Capital Shoes Factory LTD Vs Traveller Kids Inc GR200065

2/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 736 2/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 736
of the said decision read: Respondent court is of the

view that the above provision must be construed to mean
the original copy of the document evidencing the credit
and not its duplicate, thus: “. . . [W]hen the law speaks of
the delivery of the private document evidencing a credit, it
must be construed as referring to the original. In this case,
G.R. No. 200065. September 24, 2014.* appellees (Trans-Pacific) presented, not the originals but
the duplicates of the three promissory notes.” (Rollo, p.
CAPITAL SHOES FACTORY, LTD., petitioner, vs. 42.) The above pronouncement of respondent court is
TRAVELLER KIDS, INC., respondent. manifestly groundless. It is undisputed that the
documents presented were duplicate originals and are
Remedial Law; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; therefore admissible as evidence. Further, it must be noted
Duplicate Originals; When carbon sheets are inserted that respondent bank itself did not bother to challenge the
between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the authenticity of the duplicate copies submitted by petitioner.
writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the In People v. Tan, 105 Phil. 1242 (1959), we said: When
signature of the party to be charged thereby, produces a carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of
facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon the
thus reproduced by the same stroke of pen which made the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be
surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets
on are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same
may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting stroke of pen which made the surface or exposed
for the non-production of the others.—In Trans-Pacific impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as
Industrial Supplies v. The Court of Appeals and Associated duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in
Bank, 235 SCRA 494 (1994), it was stressed that duplicate evidence as such without accounting for the non-
originals were admissible as evidence. Pertinent portions production of the others.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision

_______________ and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
* SECOND DIVISION.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Jimenez, Gonzales, Bello, Valdez, Caluya &
490 Fernandez for petitioner.
Bohol, Bohol II, Jimenez Law Offices for
respondent.
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Capital Shoes Factory, Ltd. vs. Traveller Kids, Inc.
MENDOZA, J.:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a66b202bc5e612dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a66b202bc5e612dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/17
numerous purchase orders, CSFL began

Questioned in this petition is the October 5, 2011 manufacturing the goods pursuant to the special
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), and its designs and specifications of TKI. CSFL then
January 16, 2012 Reso- shipped the goods to TKI.
It was their arrangement that TKI would pay
_______________ thirty (30%) percent of the purchase price of the
goods by way of letters of credit, and the balance of
1 Rollo, pp. 31-42. Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. seventy (70%) percent by way of telegraphic
Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. transfer, thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of
Bato, Jr. and Florito S. Macalino. the goods.
For the first three years, TKI was able to pay its
491
purchase orders and the shipments made by CSFL.
In 2004, however, TKI started to default in its
VOL. 736, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 491 payments. CSFL granted numerous concessions and
extensions to TKI. Thereafter, TKI was able to make
a partial payment on its unpaid accounts.
As of July 10, 2005, the total unpaid accounts of
lution,2 in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 120413, which TKI amounted to US$325,451.39, exclusive of the
affirmed with modification the May 13, 20113 and interest accruing thereto. In addition, CSFL also
June 23, 20114 Orders of the Regional Trial Court, manufactured $92,000.00
Branch 170, Malabon City (RTC), regarding the
admissibility of duplicate originals as evidence in an
_______________
action for sum of money and damages.
2 CA Resolution, id., at pp. 110-115.
The Facts 3 Id., at p. 146.
4 Id., at pp. 147-150.
Sometime in 2000, petitioner Capital Shoes
Factory, Ltd., (CSFL), a foreign corporation engaged 492
in the manufacturing and trading of children’s shoes
and similar products, and respondent Traveller Kids, 492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Inc. (TKI), a domestic corporation engaged in the
business of manufacturing, importing and Capital Shoes Factory, Ltd. vs. Traveller Kids, Inc.
distributing shoes, sandals and other footware
entered into an agreement, wherein they agreed that worth of children’s shoes and sandals pursuant to
TKI would import the shoes and sandals made by the design and specifications of TKI in its purchase
CSFL from its China factory. After TKI placed orders.
Both verbal and written demand letters were _______________

