~epublit of tbe ~bilippinewE=.

r------"+-1'---
~upreme <!Court
;{flflanila

FIRST DIVISION

VICENTE T. GUERRERO, G.R. No. 223178

Petitioner,
Present:

PERALTA, CJ,
Chairperson,
-versus- CAGUIOA,
CARANDANG,
ZALAMEDA, and
GAERLAN,JJ

PHIL. PHOENIX SURETY & Promulgated:

INSURANCE, INC.,
Respondent. DEC O9 2020
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DECISION

CARANDANG, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated June 23, 2015 and the
Resolution3 dated January 20, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CV No. 101902. The Decision and the Resolution denied petitioner's
appeal and affirmed the Decision4 dated May 6, 2013 of the Regional Trial
Court (RIC) of Manila, Branch 11 ordering petitioner Vicente T. Guerrero
(Guerrero) and his co-defendant, Rogelio Cordero (Cordero), to pay
respondent Phil. Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc. (Phoenix) P425,100.00
representing the losses incurred by Phoenix, the amount of P9,180.00 as
reimbursement for the participation fee paid by a certain Atty. Joseph
Agustin Gaticales (Gaticales), attorney's fees, and cost of suit.

Facts of the Case

On December 31, 2008 at 6:30 p.m., an Isuzu Sportivo vehicle (Isuzu)

owned by Gaticales figured in a vehicular accident along the National

Rollo, pp. 9-16.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Leoncia
R, Dimagiba and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy; id. at 22-33.
Id. at 43-44.
4 Penned by Presiding Judge Cicero D. Jurado, Jr.; id. at 112-116.
 ----- --·-·------- -----------··-------·-·-···- ~--

Decision 2 G.R. No. 223178

Highway, Barangay Gines, Zarraga, Iloilo, with Guerrero's Chevrolet pick-

up truck (Chevrolet). At the time, the Chevrolet was driven by Cordero. 5 The
left front bumper, headlight, signal light, front fender, front door, rear door,
rear fender, rear tire, rear bumper, and other parts of the Isuzu were damaged
by the incident. When the incident was reported to the nearest police station,
i.e., Zarraga Municipal Police Station, a certain PO2 Jose Diestro (PO2
Diestro) was sent to the place of the accident to investigate and make a
police report on his findings. It was found that Guerrero's Chevrolet
overlapped the center line of the highway, encroaching the lane occupied by
the Isuzu (which was moving in the opposite direction) and resulting in a
head-on collision between the two vehicles. It was also noted that Cordero
fled after the incident. The incident was recorded in the police blotter under
entry no. 1327 dated December 31, 2008 and entered at 7:30 p.m. 6

Gaticales then filed an own damage claim with Phoenix - a

corporation engaged in non-life insurance where Gaticales had the Isuzu
insured - for the amount of P810,000.00 and declared his Isuzu as a
constructive total loss. After Phoenix paid the amount of P8 l 0,000.00 to
Gaticales, Gaticales executed a Release of Claim in favor of Phoenix
subrogating the latter to all his rights to recover on all claims as a
consequence of the accident. 7 Since Phoenix sold the Isuzu in a public
auction for P399,050.00, it filed a Complaint8 for damages against Guerrero
and Cordero for the following amounts: (1) the balance of P425,100.00
(equivalent to the P810,000.00 Phoenix paid Cordero and Pl4,150.00 it paid
its handling insurance adjuster less P399,050.00 the Isuzu was sold for in the
public auction); (2) P9,180.00 paid by Gaticales as his participation fee; (3)
P42,500.00 attorney's fees plus P2,500.00 as appearance fee for its counsel;
and (4) cost of suit. 9

In the Complaint, Phoenix averred that the accident could have been
avoided if Cordero exercised due care in driving the Chevrolet and if
Guerrero exercised the required diligence in supervising Cordero as
Cordero's employer. Phoenix thus sought to have Guerrero solidarily liable
with Cordero for the abovementioned amounts. 10

To prove its claim, Phoenix attached to the Complaint the following

documents: (1) Gaticales' Insurance Policy with Phoenix; 11 (2) the Zarraga
Municipal Police Station's Certification12 dated January 5, 2009 and issued
by Police Inspector/Chief of Police Romar V. Peregil (PI Peregil); (3) two
pictures of the Isuzu showing the damages sustained by it; 13 (4)
Disbursement Voucher for the amount of P824,150.00; 14 (5) Release of

5
. Id. at 23-24.
6
Id. at 69.
7
Id. at 48-49.
Id. at 46-50; docketed as Civil Case No. 09-122267.
9
Id. at 50.
10
Id. at 48-50.
11
Id. at 52.
12 Id. at 53, 69.
13
Id. at 54.
14 Id. at 56.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 223178

Claim (Loss and Subrogation Receipt) signed by Gaticales in favor of

Phoenix; 15 (6) Demand Letter dated August 1, 2009 with its registry
receipts; 16 and (7) engagement letter with Phoenix's counsel. 17 The police
certificate, certifying the contents of the police blotter issued by P02
Diestro, states:

CERTIFICATION

Quoted hereunder is the record of event from the Police

Blotter of Zarraga Municipal Police Station, Zarraga, Iloilo,
in blotter entry No. 1327 dated 31 December 2008.

