G.R. No.

136914 January 25, 2002

COUNTRY BANKERS NSURANCE COR!ORATON, petitioner,
vs.
"ANGA BAY AN# CO$$UNTY $U"T%!UR!OSE COO!ERAT&E, NC.,
respondent.
'ACTS( The petitioner is a domestic corporation principally engaged in the insurance
business while the respondent is a duly registered cooperative judicially declared
insolvent and represented by the elected assignee, Cornelio Jamero.
Sometime in 1989, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a contract o ire
insurance wherein the petitioner insured the respondent!s stoc"s#in#trade against ire
loss, damage or liability rom June $%, 1989, &'( to June $%, 199%, &'(, or
'$%%,%%%.%%.
)n July 1, 1989, at or about 1$*&% a.m., the respondent!s building located at +arangay
,iatagon, -ianga, Surigao del Sur was gutted by ire and reduced to ashes, resulting in
the total loss o the respondent!s stoc"s#in#trade, pieces o urnitures and i.tures,
e/uipments and records.
,ue to the loss, the respondent iled an insurance claim with the petitioner under its 0ire
1nsurance 'olicy 2o. 0#1394, submitting* 5a6 the Spot 7eport o 'c. 8rturo 9. Juarbal,
12' 1nvestigator, dated July 1, 1989: 5b6 the Sworn Statement o Jose -omocso: and 5c6
the Sworn Statement o ;rnesto <rbi=tondo.
The petitioner relied on the Sworn Statements o Jose -omocso and ;rnesto <rbi=tondo
as well as the Spot 7eport o 'c. 8rturo 9. Juarbal dated July 1, 1989, more particularly
the ollowing statement therein*
... investigation revealed by Jose -omocso that those armed men wanted to get can
goods and rice or their consumption in the orest ', investigation urther disclosed that
the perpetrator are member 5sic6 o the 2'8 ', end> ...
0rom such report, petitioner denied the claim as such loss was an e.cepted ris" under
paragraph 2o. ? o the policy conditions 5mutiny, riot, military or popular uprising,
insurrection, rebellion, revolution, military or usurped power6.
SSUE( @)2 the C8 ailed to appreciate and give credence to the Spot 7eport o 'c.
8rturo Juarbal and the Sworn statement o Jose -omocso.
RU"NG( 2). 8 witness can testiy only to those acts which he "nows o his personal
"nowledge, which means those acts which are derived rom his perception.
Conse/uently, a witness may not testiy as to what he merely learned rom others either
because he was told or read or heard the same. Such testimony is considered hearsay
and may not be received as proo o the truth o what he has learned. Such is the
hearsay rule which applies not only to oral testimony or statements but also to written
evidence as well.
The hearsay rule is based upon serious concerns about the trustworthiness and
reliability o hearsay evidence inasmuch as such evidence are not given under oath or
solemn airmation and, more importantly, have not been subjected to cross#
e.amination by opposing counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity and
articulateness o the out#o#court declarant or actor upon whose reliability on which the
worth o the out#o#court statement depends.
Thus, the Sworn Statements o Jose -omocso and ;rnesto <rbi=tondo are inadmissible
in evidence, or being hearsay, inasmuch as they did not ta"e the witness stand and
could not thereore be cross#e.amined.
There are e.ceptions to the hearsay rule, among which are entries in oicial records. To
be admissible in evidence, however, three 536 re/uisites must concur, to wit*
5a6 that the entry was made by a public oicer, or by another person specially enjoined
by law to do so:
5b6 that it was made by the public oicer in the perormance o his duties, or by such
other person in the perormance o a duty specially enjoined by law: and
5c6 that the public oicer or other person had suicient "nowledge o the acts by him
stated, which must have been ac/uired by him personally or through oicial inormation.
The third re/uisite was not met in this case since no investigation, independent o the
statements gathered rom Jose -omocso, was conducted by 'c. 8rturo 9. Juarbal. 1n
act, as the petitioner itsel pointed out, citing the testimony o 'c. 8rturo Juarbal, the
latter!s Spot 7eport Awas based on the personal knowledge of the caretaker Jose
Lomocso who witnessed every single incident surrounding the facts and circumstances
of the case.A This argument undeniably wea"ens the petitioner!s deense, or the Spot
7eport o 'c. 8rturo Juarbal relative to the statement o Jose -omocso to the eect that
2'8 rebels allegedly set ire to the respondent!s building is inadmissible in evidence, or
the purpose o proving the truth o the statements contained in the said report, or being
hearsay.
The said Spot 7eport is admissible only insoar as it constitutes part o the testimony o
'c. 8rturo 9. Juarbal since he himsel too" the witness stand and was available or
cross#e.amination. The portions o his Spot 7eport which were o his personal
"nowledge or which consisted o his perceptions and conclusions are not hearsay. The
rest o the said report relative to the statement o Jose -omocso may be considered as
independently relevant statements gathered in the course o Juarbal!s investigation and
may be admitted as such but not necessarily to prove the truth thereo.
The petitioner!s evidence to prove its deense is sadly wanting and thus, gives rise to its
liability to the respondent under 0ire 1nsurance 'olicy 2o. 0#1394. 2onetheless, we do
not sustain the trial court!s imposition o twelve percent 51$B6 interest on the insurance
claim as well as the monetary award or actual and e.emplary damages, litigation
e.penses and attorney!s ees or lac" o legal and valid basis.