made by CSFL to TKI for the payment of its unpaid
5 Id., at pp. 164-179.
accounts, but to no avail.
6 Id., at pp. 314-322.
To protect its interest, CSFL filed a complaint for
7 Id., at p. 146.
collection of sum of money and damages against
TKI before the RTC. During the trial, CSFL, through 493
its witness, identified several sales invoices and
order slips it issued as evidence of its transactions
with TKI. The latter objected to the identification VOL. 736, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 493
pointing out that the documents being presented Capital Shoes Factory, Ltd. vs. Traveller Kids, Inc.
were mere photocopies. TKI also objected to the
evidence presented by CSFL to prove the amount of defendant, Exhibits “A” to “ZZZ-1-A,” inclusive, are all
attorney’s fees on the ground that it was not an issue admitted for the purposes for which the same are offered
raised during the pretrial. The RTC noted the and as part of the testimony of the witness who testified
objections. thereon.
After the presentation of its last witness, CSFL Let the presentation of defendant’s evidence commence
filed its Formal Offer of Exhibits5 seeking the on May 25, 2011 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning, as
admission of, among others, the sales invoices and previously scheduled.
order slips earlier objected to by TKI. The latter SO ORDERED. [Emphasis supplied]
objected to the admission of the documents offered,
contending that several of the sales invoices and Not in conformity, TKI filed a motion for
order slips should not be admitted because they were reconsideration8 arguing that the exhibits formally
merely photocopies. TKI also objected to the offered by CSFL were inadmissible in evidence for
admission of documents by which CSFL sought to being mere photocopies. TKI also argued that the
prove its claim for attorney’s fees.6 evidence relating to the claimed “legal fees” were
On May 13, 2011, the RTC issued the Order7 erroneously admitted because the matter was not
admitting all the exhibits offered by CFSL. The raised as an issue during the pretrial.
Order reads: On June 23, 2011, the RTC issued the order9
denying TKI’s motion for reconsideration, ruling that
the sales invoices and order slips could be admitted
ORDER
because the duplicate originals of the invoices were
Acting on Plaintiff’s Formal Offer of Exhibits as well
already sufficiently established by the testimony of
as Defendant’s Comment/Opposition on/thereto and
CSFL’s officer and principal witness, Ms. Susan
finding the said offer to be well-taken and in order —
Chiu (Chiu). Regarding the documents offered by
despite the objections made to the admission of said
CSFL to prove its claim for attorney’s fees, the RTC
exhibits by
stated that the demand for attorney’s fees was
impliedly included in the issue of whether or not TKI public respondent judge are hereby AFFIRMED with the
was liable to CSFL for the entire amount claimed. modification that Exhibits “D” to “GG-1” and “HH” to
Instead of presenting evidence, TKI opted to file “KK-1” should be denied admission for being merely
a petition for certiorari with prayer for Temporary photocopies. As such, they are inadmissible for failure of
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary private respondent to prove any of the exceptions provided
Injunction before the CA in which it reiterated its under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
argument regarding the inadmissibility of the SO ORDERED.11
photocopied evidence and the erroneous inclusion of [Underscoring supplied]
those documents proving entitlement to attorney’s
fees which matter was not raised during the pretrial. Applying Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court,12 the CA explained that while it was true that
the original copies of the
_______________
8 Id., at pp. 323-329. _______________

9 Id., at pp. 147-150.
10 RTC Order, dated October 3, 2011, RTC Records, p. 832.
494 11 Rollo, p. 41.
12 Sec. 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
Capital Shoes Factory, Ltd. vs. Traveller Kids, Inc. itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
As there was no injunction order issued by the produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
CA, the RTC continued the proceedings and directed (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of
TKI to present evidence. TKI refused, citing the the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails
petition for certiorari it filed with the CA. Because to produce it after reasonable notice;
of its refusal, the RTC considered TKI’s right to
495
adduce countervailing evidence as waived and
ordered CSFL to submit its memorandum.10
On October 5, 2011, the CA rendered a decision VOL. 736, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 495
partially granting TKI’s petition. The dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for sales invoices were the best evidence to prove
Certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the TKI’s obligation, CSFL merely presented
assailed Orders dated May 13, 2011 and June 23, 2011 of photocopies of the questioned exhibits. It stated that

Chiu’s testimony merely established the existence or contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of
due execution of the original invoices. CSFL, witnesses in the order stated.
however, did not present the original invoices, only 14 Rollo, p. 17.
the photocopies, contrary to Section 5, Rule 130 of
496
the Rules of Court.13 Nonetheless, the CA agreed
with the RTC’s admission of CSFL’s evidence
proving attorney’s fees, quoting verbatim its logic 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
and reasoning.
CSFL filed a motion for partial reconsideration,
but it was denied by the CA in its Resolution, dated
January 16, 2012. Stripped of nonessentials, the only issue to be
Hence, this petition. resolved is whether or not the CA correctly modified
the RTC order admitting the exhibits offered by
Ground CSFL.15
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED CSFL basically argues that the excluded
IN DELVING INTO THE LOWER COURT’S documents are admissible in evidence because it was
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND FACTUAL duly established during the trial that the said
FINDINGS SINCE IT IS BEYOND THE VERY documents were duplicate originals, and not mere
LIMITED JURISDICTIONAL PARAMETERS OF A photocopies, considering that they were prepared at
CERTIORARI PROCEEDING, THAT IS, THE the same time as the originals.
CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF JURISDICTION.14 On the other hand, TKI counters that CSFL’s
claim that the photocopied documents were duplicate
_______________ originals was just a unilateral and self-serving
statement without any supportive evidence.
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss The Court’s Ruling
of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the
general result of the whole; and The Court finds merit in the petition.
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a After a review of the RTC and the CA records,
public officer or is recorded in a public office. which were ordered elevated, the Court is of the
13 Sec. 5. When original document is unavailable.—When considered view that the CA erred in not admitting
the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be the invoices and order slips denominated as Exhibits
produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or “D” to “GG-1” and “HH” to “KK-1,” which were
existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on duplicate originals. Section 4(b), Rule 130 of the
his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its Rules of Court reads:

Sec. 4. Original of document.— documents presented were duplicate originals and are

xxxx therefore admissible as evidence. Further, it must be noted
(b) When a document is in two or more copies that respondent bank itself did not bother to challenge the
executed at or about the same time, with identical authenticity of the duplicate copies submitted by petitioner.
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as In People v. Tan (105 Phil. 1242 [1959]), we said:
originals. When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more
xxxx sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a contract
upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party
In Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies v. The to be charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets
Court of Appeals and Associated Bank,16 it was beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same
stressed that duplicate stroke of pen which made the surface or exposed
impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as
_______________ duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in
evidence as such without accounting for the non-
15 Id., at pp. 164-179.
production of the others.
16 G.R. No. 109172, August 19, 1994, 235 SCRA 494.
[Emphases supplied]
497
Records reveal that Chiu, CSFL’s principal
witness, was able to satisfactorily explain that
VOL. 736, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 497 Exhibits “D” to “GG-1” and “HH” to “KK-1” were
duplicate originals of invoices and order slips, and
not mere photocopies. She testified as follows:
originals were admissible as evidence. Pertinent 498

