MCMP CONSTRUCTION CORP. vs. MONARK
EQUIPMENT CORP., G.R. No. 201001, November 10, 2014
“x x x.
MCMP challenges the
ruling of the CA arguing that the appellate court should have disallowed the
presentation of secondary evidence to
prove the existence of the Contract, following the Best Evidence Rule. MCMP specifically argues that based on the
testimony of Peregrino, Monark did not diligently search for the original copy
of the Contract as evidenced by the fact that: 1) the actual custodian of the
document was not presented; 2) the alleged loss was not even reported to
management or the police; and 3) Monark only searched for the original copy of
the document for the purposes of the instant case.
Petitioner’s contention
is erroneous.
The Best Evidence Rule, a basic postulate requiring the production of
the original document whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry,
is contained in Section 3 of Rule 130 ofthe Rules of Court which provides:
"Section
3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original
document itself, except in the
following cases:
(a)
When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b)
When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against
whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
(c)
When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot
be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d)
When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office. (Emphasis
supplied)"
Relative thereto, Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 130 provide the
relevant rules on the presentation of secondary evidence to prove the contents
of a lost document:
"Section 5. When original document is
unavailable. — When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot
be produced in court, the offeror, upon
proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without
bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by
the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (4a)
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control.
— If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party, he
must have reasonable notice to produce it.
If after such notice and after
satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss."
In Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lagman,11 the
Court set down the requirements before a party may present secondary evidence to
prove the contents of the original document whenever the original copy has been
lost:
Before
a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the
original, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or due
execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the
reason for its non-production in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the
absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be
attributed. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution,
loss, and contents.
In
the instant case, the CA correctly ruled that the above requisites are present.
Both the CA and the RTC gave credence to the testimony of Peregrino that the
original Contract in the possession of Monark has been lost and that diligent
efforts were exerted to find the same but to no avail. Such testimony has
remained uncontroverted. As has been repeatedly held by this Court,
"findings offacts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best
left to the trial court."12 Hence,
the Court will respect the evaluation of the trial court on the credibility of
Peregrino.
MCMP,
to note, contends that the Contract presented by Monark is not the contract
that they entered into. Yet, it has failed to present a copy of the Contract
even despite the request of the trial court for it to produce its copy of the
Contract.13 Normal
business practice dictates that MCMP should have asked for and retained a copy
of their agreement. Thus, MCMP’s failure to present the same and even explain
its failure, not only justifies the presentation by Monark of secondary
evidence in accordance with Section 6 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, butit
also gives rise to the disputable presumption adverse to MCMP under Section 3
(e) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court that "evidence willfully suppressed
would be adverse if produced."
X x x.”
