Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49797:gr-157766-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:22:32+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 157766 - Ernesto L. Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market Corp., et al.
ERNESTO L. SALAS, Petitioner, v. STA. MESA MARKET CORPORATION and the HEIRS OF PRIMITIVO E. DOMINGO,**Respondents.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 seeks to set aside the April 30, 2001 decision of the Court Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 508882 and its April 3, 2003 resolution denying reconsideration.
Respondent heirs appealed the judgment of the RTC to the CA. On April 30, 2001, the appellate court rendered its decision. It found that the trial court erred in admitting petitioner's documentary evidence. According to the CA, petitioner failed to prove the authenticity of the audited financial statements. He did not present a representative of SMMC's external auditor, Bejarin Jimenez & Co., to testify on the genuineness and due execution of the audited financial statements of SMMC. Instead, petitioner presented a memorandum prepared by a member of his management team attesting to the increase in the corporation's monthly market revenue. For this reason, the appellate court ruled that the audited financial statements were not only self-serving but also hearsay.23 Thus, the CA reversed the RTC decision and dismissed petitioner's complaint.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but his motion was denied.24 Thus, this petition.
Petitioner avers that Amado Domingo, a vice-president of SMMC and an heir of the deceased Primitivo E. Domingo, testified that the audited financial statements presented in court were copies of those submitted by SMMC to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for purposes of tax payments and compliance with reportorial requirements, respectively.25 Therefore, Amado Domingo, in effect, admitted the genuineness and due execution of the documents which made authentication unnecessary.
b. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Petitioner and respondents agree that the documents presented as evidence were mere copiesof the audited financial statements submitted to the BIR and SEC. Neither party claimed that copies presented were certified true copies32 of audited financial statements obtained or secured from the BIR or the SEC which under Section 19(c), Rule 132 would have been public documents. Thus, the statements presented were private documents. Consequently, authentication was a precondition to their admissibility in evidence.
During authentication in court, a witness positively testifies that a document presented as evidence is genuine and has been duly executed33 or that the document is neither spurious nor counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under duress.34 In this case, petitioner merely presented a memorandum attesting to the increase in the corporation's monthly market revenue, prepared by a member of his management team. While there is no fixed criterion as to what constitutes competent evidence to establish the authenticity of a private document, the best proof available must be presented.35 The best proof available, in this instance, would have been the testimony of a representative of SMMC's external auditor who prepared the audited financial statements. Inasmuch as there was none, the audited financial statements were never authenticated.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The April 30, 2001 decision and April 3, 2003 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50888 are hereby AFFIRMED.
** The Court of Appeals was impleaded as a respondent but was excluded pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Candido V. Rivera (retired) and Rebecca de Guia-Salvador of the Eleventh Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 31-38.
3 Notarized on November 8, 1984. Id., pp. 47-50.
6 Id., p. 48. According to the letter-agreement, the shares must be transferred on a "front-ended" basis but not later than December 31, 1984. However, petitioner's amended complaint stated that the delivery must not be later than June 30, 1985. Thus, the latter date was binding on him as a judicial admission.
8 Id., pp. 101-105, 247-253.
13 Id., pp. 20, 33, 110.
14 Docketed as Civil Case No. Q-51018.
15 In the course of trial, Domingo passed away and was substituted by respondent heirs. Id., pp. 76-77, 188.
16 Amended on November 26, 1992. Id., pp. 56-61.
25 Id., pp. 24-25, 203.
Section 19. Classes of documents. - - For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.
c. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
28 See Tax Code, Sec. 32, Securities Code, Sec. 17.
29 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 19(c).
30 See Rules of Court, Rule 132, Secs. 23, 24, 25, 27 and 30. See also Antillon v. Barcelon, 37 Phil. 148 (1917).
31 Salic v. Commission on Elections, G.R. NOS. 157007, 157015, 17 March 2004, 425 SCRA 735, 752. See also Chua v. CA, G.R. No. 88383, 19 February 1992, 206 SCRA 339, 345 citing General Enterprises, Inc. v. Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-18487, 31 August 1964, 11 SCRA 733.
Sec. 27. Public record of a public document. An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.
33 Ricardo J. Francisco, Evidence: Rules of Court in the Philippines (Rules 128-138), 3rd ed., pp. 504-505.
34 Id. citing Bough v. Cantiveros, 40 Phil. 213 (1919).
36 Tria v. Ortiz, 14 Phil. 551, 554 (1909). See also Chua v. CA, supra note 31.
37 Rollo, pp. 23-24, 114-117, 260-263.
38 Compare Tria v. Ortiz, supra note 36. This case involves the proper application of the exception.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.