portions of the said decision read:
Respondent court is of the view that the above 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
provision must be construed to mean the original copy of Capital Shoes Factory, Ltd. vs. Traveller Kids, Inc.
the document evidencing the credit and not its duplicate,
thus: Atty. Fernandez:
“. . . [W]hen the law speaks of the delivery of the Q The documents that you have brought today, to what
private document evidencing a credit, it must be construed records do they belong?
as referring to the original. In this case, appellees (Trans- A Those originals are from our company because one
Pacific) presented, not the originals but the duplicates of copy was sent to the customer and one we keep in our
the three promissory notes.” (Rollo, p. 42.) company, Sir.
The above pronouncement of respondent court is
manifestly groundless. It is undisputed that the
Q When you prepare a particular invoice pertaining to a 17 TSN, December 15, 2010, p. 14.
particular transaction Miss Witness, how many copies do
499
you prepare for that invoice? How many copies of the
invoice will you prepare?
A Two sets of invoice, one to the customer and one for VOL. 736, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 499
our office sir.
Q And the copies that you brought today, are those the
ones that were retained to you in your office, the copies
you brought to court? produced in court and offered in evidence were
A Yes sir.17 mere photocopies. The TSNs further reveal that after
the comparison, the photocopies were the ones
[Emphases supplied] retained in the records.18
The Court notes that this case involves a foreign
The transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) entity and has been pending since October 6, 2005.19
clearly show that Chiu convincingly explained that It is about time that this case be decided on the
CSFL usually prepared two (2) copies of invoices for merits. At this juncture, the Court reminds counsel
a particular transaction, giving one copy to a client for TKI of his duty, as an officer of the court, to see
and retaining the other copy. The Court combed to it that the orderly administration of justice be not
through her testimony and found nothing that would unduly impeded.
indicate that the documents offered were mere After the admission of CSFL’s exhibits as
photocopies. She remained firm and consistent with evidence, TKI should have let trial proceed in due
her statement that the subject invoices were duplicate course instead of immediately resorting to certiorari,
originals as they were prepared at the same time. The by presenting its own testimonial and documentary
Court sees no reason why Section 4(b), Rule 130 of evidence and in case of an unfavorable decision,
the Rules of Court should not apply. At any rate, appeal the same in accordance with law. After all,
those exhibits can be admitted as part of the the RTC stated that, granting that the questioned
testimony of Chiu. exhibits were not admissible, “there still remained
The Court went over the RTC records and the enough evidence to substantiate plaintiff’s claim on
TSNs and found that, contrary to the assertion of which the Court can validly render judgment upon
TKI, the duplicate originals were produced in court application of the pertinent law and/or
and compared with their photocopies during the jurisprudence.”20 In the case of Johnson Lee v.
hearing before the trial court. The transcripts bare all People of the Philippines,21 it was written:
of these but were missed by the appellate court,
which believed the assertion of TKI that what were In this case, there is no dispute that the RTC had
jurisdiction over the cases filed by the public respondent
against the petitioner for estafa. The Order admitting in
_______________
evidence the photocopies of the charge invoices and WHEREFORE, the October 5, 2011 Decision
checks was issued by the RTC in the exercise of its and the January 16, 2012 Resolution of the Court of
jurisdiction. Even if erroneous, the same is a mere Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 120413, are hereby
error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. Additionally, REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the
the admission of secondary evidence in lieu of the exclusion of Exhibits “D” to “GG-1” and “HH” to
original copies predicated on proof of the offeror of the “KK-1” are concerned. The May 13, 2011 Order of
conditions sine qua non to the admission of the said the Regional Trial Court, Branch 170, Malabon City,
evidence is a factual issue addressed to the sound is REINSTATED.
discretion of the trial The pertinent records of the case are hereby
ordered remanded to the Regional Trial Court,
_______________ Branch 170, Malabon City, for appropriate
proceedings.
18 TSN, December 15, 2010, pp. 10-43. The trial court is directed to give priority to this
19 RTC Records, p. 3. case and act on it with dispatch.
20 RTC Order, dated January 13, 2012, id., at p. 918. SO ORDERED.
21 483 Phil. 684, 701; 440 SCRA 662, 679-680 (2004).
500 Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo and

Leonen, JJ., concur.
Judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.
Notes.—When the original document has been
court. Unless grave abuse of discretion amounting to lost and its unavailability has been established, a
excess or lack of jurisdiction is shown to have been party may prove its contents by a copy or by a recital
committed by the trial court, the resolution of the trial of its contents in some authentic document or by the
court admitting secondary evidence must be sustained. testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (Baguio
The remedy of the petitioner, after the admission of the Trinity Developers, Inc. vs. Heirs of Jose Ramos, 662
photocopies of the charge invoices and the checks, was SCRA 663 [2011])
to adduce his evidence, and if after trial, he is
501
convicted, to appeal the decision to the appropriate
appellate court. Moreover, under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, as amended, only questions of law may be properly VOL. 736, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 501
raised.
[Emphases supplied]

2/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 736
Supreme Court ruled that secondary evidence of

the content of the writing would be received in
evidence if no objection was made to its reception.
(People vs. Sandiganbayan [Fourth Division], 665
SCRA 89 [2012])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a66b202bc5e612dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/17

Capital Shoes Factory LTD Vs Traveller Kids Inc GR200065

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capital Shoes Factory LTD Vs Traveller Kids Inc GR200065

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capital Shoes Factory LTD Vs Traveller Kids Inc GR200065

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 736 2/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 736

of the said decision read: Respondent court is of the

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision

numerous purchase orders, CSFL began

Both verbal and written demand letters were _______________

8 Id., at pp. 323-329. _______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a66b202bc5e612dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/17 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a66b202bc5e612dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/17

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a66b202bc5e612dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/17 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a66b202bc5e612dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/17

Sec. 4. Original of document.— documents presented were duplicate originals and are

originals were admissible as evidence. Pertinent 498

500 Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo and

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a66b202bc5e612dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/17 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a66b202bc5e612dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/17

Supreme Court ruled that secondary evidence of

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like