Entry No. 1327

31 December 2008, 7:30 P.M. - INFO - VEHICULAR

ACCIDENT - A concerned citizen informed this Police
Station thru telephone call informing that there was a
vehicular accident that transpired at Brgy. Gines, Zarraga,
Iloilo. Immediately thereafter PNP team of· this Police
station led by PO2 Jose Diestro proceeded at the scene of
[the] incident. Investigation conducted disclosed that on or
about 6:30 P.M. of this date, Joseph Agustin Gaticales y
Capawan, 41 years old, married, resident of San Mateo, St.,
Ledesco Village, Lapaz, Iloilo City, holder of Professional
Driver's License no. F03-09-049829 with expiry date 08-
22-2009 while driving his Isuzu Sportivo with plate no.
ZCZ-326 under OR No. 369927967 dated 06/15/2006 and
CR No. 2502057-5 dated 06/15/2006 with registration valid
for three (3) years, en route from north to south direction
heading towards Iloilo City was accidentally bumped by
Chevrolet pick up with plate no. FAJ-877 under OR no.
652801166 dated 09/15/2008 and CR [n]o. 481593-5 dated
07/05/2005, owned by Vicente Guerrero, resident of 20
Lacson St., Bacolod City, Neg. Occ., upon reaching along
the national highway of Brgy. Gines, Zarraga Iloilo a
collision appeared. The driver of the Chevrolet pick up fled
away to unknown direction after the incident. Investigation
conducted disclosed that the Chevrolet pickup overlapped
to the center line which resulted [in] the accident. That the
Isuzu Sportive incurred damaged (sic) on its left portion of
bumper, head light, signal light, front fender, hood. Front
door, rear door, rear fender, rear tire, rear bumper and other
parts of its body. While the Chevrolet pick up incurred also
damages on its left portion of bumper, hood, headlight,
signal light, front fender, front wheel and broken
windshield. That all the damaged (sic) of both vehicles
could only be determined by an expert mechanic.

Entry No. 01

31 January 2009, 8:00 A.M. - INFO - ADDENDUM RE

VEHICULAR ACCIDENT TRANSPIRED 6:30 PM OF
DECMEBER 31, 2008 - Follow up investigation

15 Id. at 55.
16 Id. at 57-60.
17 Id. at 61-62.
 -··· .... ·--·----· ··- ---------------·--··---·---1-_____ _

Decision 4 G.R. No. 223178

conducted by this Police office, the driver of Chevrolet pick

up late no. FAJ-877 was identified as Rogelio Cordero Jr. y
Zurita, of legal age, married, temporarily resides at Melliza
St., Poblacion Ilaud, Zarraga Iloilo, a native of Bonifacio
Ext., Silay City Neg. 0cc. holder of professional driver's
license no. F0l-05-000862 with expiry date 03-02-2010.

This certification is being issued upon the request of Atty.

Joseph Gaticales for whatever legal purpose it may serve
best.

(sgd)
ROMAR V. PEREGIL
Police Inspector
Chief of Police 18

In his Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, 19 Guerrero denied any

vicarious liability from the vehicular accident because he exercised due
diligence in the selection and supervisions of his employees. According to
him, Cordero was not authorized to operate the Chevrolet because the car
was assigned to another employee. The business owned by Guerrero
enforced a strict policy against the unauthorized use or possession of
company property. Despite this, Cordero opted to use Guerrero's Chevrolet
on December 31, 2008 because of strong rains. Cordero, coming from a
marketplace near the construction site where the Chevrolet was parked, was
soaking wet from riding a motorcycle. Thus, he took shelter in the said
construction site and drove the Chevrolet home without Guerrero's
knowledge and consent. Cordero even picked up a friend along the way.
Nevertheless, Guerrero alleged that Cordero drove slowly along the national
highway due to the rain while Gaticales was the one driving fast with his
Isuzu's headlights at high beam. Disoriented and confused, Cordero and his
companion just fled the scene. Thus, Guerrero accused Gaticales of
negligently hitting the Chevrolet. 20

Guerrero also questioned Phoenix's prayer that Guerrero reimburse

Gaticales the latter's participation fee of P9,180.00 because Gaticales is not a
party to the suit. 21

During trial, Phoenix presented as its lone witness its claims manager,
Roberto Salaver (Salaver). Aside from identifying his judicial affidavit,
Salaver also identified the police certificate, which he also referred to as the
police investigation report. Guerrero, on the other hand, testified on his
behalf and presented his legal staff, Salvador M. Acsay (Ascay), as his
second witness. Acsay testified that ( 1) Guerrero's company issued a
Memorandum dated December 18, 2006 allowing only authorized or
registered drivers of company vehicles to operate the same and only for the
company's transactions and operations; (2) Acsay made known 3:nd
implemented the policy covered by the said memorandum; and (3) Cordero

