had complied with the requirements:
IDScTE
• Four factual premises are readily deducible from the above
exchanges, to wit:

(1) the existence of the original documents which ESHRI had possession
of;
(2) a request was made on ESHRI to produce the documents;
(3) ESHRI was afforded sufficient time to produce them; and
(4) ESHRI was not inclined to produce them.

Clearly, the circumstances obtaining in this case fall under the

exception under Sec. 3 (b) of Rule 130. In other words, the conditions
sine qua non for the presentation and reception of the photocopies of
the original document as secondary evidence have been met.

These are: