Wallem Maritime v.

NLRC
G.R. No. 108433. October 15, 1996

Hired by Wallem Shipmanagement, Joselito Macatuno, private respondent, was a seaman on board the
M/T Fortuna of Liberian registry.

While the vessel was at the port of Kawasaki, Japan, an altercation took place between Macatuno and
Gurimbao, a fellow Filipino against a cadet/apprentice officer of the same nationality as the captain
of the vessel. The altercation was caused by the private respondent and another crewmember who were
arguing when the latter insisted to shove and throw dirty oil to Japanese waters, to the former’s strong
opposition. The captain witnessed the altercation and entered the incident in the tanker’s logbook. He
summoned the two Filipinos at his cabin. The captain told them to pack their things as their services are being
terminated. As a consequence, the two were repatriated to the Philippines where they lodged complaints for
illegal dismissal with the POEA. Petitioners contend that the two Filipinos had been delinquent on board the
vessel as shown by the records of the captain’s logbook.

Whether a copy of an official entry in the ship captain's logbook can be used as a vital evidence in the
dismissal of respondent seamen provided that an investigation was conducted before the dismissal.

No.

No investigation was conducted by the ship captain before repatriating private respondent, the
contents of the logbook have to be duly identified and authenticated lest an injustice result from a
blind adoption of such contents which merely serve as prima facie evidence of the incident in
question. Moreover, what was presented in the Haverton Shipping case was a copy of the official entry
from the logbook itself. In this case, petitioners did not submit as evidence to the POEA the logbook
itself, or even authenticated copies of pertinent pages thereof, which could have been easily xeroxed
or photocopied considering the present technology on reproduction of documents. What was offered
in evidence was merely a typewritten collation of excerpts from what could be the logbook because by
their format, they could have been lifted from other records kept in the vessel in accordance with
Article 612 of the Code of Commerce.|||
Manalo v. Robles Transportation

The plaintiffs are parents of the deceased 11 year old kid who was ran over by a taxi in an accident. They filed
the action against the taxicab company to enforce its subsidiary liability.

To prove their case, the plaintiffs introduced a copy of the decision in the criminal case convicting the driver
of homicide through reckless imprudence, the writs of execution to enforce the civil liability, and the returns
of the sheriff showing that the two writs of execution were not satisfied because of the insolvency of the
driver, the sheriff being unable to locate any property in his name.

The appellant also claims that in admitting as evidence the sheriff's return of the writs of execution to prove
the insolvency of Hernandez, without requiring said official's appearance in court, it was deprived of the
opportunity to cross-examine said sheriff.|||

Whether or not the Sheriff’s Return of the Writ of Execution is covered by the Official Records rules and thus
an exception to the hearsay rule.

Yes.

A sheriff's return is an official statement made by a public official in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law and forming part of official records, and is prima facie evidence of the facts
stated therein. (Rule 39, section 11 and Rule 123, section 35, Rules of Court.) The sheriff making the
return need not testify in court as to the facts stated in his entry.
 Africa v. Caltex
G.R. No. 12986

In the afternoon of March 18, 1948, a fire broke out at the Caltex service station at the corner of Antipolo St.
and Rizal Avenue, Manila. It started while gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the underground
storage, right at the opening of the receiving tank where the nozzle of the hose was inserted. The fire spread
to and burned several houses. The owners, among them petitioner spouses Africa and heirs of Ong, sued
respondents Caltex Phil., Inc., the alleged owner of the station, and Mateo Boquiren, the agent in charge of its
operation, for damages

The reports on the fire prepared by the Manila Police and Fire Departments and by a certain Captain Tinio of t
he Armed Forces of the Philippines. Portions of the first two reports are as follows:

1. Police Department report: —

Investigation disclosed that at about 4:00 P.M. March 18, 1948, while Leandro Flores was transferring gasolin
e from a tank truck, plate No. T-5292 into the underground tank of the Caltex Gasoline Station located at the c
orner of Rizal Avenue and Antipolo Street, this City, an unknown Filipino lighted a cigarette and threw the bur
ning match stick near the main valve of the said underground tank. Due to the gasoline fumes, fire suddenly bl
azed. Quick action of Leandro Flores in pulling off the gasoline hose connecting the truck with the undergroun
d tank prevented a terrific explosion. However, the flames scattered due to the hose from which the gasoline
was spouting. It burned the truck and the following accessorias and residences.

