franz sy

IBM PHILIPPINES VS NLRC            G.R. NO. 117221  April 13, 1999

FACTS:

            Private Respondent filed a complaint before the Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for an illegal dismissal by herein petitioner, private respondent claimed that he was not given the opportunity to be heard and was summarily dismissed. Petitioner contend that he was given a chance or warning to improve his attitude toward attendance but never did, and was duly informed thru emails, it also pointed out that as an employee of IBM they are assigned ID’s and passwords, employees may also respond/reply thru email by encoding his message-response and admits also that the system automatically records the time and date of each message was sent or received including the identification of the sender and the receiver thereof. Petitioner attached to its position papers copies of print-outs which allegedly contains computer message/entries sent by petitioner to private respondent thru IBM’s internal computer system. Through this computer print-outs petitioner sought to prove that private respondent was sufficiently notified of the charges and was guilty thereof for failure to deny the same. Prior to the release of the labor arbiter’s decision private respondent filed a “Motion to admit attached new evidence for the complainant”. The Labor arbiter’s decision upheld the print-out attached by petitioner as evidence and promulgated a resolution ordering petitioner to pay private respondent salary from June 1 to August 31, 1990 excluding all benefits. Aggrieved with the decision private respondent appealed to the NLRC which ordered reinstatement to complainant to its former position with his seniority rights, backwages from August 31, 1990 in the amount of P40, 516, 65 a month including all its benefits and bonuses. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

            Did NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that no just cause or due process was observed in dismissing private respondent because computer print-outs are inadmissible in evidence?

RULING:

            Petitioner contend that in administrative /labor cases the technical rules on evidence are not binding hence, the computer print-outs need not be identified nor authenticated, same reason why private respondent was allowed to submit additional evidences even after the case was deemed submitted for resolution. However, the liberality of procedure in administrative actions is subject to limitations imposed by basic requirements of due process; this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidenciary rules. The evidence presented before us must be at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value. The computer print-outs, which constitute only evidence of petitioners, afford no assurance of their authenticity since they are unsigned. The liberal view in the conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies, have nonetheless consistently required some PROOF OF AUTHENTICITY OR RELIABILITY as condition for the admission of documents. The procedural technicality and concerns are more paramount principles and requirements of due process, which may not be sacrificed to speed or expediency, Article 22 of the Labor Code which states that “…DUE PROCESS MUST NEVER BE SUBORDINATED TO EXPEDIENCY OR DISPATCH”

ILAO-QUIANAY VS RODOLFO MAPILE  G.R. NO. 154087  October 25, 2005

FACTS:

            Subject of the case was a parcel of land owned by the deceased Simplicio Ilao, in a judicial settlement of Ilao’s estate, the heirs found an adverse claim annotated at the back of TCT no. 48529 claimed by certain Juanito Ibarra. Respondent filed a motion to exclude property from inventory on ground that it does not form part of Ilao’s estate having disposed of during lifetime. Petitioner’s filed a case for quieting of title and damages before the RTC of Manila. Relevantly, Ibarra filed a petition for issuance of new owner’s duplicate copy of subject property on the ground that it was lost by fire. Respondent filed a case for specific performance and declaring a nullity of Contract claiming that claim of Ibarra over the property was sold to him. Trial Court rendered decision upholding the validity of the notarized Deed of Sale due to the conflicting testimonies of the two handwriting experts. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was countered by an Omnibus Motion to strike out Motion for reconsideration of petitioners being pro forma and seek a writ of execution, the latter was upheld and the former was denied hence, they appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial courts decision and stated that the appellate court does not take cognizance of cases based on question of fact but only law via this petition for review hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:

            Is the testimony of an expert witness has more weight in presentation of evidence over the discretion of court with due regard on evidenciary matters presented?

RULING:

            Question on whether Ilao’s signature in the Deed of Sale was a forgery is a question of fact which requires appraisal and re-evaluation of the evidence presented by parties. Such procedure is beyond the court’s dominion because factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals are binding on the Supreme Court but admits certain exceptions found under the 1997 revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

            Experts are presented to enlighten NOT CONFUSE the courts and for this reason, We do not fault the lower court for disregarding, in its exasperation, their testimony on record, on doubt, relying on the leeway extended to all courts that they “are not bound to submit their findings necessarily to such testimony; they are FREE to weigh them and they can give or REFUSE to give them any value as proof”. Courts are not bound by expert testimonies. The problem of evaluation of expert testimony is left to the sound discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an ABUSE OF THAT DISCRETION. The validity of the deed of sale should, therefore, be recognized, the only opposition thereto being the alleged forgery of Ilao’s signature which was not satisfactorily demonstrated. There is no doubt that the deed of sale was duly acknowledged before a notary public and it enjoys presumption of regularity and carries the evidenciary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution.

HEIRS OF PEDRO CLEMEÑA Y ZURBANO VS HEIRS OF IRENE BIEN

G.R. NO. 155508     September 11, 2006

FACTS:

            Petitioner filed a case before the RTC which they claim ownership over a land. Defendants was long before been terminated as administrator to the estate of Pedro Clemeña y Conde who deliberately continued to occupy and usurp possession and use of the disputed land and refused to relinquish possession of the same to the lawful owner thereof. But defendants claim that they are In exclusive possession over the disputed land and his claim of ownership was based on sale by estate of late Pedro Clemeña y Conde to his predecessor-in-interest. RTC ruled declaring petitioners absolute owners of the land and directing respondents to respect petitioners’ possession but later the RTC reconsidered its decision and found that contending parties failed to prove their respective claims of ownership and therefore the land in question still belongs to the original owner, the estate of the late Pedro Clemeña y Conde. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the RTC’s resolution of the issue relating to the two (2) parcel of land but reversed the ruling on ownership of land and proceeded to award respondents P118,000 as compensatory damages of their deprived shares of possession in the harvest based on the testimony of Gregorio Clemeña hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

            Is the evidence relied upon by the Court of Appeals to determine award of damages self-serving and not proper basis for such award?

RULING:

            Petitioners’ proposition that Gregorio Clemeña’s testimony was self-serving and not proper basis for the award of damages is just unworthy of the Court’s consideration. Self-serving evidence is not a weapon to devalue and discredit a party’s testimony favorable to his cause. Self-serving evidence is not to be taken literally to mean any evidence that serves it proponent’s interest, the term refers only to acts or declarations made by party in his own interest at some place and time out of court, and it does not include testimony that he gives as a witness in court, also refers to the lack of opportunity for cross-examination by the adverse party and on the consideration that it admission would open the door to fraud and fabrication. At any rate, for all their protestations against the use of Gregorio Clemeña’s testimony, petitioner never once alleged, much less tried to show, that his testimony was inaccurate or untrue. Petitioners’ objection is founded solely on the mere fact the he, being a plaintiff, was a witness interested in the outcome of the case. The party’s interest may to some extent affect his credibility as witness. The court cannot subscribe to the view, implicit to petitioners’ argument, that a party’s testimony favorable to himself must be disregarded on account solely of his interest in the case. As held in National Development Company v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, that interest alone is not a ground for disregarding a party’s testimony, the interest of witness cannot ipso facto deprive his testimony probative force or require it to be disregarded, and the trier of facts is entitled to accept as much of the witness’ testimony as he finds credible the reject the rest. The award of damages stands.