cheldy's report

SANSON, et., al. v CA

Facts:

>Petitioner-Appellant Felicito G. Sanson (creditor), filed before RTC Iloilo City a special proceeding for settlement of the estate of Juan Bon Fing Sy claiming that the deceased was indebted to him P603,500.00 and his sister Celedonia P315,000.00

>Another Petioner-Appelant Eduardo Montinola Jr. and his mother-in-law Angeles a separate claim for P50,000.00 and P150,000.00 respectively.

>Melecia T. Sy, surviving spouse of the deceased who was appointed as administratrix of his estate objected its payment invoking the Dead Man's Statute.

> Sanson testified infavor of his sister Celedonia and presented 6 checks issued by the deceased before his death, which was dishonored as evidence, likewise Jade in support of his husband Montinola and her mother-in-law who presented 3 checks which was also dishonored on the ground that the account was closed.

ISSUES:

>Whether or not the evidence presented in the claims is inadmissible under the Dead Man's Statute.

>Whether or not the witnesses are credible and their testimonies are insuffecient to prove their claim.

RULING:

>Question I:

>Sec. 24 of the Negotiable Instrument Law: PRESUMPTION OF CONSIDERATION- Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable considerations, and evry person whose signature appears thereon to have become a party thereon.

>Sec. 22, Revise Rules on Evidence: HOW GENUINESS OF HANDWRTING PROVED- hand writing may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the hand writing of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acyed or been changed and has thus aquired knowledge of the hand writing of the person.

>In the case at bar, the administratrix invocation of the dead man's rule does not applies. The rule disqualifies witness if: 1. parties to the case, 2. Their assignor, 3. Person whose behalf a case is prosecuted. The witnesses althouh not included in the requisites but because they are commonly family members or relatives of the parties may be excluded due to apparent interest as a result to the parties, however, the independent testimonies of the witness will prosper on the basis of their docmentary evidence--"the checks" which the administratrix fail to controvert the said evidence for comparison.

>QUESTION II:

>Relationship to the party has never been recognized as an adverse factor determining either the credibility of the witness or subject only to well recognized exception. Closeness of relationship to a party, or bias, may indicate the need for a little more caution in the assissment of a witness' testimony but is not necessarily a negative element which would be taken as diminishing the credit accorded to it.

>The administratrix did not deny the testemonies of the witness nor present any evidence to controvert neither did she deny the execution and genuiness of the checks.. [cheldhaye]

SECURITY BANK          

& TRUST COMPANY V CA

FACTS:

>Petitioner Security Bank and Trust Company filed a case for collection of sum of money with a 12% interest to Respondent Eric Gan who allegedly have a special agreement through the manager Mr. Qui upon the "debit memo" transaction.

>Gan opened an account with the said bank which allows him to draw checks and can transfer funds from his account to another person's account in the said bank.

>Gan purportedly incurred overdraft in his account amounting to P297,060.01 with interest which he denied, contending that such overdraft transacrion is without his knowlwdge.

ISSUES:

>Whether or not the ledger presented by the petitioner as evidence are considered a hearsay evidence rather than the best evidence of the transaction.

RULING:

>Hearsay Rule requisites: 1. absence of cross-examination, 2. absence of demeanor evidence and 3. absence of the oath. One of the EXCEPTION is the Admission in evidence of entries in corporate book in following conditions-

1. the person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify.

2. the entries were made at or nearby at the time of the transaction to which they refer.

3. entrant was in position to know the facts stated in the entries.

4. entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty whether legal, contractual, moral or religious.

5. entries were made in the ordinary course of business or duty.

>In the case at bar, the ledger entries did not meet the 1st and 3rd requisites. The plaintiff failed to explain why it did not or could not present any party or witness to the transactions in the person of BM Qui, who is the best person to testify, but even if it had a reason why it could not, it is clear that the existence of the agreements cannot be established through the testimony of the petitioner's bookkeeper Mr. Mercado for he was not in the position to know those facts entried and had no personal knowledge of the truth and falsity of the facts constiruting the entries particularly those entries which resulted in the negative balance or overdraft. Thus, the testimonies of person having no personal knowledge thereof constitute a hearsay evidence and is not sufficient to stand in the case. [cheldhaye]

D.M. CONSUNJI INC. v CA

FACTS:

>Petitioner Maria (widow of the deceased Jose Juego) filed a case for damages against the employer D.M. Consunji Inc.

>The deceased Jose Juego was a construction worker of said company who fell from the 14th floor of the Renaisance Tower; was brought to Rizal Medical Center and was declared DOA.

>PO3 Rogelio Villanueva of Eastern Police District investigated the tragedy and filed report, stating that: the deceased was with Jessie Jaluag and Delso Destajo performing their work as carpenters at the elavator core of the 14th floor of the Tower when he fell down which caused his death. The finding of the cause of death was the falling of the platform due to the removal or getting loose of the pin which merely inserted to the connecting points of the chain block and the platform but without safety lock.

>PO3 Villanueva who signed the report in question testified before the trial court; Major Enriquez also testified and was available fr cross-examination.

>RTC rendered decision infavor of the petitioner; the company filed an appeal to CA but affirmed in toto thus filed another appeal for resersal of decision stating that the police blotter and applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is inadmissible as evidence of the alleged negligence of the company.

ISSUES:

> Whether or not a police blotter is admissible as evidence and issufficient enough to stand the case.

>Whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies to win the case.

RULING:

>QUESTION I:

>CA ruled that the said report, being an entry in official records, is an exception to a hearsay rule. Court provides that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a dutybenjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. To be admissible it should meet the following requisites: 1. that rhe entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially ejoinednby law to do so, 2. that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty especially enjoined by law and 3. that rhe public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information.

>In the case at bar, the police reports meets all the requisites. The court note that PO3 Villanueva who signed the report in question also testifies before the court; Major Enriquez himself took the witness stand and made available for cross-examination of the portion which he has personal knowledge which is considered as an independent relevanr statements which were gathered in the course of the investigation.

>The report proved that certain utterance were made was effectively removed from the ambit of Sec. 44 of Rule 130. Properly understood this section does away with the testimony in open court of the officer who made the official record, considers the matter as an exception to the hearsay rule and makes the entries in the said official record admissible in evidence as prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

>QUESTION II:

>CA held that res ipsa loquitor requisites: 1. the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent, 2. the instrumentaliy or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence, 3. the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured are all present in the case at bar.

>There is no dispute that the appellee's husband fell down from rhe 14th floor of a building to the basement while he was working with appellant's construction project, resulting to his death. The construction site is within the exclusive control and management of appellant. It has the engineer, a project superentindent, a carpenter leadman and others who are in complete control of the situation therein.

>The circumstances of any accident that would occur therein are peculiar within the knowledge of the appellant or its employee. No worker is going to fall from the 14th floor of a building to the basement while performing work in a construction site unless someone is negligent.

>The negligence is presumed or inferred when the requistes is established. It is the burden of the defendant to explain or prove its defense to prevent the presumption or inferrence arising. cheldhaye]