2. The Fire Department report: —

In connection with their allegation that the premises was (sic) subleased for the installation of a coca-cola and
cigarette stand, the complainants furnished this Office a copy of a photograph taken during the fire and which
is submitted herewith. it appears in this picture that there are in the premises a coca-cola cooler and a rack w
hich according to information gathered in the neighborhood contained cigarettes and matches, installed betw
een the gasoline pumps and the underground tanks.

Are the reports admissible in evidence?

No.

There are three requisites for admissibility under the Section 44 of Rule 130: (a) that the entry was m
ade by a public officer, or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) that it was made by
the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a dut
y specially enjoined by law; and (c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of
the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official informat
ion.

Of the three requisites just stated, only the last need be considered here. Obviously the material facts
recited in the reports as to the cause and circumstances of the fire were not within the personal knowl
edge of the officers who conducted the investigation.

Was knowledge of such facts, however, acquired by them through official information? As to some fact
s the sources thereof are not even identified. Others are attributed to Leopoldo Medina, referred to as
an employee at the gas station were the fire occurred; to Leandro Flores, driver of the tank truck from
which gasoline was being transferred at the time to the underground tank of the station; and to respo
ndent Mateo Boquiren, who could not, according to Exhibit V-Africa, give any reason as to the origin of
the fire.

To qualify their statements as "official information" acquired by the officers who prepared the report
s, the persons who made the statements not only must have personal knowledge of the facts stated bu
t must have the duty to give such statements for record.
The reports in question do not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule; the facts stated therein we
re not acquired by the reporting officers through official information, not having been given by the inf
ormants pursuant to any duty to do so.

Salmon, Dexter and Co v. Wijangco

G.R. No. L-21649

On Oct. 8, 1920, a contract was entered into between A and B for the purchase and sale of a tractor and
threshing machine upon the conditions specified in said contract. The price of the machineries sold Is
P12,400, payable by installments as follows: P400 at the signing of the contract sale, to wit, October 8, 1920;
P4,000 upon the delivery of said machineries by B to A; another P4,000 on June 15, 1921, and, finally, another
P4,000 on December 15, 1921. A claims payment for the tractor with legal interest. B denies generally and
specifically the facts alleged in the complaint and alleged that

(a) That the tractor and threshing machine, which is the subject-matter of the contract set out in the
second paragraph of the first cause of action and which was sold by A to B, does not meet the conditions
specified and guaranteed in the aforesaid contract of sale (b) That in the month of April, 1921, B has notified
A of the fact that the threshing machine sold to him pursuant to the contract above referred to could not
thresh 300 cavans per day, as was guaranteed in said contract, and offered to return the aforesaid tractor and
threshing machine, but A, without answering said offer, let the time elapse until the filing of the herein
complaint.(c) That all the amounts claimed in the herein complaint are based on the contract set out in
paragraph 2 of the first cause of action, which as above stated, was violated by A.

Is the certificate issued by the Director of Agriculture is admissible in evidence as an official document issued
by a public officer authorized by law?

Yes.

The statistics prepared by the Bureau of Agriculture is chiefly based on the quarterly reports of the
municipal presidents made pursuant to section 2202 of the Administrative Code, which provides:

The president of each municipality shall, upon forms to be supplied by the Director of Agriculture, and in
such detail as shall be required by him, make quarterly reports of the condition of agriculture and live
stock in his municipality, and of such other matters as relate to the development of those interests.

The reports so made shall be submitted to the municipal council, and, if approved, a copy thereof shall
be forwarded to the office of the provincial governor, a second copy to the representative from the
district, a third copy to the Director of Agriculture, and a fourth copy shall be filed in the office of the
municipal secretary.

Under such circumstances, we hold that the certificate issued by the Director of Agriculture is
admissible in evidence as an official document issued by a public officer authorized by law. Wigmore,
in his treatise on evidence, vol. 3, section 1636, speaking of exceptions to the rule as to the
inadmissibility of hearsay evidence, among other things, says:
xxx xxx xxx
5. Certificates. — Every officer has an implied duty or authority to prepare and deliver out to an
applicant a certificate stating anything which has been done or observed by him or exists in his office by
virtue of some authority or duty, and the certificate is admissible.