You are on page 1of 9

MCC Industrial Sales vs.

Ssanyong Corporation

MCC is engaged in the business of importing and


wholesaling stainless steel products in Manila.

Ssangyong, an international company with head office


in Seoul, South Korea and regional headquarters in
Makati City, is one of the suppliers of MCC.

MCC and Ssangyong conducted business through


telephone calls and facsimile or telecopy
transmissions.

Ssangyong would send the pro forma invoices


containing the details of the steel product order to
MCC; if MCC conforms thereto, its representative
affixes his signature on the faxed copy and sends it
back to Ssangyong, again by fax.

9-11-2000, following the failure of MCC to open a L/C


to facilitate the payment of imported stainless steel
products, Ssangyong wrote a letter to MCC, canceling
the sales contract under ST2-POSTS0401-1 /ST2POSTS0401-2, and demanding payment of US$97K
representing losses, warehousing expenses, interests
and charges.

11-16-2001, Ssangyong filed suit for damages due to


breach of contract against MCC. Ssangyong alleged
that MCC breached their contract when they refused to
open the L/C in the amount of US$170K for the
remaining 100MT of steel under Pro Forma Invoice
Nos. ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2.
These 2 pro forma invoices, which were fax
transmitted, were presented as evidence against
MCC.

MCC filed a Demurrer to Evidence alleging that


Ssangyong failed to present the original copies of
the pro forma invoices on which the suit was based.

TC: denied the Demurrer to Evidence, ruling that the


documentary evidence presented had already been
admitted and their admissibility was supported in R.A.
8792 or Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. Ordered
MCC to pay Ssangyong the actual damages.
FAVORED SSANGYONG
According to the aforesaid Order, considering that both
testimonial and documentary evidence (fax transmitted
pro forma invoice) tended to substantiate the material
allegations in the complaint, Ssangyong's evidence
sufficed for purposes of a prima facie case.

MCC appealed in the CA, contending that the TC erred


in admitting in evidence the pro forma invoices with
reference nos. ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2POSTS0401-2.

CA: affirmed RTCs decision,


pro forma invoices ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2POSTS0401-2 were admissible in evidence, although
they were mere facsimile printouts of MCCs steel
order. Ordered MCC to pay Ssangyong the actual
damages. FAVORED SSANGYONG

MCC filed PFR on certiorari, imputing that the CA


erred in sustaining the admissibility of the 2 pro forma
invoices despite the fact that they were mere
photocopies of facsimilie printouts.

Issue:
W/n the print-out and/or photocopies of
facsimile transmissions are electronic evidence and
admissible in evidence.

Held:
No.
R.A. No. 8792, otherwise known as the
Electronic Commerce Act of 2000,
considers an electronic data message or
an electronic document as the functional
equivalent of a written document for
evidentiary purposes. The Rules on
Electronic Evidence regards an electronic
document as admissible in evidence if it
complies with the rules on admissibility
prescribed by the Rules of Court and
related laws, and is authenticated in the
manner prescribed by the said Rules. An
electronic document is also the equivalent
of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule, if it is a printout or output
readable by sight or other means, shown to
reflect the data accurately.
Thus, to be admissible in evidence as an
electronic data message or to be
considered as the functional equivalent of
an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule, the writing must foremost
be an "electronic data message" or an
"electronic document."
Since a facsimile transmission is not an
"electronic data message" or an "electronic
document," and cannot be considered as
electronic evidence by the Court, with
greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax
transmission not electronic evidence.
o
In the present case, therefore,
Pro Forma Invoice Nos. ST2POSTS0401-1 and ST2POSTS0401-2 (Exhibits "E"
and "F"), which are mere
photocopies of the original fax
transmittals, are not electronic
evidence, contrary to the
position of both the trial and the
appellate courts.
SC: claim for actual damages was not proven, petition
partially granted, the 2 pro forma invoices were
inadmissible in evidence.
Electronic data message/Electronic document there is no original copy to speak of, as all direct
printouts of the virtual reality are the same, in all
respects, and are considered as originals AND could
NOT have included facsimile transmissions, which
have an original paper-based copy as sent and a
paper-based facsimile copy as received.

the evidence is offered or proved to


be genuine to the satisfaction of the
judge.

