Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    MCMP CONSTRUCTION CORP., v. MONARK EQUIPMENT CORP.

    Uploaded by

    Lou Navarro
    The document discusses the Best Evidence Rule in the Philippines. It summarizes the key requirements for presenting secondary evidence: (1) prove the existence of the original document, (2) prove the original was lost or destroyed, and (3) prove the party presenting secondary evidence was not at fault for the original being unavailable. It then applies these requirements to the case of MCMP Construction Corp v Monark Equipment Corp, ruling that Monark could present secondary evidence because MCMP failed to produce the original contract despite requests to do so.

    Copyright:

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

    MCMP CONSTRUCTION CORP., v. MONARK EQUIPMENT CORP.

    Uploaded by

    Lou Navarro
    20 views5 pages
    The document discusses the Best Evidence Rule in the Philippines. It summarizes the key requirements for presenting secondary evidence: (1) prove the existence of the original document, (2) prove the original was lost or destroyed, and (3) prove the party presenting secondary evidence was not at fault for the original being unavailable. It then applies these requirements to the case of MCMP Construction Corp v Monark Equipment Corp, ruling that Monark could present secondary evidence because MCMP failed to produce the original contract despite requests to do so.

    Original Title

    MCMP CONSTRUCTION CORP., v. MONARK EQUIPMENT CORP.,

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the Best Evidence Rule in the Philippines. It summarizes the key requirements for presenting secondary evidence: (1) prove the existence of the original document, (2) prove the original was lost or destroyed, and (3) prove the party presenting secondary evidence was not at fault for the original being unavailable. It then applies these requirements to the case of MCMP Construction Corp v Monark Equipment Corp, ruling that Monark could present secondary evidence because MCMP failed to produce the original contract despite requests to do so.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    20 views5 pages

    MCMP CONSTRUCTION CORP., v. MONARK EQUIPMENT CORP.

    Uploaded by

    Lou Navarro
    The document discusses the Best Evidence Rule in the Philippines. It summarizes the key requirements for presenting secondary evidence: (1) prove the existence of the original document, (2) prove the original was lost or destroyed, and (3) prove the party presenting secondary evidence was not at fault for the original being unavailable. It then applies these requirements to the case of MCMP Construction Corp v Monark Equipment Corp, ruling that Monark could present secondary evidence because MCMP failed to produce the original contract despite requests to do so.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Topic: The Best Evidence Rule

    MCMP CONSTRUCTION CORP., v.


    MONARK EQUIPMENT CORP.,

    G.R. No. 201001, November 10, 2014


    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the


    presentation of the
    secondary evidence should
    not be allowed
     
    Ruling:

    No. 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 of the 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)"
    Ruling:

    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.

    As has been repeatedly held by this Court, "findings of facts 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.
    Ruling:

    MCMP 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 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, but it 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."

    You might also like