Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 232 views

    Malayan Insurance v. Philippine Nails and Wires

    Uploaded by

    Maria Analyn
    [1] Philippine Nails and Wires Corp. (PNWC) insured a shipment of steel billets with Malayan Insurance Co. and claimed a shortage upon delivery. [2] PNWC presented documentary evidence and witness testimony in its case against Malayan, which Malayan argued were inadmissible. [3] The Supreme Court ruled the documentary evidence was not properly authenticated and part of the witness testimony was hearsay, so PNWC did not prove its case. The court reversed lower court decisions in favor of PNWC and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Malayan Insurance v. Philippine Nails and Wires

    Uploaded by

    Maria Analyn
    232 views2 pages
    [1] Philippine Nails and Wires Corp. (PNWC) insured a shipment of steel billets with Malayan Insurance Co. and claimed a shortage upon delivery. [2] PNWC presented documentary evidence and witness testimony in its case against Malayan, which Malayan argued were inadmissible. [3] The Supreme Court ruled the documentary evidence was not properly authenticated and part of the witness testimony was hearsay, so PNWC did not prove its case. The court reversed lower court decisions in favor of PNWC and dismissed the case.

    Original Description:

    Case digest - Evidence

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    [1] Philippine Nails and Wires Corp. (PNWC) insured a shipment of steel billets with Malayan Insurance Co. and claimed a shortage upon delivery. [2] PNWC presented documentary evidence and witness testimony in its case against Malayan, which Malayan argued were inadmissible. [3] The Supreme Court ruled the documentary evidence was not properly authenticated and part of the witness testimony was hearsay, so PNWC did not prove its case. The court reversed lower court decisions in favor of PNWC and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    232 views2 pages

    Malayan Insurance v. Philippine Nails and Wires

    Uploaded by

    Maria Analyn
    [1] Philippine Nails and Wires Corp. (PNWC) insured a shipment of steel billets with Malayan Insurance Co. and claimed a shortage upon delivery. [2] PNWC presented documentary evidence and witness testimony in its case against Malayan, which Malayan argued were inadmissible. [3] The Supreme Court ruled the documentary evidence was not properly authenticated and part of the witness testimony was hearsay, so PNWC did not prove its case. The court reversed lower court decisions in favor of PNWC and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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
    University of the Philippines College of Law

    W/N PNWC should have YES


    authenticated the
    documentary evidence it  Under the rules on evidence, documents are either public or private.
    submitted at the trial court 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.

    W/N Jeanne King’s testimony YES


    was hearsay (for additional  PNWC’s cause of action is founded on breach of insurance contract
    info) 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

    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., …

    SEPARATE OPINIONS

    NOTES

    You might also like