Reva Raz (his) vs. IAC and Encarnacion Villanueva


(her)

08-07-1972, by virtue of Conditional Agreement,


Villanueva (assignor) transferred all her rights
and interest over a Foreclosure Judgment (rendered
on 1969)
to Raz (assignee) in consideration of P75k.

2.
3.

Raz will pay Villanueva:


1.
22k upon signing of the CA;
20k within one year from Aug. 7, 1972; and
33k within the following year, due on 1974

Raz paid the first and second installment,


however, she refused to the third installment
on the ground that Villanueva
had not complied with her obligation under the CA

SC have made such comparison and found


that the signature of Villanueva on the
Conditional Assignment is similar to the
signatures affixed to the two letters sent to
the petitioner.
There is no doubt that the agreement and
the two letters were signed by Villanueva.
Consequently, their authenticity and
execution having been established, SC
hold that the letters were admissible as
evidence against Raz.
SC was also convinced that the 2 letters
were correctly sent to and personally
delivered at Razs address as stated in the
Conditional Assignment, were actually
received there and later presumably
conveyed to her.

SC: petition DENIED, rescission is proper, affirmed


LCs decision. Favored Villanueva

Raz filed a complaint for specific performance


against Villanueva that she failed to deliver to her
the property in accordance with their agreement

Villanueva, answered that Raz was the one


who defaulted on her payment thus for rescission

To support Villanuevas claim,


she presented 2 letters, which she had sent to Raz:
(dated April and May 1975)
(first letter) reminding her third payment had not yet
been paid and (second letter) to tender her the refund
of her earlier payments

TC & CA: granted the rescission, favoring Villanueva

Raz contended that it was Villanueva


who had incurred in delay and bad faith and
claiming that the 2 letters allegedly sent to him
by Villanueva should not have been admitted in
evidence
not only because there was no proof
that Reva had received the letters,
its genuineness had not been established.
Thus, the rescission of the agreement was improper.

Issue:
W/n the 2 letters sent by Villanueva were
admissible as evidence against Raz.

Held:

Yes.
Rule 132, Section 21, for one of the modes
prescribed therein for proving the execution
and authenticity of any private writing is
by evidence of the genuineness of
the handwriting of the maker.

This mode must be read with Section 23 of


the same Rule, which says that
Evidence respecting the handwriting
may also be given by a comparison,
made by the witness or the court,
with writings admitted or treated as
genuine by the party against whom

documentary evidence presented were


never proved as provided by Sec. 20, Rule
132.
o And the prosecution took no
effort to prove its due execution
and authenticity.

Ong vs. People and CA

Solid Cement Corp (SCC) failed to deliver


the paper bag-making machine sold to Alfonso

Hence,
the
documentary
evidence
presented by Alfonso were not admissible
in evidence.

SCC offered to return the money to Alfonso

SC: Petition granted, judgment reversed! Favored


Ong.
Alfonso refused and she filed information of estafa
against Ong, et. al (involved in the sale)

Prosecution presented Alfonso as its sole witness


and offered 10 documentary evidence (invoices
and gate passes), which were all photocopies, and
rested its case

Ong et. al objected to the admission of the


10 documentary evidence because they were
only unauthenticated photocopies of the originals
Ong, et. al filed Demurrer to Evidence

MTC: denied the demurrer giving merits to the


documentary evidence favored Alfonso

RTC: No cause to hold Ong, et. al favored Ong


CA: RTCs decision was set aside favored Alfonso

Issue:
W/n

the

prosecutions

evidence

be

admissible.

Held:
No.
All documentary evidence submitted by
Alfonso were uncertified photocopies of
certain documents, the signatures on which
were either unidentified or unauthorized.
Sec. 20, Rule 132:
Before any private document offered be
admitted 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

In the case, the presented documentary


evidence
were
unauthenticated
photocopies
(private
documents

executed by private persons SCC and


Alfonso) of the original copies, before it will
be admitted as evidence, proof of its
execution, genuineness and authenticity
must be established first either by:
(mention 1 and 2)
Basing from Alfonsos testimony, the due
execution and authenticity of the 10


Layno vs. People and Sandiganbayan

Layno was the incumbent Mayor of Lianga, Surigao

Layno appointed his legitimate son as the meat


inspector
in the office of the municipal treasurer of Lianga

Layno signed the appointment document certifying


that:
- all the required papers have been complied with;
- Layno certifies that he is not related to the appointee

Second sentence of Section 22, Rule 132


states that:
Evidence
respecting
the handwriting may also be given by
a comparison, made by the witness
or court, with writings admitted or
treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is
offered, or proved to be genuine to
the satisfaction of the judge.

