University of the Philippines College of Law

Topic Proof of private documents

Case No. G.R. No. 138084 / April 10, 2002
Case Name Malayan Insurance v. Philippine Nails and Wires
Ponente Quisumbing, J.
Digester MSI / Group 3

Quick Facts
Cause of Action Complaint for sum of money
(Complaint/ Information)
Evidence in Question Documentary evidence – summary of received steel
billets presented by PNWC
How was it raised to the SC? Review of CA decision
Trial Court Decision In favor of PNWC
Supreme Court Decisions In favor of Malayan

SUMMARY

RELEVANT FACTS
 Respondent Philippine Nails and Wires Corp. insured against all risks its shipment of steel billets (10k
metric tons valued at P67Mn) with petitioner Malayan Insurance Co. Inc.
 The shipment delivered was short by 377.168 metric tons.
 PNWC claimed insurance for the shortage (valued at P2.7Mn) but Malayan refused to pay.
 PNWC then filed a complaint for sum of money against Malayan.
 Malayan then moved to dismiss the said complaint on the basis that there was no cause of action and that it
was filed in the wrong venue. The motion was denied. An amended complaint was filed.
 On November 4, 1993, PNWC moved to declare petitioner in default.
 The RTC granted the motion and allowed the presentation of evidence ex parte before the clerk of court.
 PNWC presented its lone witness, Jeanne King. She presented a summary of the received steel billets, as
support to the shortage of the delivery.
 The RTC decided in favor of PNWC.
 On appeal to the CA, Malayan argued that the RTC erred in awarding damages to PNWC based on
unauthenticated documentary evidence and hearsay. The RTC allegedly also admitted evidence which is
irregular in nature and not in accordance with the Rules of Court.
 The CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. It held that Jeanne King was a competent witness because she
personally prepared the documentary evidence and had personal knowledge of the allegations in the
complaint.

ISSUE/S
 W/N PNWC should have authenticated the documentary evidence it submitted at the trial court
 W/N Jeanne King’s testimony was hearsay (for additional info)

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio

W/N PNWC should have
authenticated the
documentary evidence it
submitted at the trial court
W/N Jeanne King’s testimony
was hearsay (for additional
info)
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 30, 1998 and its
resolution on March 25, 1999 in CA-G.R. CV No. 45547 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, Civil
Case No. 63445 is hereby ordered DISMISSED., …
University of the Philippines College of Law
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.
 Section 20 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, PNWC’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. Consequently, they cannot be utilized to
prove less of the insured cargo and/or the short delivery of the imported
steel billets.
YES
 PNWC’s cause of action is founded on breach of insurance contract
covering cargo consisting of imported steel billets. To hold petitioner
liable, respondent has to prove, first, its importation of 10k metric tons
of steel billets valued at P67Mn, and second, the actual steel billets
delivered to and received by the importer, namely the respondent.
Witness Jeanne King, who was assigned to handle respondent’s
importations, including their insurance coverage, has personal
knowledge of the volume of steel billets being imported, and therefore
competent to testify thereon. Her testimony is not hearsay, as this
doctrine is defined in Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
 However, she is not qualified to testify on the shortage in the delivery
of the imported steel billets. She did not have personal knowledge of the
actual steel billets received. Even though she prepared the summary of
the received steel billets, she based the summary only on the receipts
prepared by other persons. Her testimony on steel billets received was
hearsay. It has no probative value even if not objected to at the trial.
RULING
SEPARATE OPINIONS
NOTES