Documentary Evidence

Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material

containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered
as proof of their contents. (n)
NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSSION:
DOCUMENT- is a deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something is
proved, evidenced or set forth.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – furnished by written instruments, inscriptions and documents
of all kinds.
It applies to anything that containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols and other mode of
written expression offered as proof of its contents.
If you present a document to prove its execution, condition or existence, it is not documentary
evidence but object evidence.

Republic v Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation:

Deed of sale and tax declaration/clearances does not constitute the well- nigh incontrovertible
evidence. Settled is the rule that the burden of proof in land registration cases rests on the
applicant who must show by clear, positive and convincing evidence that his alleged possession
and occupation of the land is of the nature and duration required by law.  Unfortunately, as
petitioner contends, the pieces of evidence presented by respondent do not constitute the well-
nigh incontrovertible proof necessary in cases of this nature. It is settled that a document or
writing admitted as part of the testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts stated
therein. 
The government official who issued the Certification was not presented before the RTC so that he
could have testified regarding its contents. Hence, the RTC should not have accepted the contents
of the Certification as proof of the facts stated therein. The contents of the Certification are
hearsay, because Hanovers President and General Manager was incompetent to testify on the
truth of the contents of such Certification.

Philippine Hawk Corporation v Lee Re: Tan v OMC Carriers Inc.

As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for
loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be
awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when: (1) the deceased is self-employed
and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice
may be taken of the fact that in the deceased’s line of work no documentary evidence is available;
or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage
under current labor laws.
Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be
proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation,
conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages. To justify an award of
actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss, credence can be
given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.

IBM v NLRC
Computer generated documents or emails are not admissible for the absence of proper
authentication. All the copies of computer-generated email printouts were never signed by the
purported sender, the superior of the employee. Neither are these signed by the supposed
recipient, the employee. So for the absence of signature, proper authentication has not been
complied with.
There was no sufficient evidence for that matter that these documents were free from the
possibility of tampering, especially so since after the employee was terminated he ceased to have
access to company’s computer system.
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 ORRELIABILITY as condition for the
admission of documents. DUE PROCESS MUST NEVER BE SUBORDINATED TO
EXPEDIENCY OR DISPATCH”

Guadines v Sandigang Bayan

Well- entrenched is the rule that the actual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon
this Court except where: 1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise
and conjectures; 2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; 3) there is a grave abuse of
discretion; 4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts and findings of fact of the
Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence and contradicted of the evidence on
record.