In the case, SB compared the signature on


the certification with the signatures of
Layno on documents filed with the court,
and which were proved to be genuine.

Hence, the private documents involved in


the case were duly authenticated thru the
competent testimony of Mr. Pandi and by
the comparison made by SB.

SC: Layno is guilty of falsification of public document.

The appointment paper was forwarded to CSC and


after 3 days, the appointment was approved

The appointee (son), however, neither assumed


the position nor collected the salary corresponding to it

Thereafter, Layno was charged before the


Sandiganbayan with the crime of falsification of public
document

SB: Layno is guilty of falsification of public document


Basis: From the testimony of Mr. Pandi that the
signature in the certificate was the signature of Layno
and was confirmed by a comparison made in the SB

Layno appealed by interposing that SB did not give


weight to his defense that he did not sign the
certification in question

Issue:
W/n the testimony of Mr. Pandi was
sufficient to prove the genuineness of the signature of
Layno in Appointment Document, hence, admissible in
evidence against Layno. OR
W/n Layno signed the appoinment
document presented as evidence in SB.

Held:

Both Yes.

Under Sec. 22, Rule 132, it states that:


The handwriting of a person may be
proved by any witness who believes it to
be the handwriting of such person
because he has seen the person write, or
he has seen writing purporting to be
his upon which the witness has acted
or been charged, and has thus acquired
knowledge of the handwriting of such
person.

In the case, Mr. Pandi was competent to


testify on the signature on the certification
because in the course of his employment
as municipal secretary in Lianga, he had
seen records under his charge bearing the
long and short signatures of Layno, and
such he acquired knowledge of the general
character of the handwriting of Layno.

Jacob vs. CA and Cruz

Cruz sued Jacob for recovery of possession and


ownership of a parcel of land

Jacob claimed that the subject lot was sold by:


Bobiles to Cabida (as evidenced by Escritura de
Venta Con Pacto de Retro in 1933)

Then sold by Cabida to Bonto

Bonto executed DOAS in favor of Burce

prove its execution


and authenticity.
The CA should not
disregarded
the
Escritura
as
evidence
against
Cruz.

However, given that the Escritura was


regarded giving Jacob a right to the
property, Jacob slept on that right until they
forfeited it by their inaction.
Escritura cannot prevail against the TCT
issued in favor of Cruz, who remained and
are recognized as the registered owners of
the disputed lot.
o
That the TCT is good as
against the whole world.

SC; petition denied. Favored Cruz


Burce then turned over the subject lot to her niece
Jacob

Meanwhile, the OCT of the subject lot was cancelled


and TCT was issued in favor of Cruz

Now, Cruz demanded verbally that Jacob should


vacate the subject lot, Jacob refused

Cruz sued Jacob for recovery of possession and


ownership of a parcel of land

TC: favored Jacob, to be in lawful possession


CA: favored Cruz

Jacob, appealed contending that CA erred in


disregarding the Escritura de Venta Con Pacto de
Retro (Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase)

Issue:
W/n not the CA erred in disregarding the
Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase.

Held:

Yes.
Under Section 21, Rule 132, it states that:
Where
a
private
document is more than 30 years old,
is produced from the custody in
which it would naturally be found if
genuine, and is unblemished by any
alterations or circumstances of
suspicions, no other evidence of its
authenticity need be given.

