Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Phil. Nails and Wires Corp.

G.R. No.138084  April 10, 2002

Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Phil. Nails and Wires Corp.

FACTS:

Respondent Philippine Nails and Wires Corp. insured against all risks its shipment of steel billets with petitioner Malayan Insurance Co. Inc. The shipment delivered was short by 377.168 metric tons. Respondent claimed insurance for the shortage but petitioner refused to pay. The respondent then filed a complaint against petitioner. Petitioner moved to dismiss the said complaint but it was denied. An amended complaint was filed. On November 4, 1993, respondent moved to declare petitioner in default. The trial court granted the motion and allowed the presentation of evidence ex parte.

ISSUE:

                Should respondent authenticate the documentary evidence it submitted at the trial court?

Ruling:

                Yes. Under the rules on evidence, documents are either public or private. Private documents are those that do not fall under any of the enumerations in Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.⁸ Section 20⁹ of the same law, in turn, provides that before any private document is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Here, respondent's documentary exhibits are private documents. They are not among those enumerated in Section 19, thus, their due execution and authenticity need to be proved before they can be admitted in evidence. With the exception concerning the summary of the weight of the steel billets imported, respondent presented no supporting evidence concerning their authenticity.¹⁰ Consequently, they cannot be utilized to prove less of the insured cargo and/or the short delivery of the imported steel billets.