In the case, the Escirtura complied with the


requisites laid down by the above stated
rule.
o
It was more than 51 years old;
o
It was produced by the proper
custodians thereof where the
heirs of the person who would
validly keep it; AND
o
There is no question it was
unblemished by any alterations,
suspicions or erasures

Therefore, it was
unnecessary
to

Security Bank vs. Triumph Lumber Corporation

Triumph Lumber is a depositor in good standing of


Security Bank

Triumph claims that 3 checks all payable to cash and


were all drawn against Triumphs account

Triumph claims that due to the Banks gross


negligence, the 3 checks were encashed by
UNAUTHORIZED PERSON

Triumph requested the Bank to credit back the full


amount of the said 3 checks

Bank failed to comply

The handwriting of a person may be


proved by any witness who believes
it to be the handwriting of such
person because he has seen the
person write, or has seen writing
purporting to be his upon which the
witness has acted or been charged,
and has thus acquired knowledge of
the handwriting of such person.
Evidence respecting the handwriting
may also be given by a
comparison, made by the witness
or the court, with writings admitted or
treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is
offered, or proved to be genuine to
the satisfaction of the judge.

In the case, since the original checks were


not presented in the court (only the
photocopies) containing the alleged
signatures. Nobody was presented to
prove that the specimen signatures were in
fact signatures affixed by the authorized
signatories.
o
Clearly, Section 22, Rule 132
were not complied with.
SC: Petition granted, reversed judgment. Favored the
Bank.

Triumph claims that the signatories of the 3 checks


were FORGED according to the Document Examiners
(PC Crime Laboratory), however, the originals of the
checks were NEVER presented in court

TC: dismissed the case, favored the Bank


CA: Reversed, favored Triumph

On appeal, the Bank contended that the Triumphs


expert witness has no weight because what she used
for comparisons were signatures that were NOT even
authenticated by such signatories.

Issue:
W/n the Document Examiners expert
testimony was sufficient to prove the alleged forgery.

Held:
No.
Expert testimony regarding handwriting The initial step in the investigation of a
disputed handwriting is the introduction of
the genuine handwriting of the party sought
to be charged with the disputed writing
this is to serve as a standard of
comparison.
o
In the case, the originals of the
alleged forged checks had to
be produced, since it was
NEVER shown. What the
private respondent offered were
mere photocopies of the checks
in question. It never explained
the reason why it could not
produce the originals of the
checks.
o
Hence, no basis or no standard
of comparison.
o
The testimony of the expert
witness in the case was
insufficient because of want of
standard of comparison.
In proving genuineness of handwriting
Section 22, Rule 132 must be applied.

Filipina Sy vs. CA and Fernando Sy

This is a case for declaration of absolute nullity of


marriage of the spouses Filipina Sy and Fernando Sy.

1973, Filipina and Fernando contracted marriage. Both


were then 22 years old. Their union was blessed with
two children.

After 10 years, their marriage did not work well;


The spouse lived separately since then;
Fernando had a mistress
Fernando attempted to kill Filipina

Later, Filipina filed a petition for the declaration of


absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando on the
ground of psychological incapacity.

RTC: denied the petition of Filipina


Basis: No psychological incapacity on the part of
Fernando

adverse party failing to timely object


thereto, these documents are deemed
sufficient proof of the facts contained
therein.
SC: Petition is GRANTED. The marriage celebrated on
November 15, 1973 between petitioner Filipina and
Fernando is hereby declared void ab initio for lack of a
marriage license at the time of celebration.

-Not in the case, might be the topic therein


Section 23. Public documents as evidence.
Documents consisting of entries in public
records made in the performance of a duty of a public
officer is a prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated.
In the case, since the other party never
disputed the content of the photocopied public
documentary evidence (that there was no marriage
license on the day of their marriage ceremony)
presented by Filipina, hence it is a prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated against the
prosecution and Fernando.

CA: affirmed RTCs decision.


Basis: Filipinas testimony concerning Fernandos
purported psychological incapacity falls short of the
quantum of evidence required to nullify a marriage
celebrated with all the formal and essential
requisites of law.

Filipina appealed by certiorari and raises that CA


overlooked that their marriage on 1973 lacks marriage
license and was not disputed by Fernando.

Issue:
1.

2.

W/n the marriage between Filipina and


Fernando is void from the beginning for
lack of marriage license at the time of the
ceremony. YES
W/n the photocopied marriage certificate
and marriage license can be admitted as
evidence in the case. YES

Held:
1.

2.

Yes, the marriage is void from the


beginning.
o Date of Marriage: November
15, 1973
o Date of Issuance of Marriage
License: September 17, 1974
Yes, SC noted that their marriage
certificate and marriage license are only
photocopies. So are the birth certificates of
their
children.
Nevertheless,
these
documents were marked as Exhibits during
the course of the trial below, which shows
that these have been examined and
admitted by the trial court, with no
objections having been made as to their
authenticity
and
due
execution.
Likewise, no objection was interposed to
Filipinas testimony in open court when
she affirmed that the date of the actual
celebration of their marriage was on
November 15, 1973. Therefore, that
having been admitted in evidence, with the

Realubit vs Spouses Jaso

Realubit entered into a JVA with Biondo (French


national)

Subsequently, Biondo executed Deed of Assignment


(by Notary Public Diaz and was witnessed by wife
Eden Jaso) transferring all his rights and interested in
the business in favor of Spouses Jaso

more
than
merely
preoponderant.
Realubit
failed
to
overcome
the
presumption of regularity of the Deed of
Assigment by clear and convincing
evidence.
SC: Petition denied, judgment affirmed. Favored
Spouses Jaso.

Thereafter, sps Jaso caused their lawyer to send


Realubit a letter:
- apprising her of their acquisition of Biondos
share;
- formally demanding an accounting and
inventory thereof, and
- remittance of their portion of its profits

Demands left unheeded

Sps Jaso filed for specific performance against


Realubit

Realubit answered, that Biondo had left the country


and could not have executed the Deed of
Assignment which bears a signature markedly
different from that which he affixed on their JVA;
that they refused the Spouses Jasos demand in view
of the dubious circumstances surrounding their
acquisition of Biondos share in the business;

RTC and CA: Favored Sps Jaso, that they validly


acquired Biondos share in the business
Bases: the presumption of regularity on the notarized
Deed of Assignment and the testimonies of Notary
Public Diaz and witness Eden Jaso

Realubit appealed contending that CA inordinately


gave premium to the notarized Deed of Assignment

Issue:
W/n the notarization conclusively confer
validity on the Deed of Assignment.

Held:
Yes.
A document acknowledged before a notary
public becomes a public instrument.
Hence, its execution and authenticity
need not be proved if presented as
evidence in court.
Hence, the notarized Deed of Assignment
in the case is considered as public
document, which enjoys the presumption of
regularity and considered as a prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein.
o
A party assailing the due
execution and authenticity of a
notarized
document
is
required to present evidence
that id clear, convincing, and

Manzano vs. Garcia


Garcia allegedly executed a Pacto de Retro salenotarized (within 3 months) of a parcel of land in favor
of Manzano

Manzano died, Vicente Manzano became the


administrator of the estate of deceased Manzano
Garcia was not able to redeem the land within 3
months

Vicente instituted for consolidation of ownership over


the said land

In the case, the notarized PDR


sale enjoys the presumption of
regularity.
However, this presumption is not absolute
and may be rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary.
o
In the case, more convincing
evidence of the irregularity was
presented as it was the notary
public himself who testified that
the Garcia who appeared
before him was not respondent
Garcia.
SC agreed with the CA that the
presumption of regularity of the notarized
PDR sale was SUFFICINTLY OVERCOME
by the testimony of Atty. Mediante.
SC: petition denied. Affirmed CAs decision. Favored
Garcia.

Garcia filed an opposition alleging that the notarized


document evidencing the PDR sale was a forgery and
claimed that they were in US when the said document
was executed

Garcia then filed a case for annulment of the PDR sale


recovery of owners title against Vicente

During trial, Garcia testified that the signature in PDR


sale was not his and presented his passport and
drivers license, both bear entirely different signatures

The Notary Public Mediante (who notarized) testified


that the Garcia who appeared in his office and who
executed the PDR sale is NOT the same Garcia who
was in court, this was the same testimony from
Babano, who also witnessed the execution of the PDR
sale

TC: Favored Vicente, Garcia failed to prove that his


signature was forged.

CA: Reversed, favored Garcia

On appeal, Vicente argued that CA erred in not


appreciating the presumption of regularity on the
notarized PDR sale.

Issue:
W/n the presumption of regularity on the
notarized PDR sale was overcome.

Held:
Yes.
Section 30, Rule 132 states that: (dont
mention this in the recit, just the provision)
Every instrument duly
acknowledged or
proved and
notarized by a Notary Public, may be
presented in evidence without further
proof, being prima facie evidence of
the execution of the document
involved.