18
19
20
21
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
at 69.
at 82-93.
at 86-88.
at 91.
q
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 223178

was suspended for violating the said policy, as evidenced by a Memorandum

dated January 6, 2009. 22

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In a Decision23 dated May 6, 2013, the RTC granted Phoenix's

complaint and declared Guerrero and Cordero solidarily liable to Phoenix, as
follows:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered,

judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and
against defendants as follows:

1. Defendants are directed, jointly and severally, to

pay plaintiff the amount of P425,100.00 representing the
subrogated loss incurred by the plaintiff in settling the
damages insured vehicle on a constructive total loss basis;

2. Defendants are directed jointly and severally, to pay

plaintiffs assured, Atty. Joseph Agustin Gaticales, the sum
of P9,180.00 as his reimbursement of his participation in
the settlement of his own damaged claim on a constructive
total loss basis;

3. Defendants are directed, jointly and severally, to

pay plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of P42,500.00
plus an additional amount of P2,500.00 per appearance
every time plaintiffs counsel or his assistant appears in
court to attend to the legal needs of the plaintiff; and

4. To pay the cost of the suit.

SO ORDERED. 24

Using the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the trial court concluded that
Cordero and Guerrero were solidarily liable because the accident was due to
Cordero's negligent driving of Guerrero's Chevrolet. The RTC declared
that: (1) Guerrero's Chevrolet hit the front left portion of Gaticales' Isuzu
because of Cordero's negligence (as shown by the police report that the
Chevrolet overlapped to the center line of the highway and that Cordero
immediately fled the scene after the accident); (2) the Chevrolet was under
the exclusive control of Cordero; and (3) Gaticales is not guilty of
contributory negligence. 25

In his Motion for Reconsideration, 26 Guerrero alleged that the R TC

improperly applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because none of the
requisites for the doctrine's application are present. According to Guerrero:
(1) it was never established that the accident does not ordinarily occur in the
absence of negligence; (2) Phoenix's sole witness never testified that

q-
22
Id. at 114.
_,
?'
Supra note 4.
24
Rollo, p. 116.
25
Id. at 114-116.
26
Id. at 117-127.
 - - - --- ------- --- -- ------ ---- ___ .,_ -- -- -

Decision 6 G.R. No. 223178

Guerrero's Chevrolet was under Cordero's exclusive control since the

witness's knowledge is based only on the police report; and (3) it was never
proven that Gaticales was not guilty of contributory negligence. Guerrero
pointed out that Phoenix failed to prove an additional requirement - i.e.,
Gaticales had no knowledge of or means of knowing the cause of the
accident because he was never presented as a witness. Furthermore,
Guerrero claimed that res ipsa loquitur applies only when evidence
establishing negligence is absent or not readily available and that Phoenix
could have obtained readily available evidence in the form of Gaticales'
testimony. 27

Guerrero also averred that the trial court should not have given the
police certificate any probative value because it was merely copied from a
police blotter, thus, falling short of the requirements set forth in Section 44
(now Section 46), 28 Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. In particular, Phoenix
did not prove that the police report was prepared by a public officer who had
sufficient knowledge of the facts, which he acquired personally or through
official information. 29

However, the trial court denied Guerrero's motion for reconsideration

in an Order3° dated September 12, 2013. This prompted Guerrero to file an
appeal with the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision31 dated June 23, 2015, the appellate court affirmed the
findings of the RTC, thus denying Guerrero's appeal.

The CA ruled that the police certificate is admissible and is an

exception to the hearsay rule because it is an official record. Under Section
46 of the Rules of Court, an official record is defined as:

Section 46. Entries in official records. - Entries in

official records made in the performance of his or her duty
by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

Citing Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Alberto, 32 the appellate court

found that the requisites for the admissibility of the police certificate were
complied with, namely: (1) the entry was made by a public officer specially
enjoined by law to do so; (2) it was made by the public officer in the
performance of his duties; (3) the public officer had sufficient knowledge of

27
Id. at 120-121.
28 Now renumbered as Section 46, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
Section 46. Entries in official records. - Entries in official records made in the performance of his
or her duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law, are primafacie evidence of the facts therein stated.
29
Id. at 121-122.
30
Rollo, p. 131.
31
Supra note 2.
32
680 Phil. 813 (2012).
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 223178

the facts stated by him, which was acquired through official information
based on the investigation conducted by a police investigator (i.e., P02
Diestro ). The CA thus concluded that the police certificate, as well as the
pictures of the insured vehicle, established a rebuttable presumption of
negligence on the part of Cordero. 33

Even if the police certificate and blotter were declared inadmissible, the
CA maintained that Cordero and Guerrero would still be found liable under
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The appellate court held that the
requirements for the operation of the said doctrine were met, i.e., (1) the
accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
someone's negligence; (2) it is caused by an instrumentality within the
exclusive control of Cordero - the negligent party as pointed out by
Phoenix; and (3) there is no possibility of contributory negligence on the
part of Gaticales. Coupled with Cordero's act of fleeing the scene of the
accident, Cordero and Guerrero (as Cordero's employer) were found liable
to Phoenix and Gaticales for the amounts previously awarded by the trial
court. 34

Petitioner's Arguments

Undeterred, Guerrero filed the instant petition for review on

certiorari. Guerrero alleged that he was denied his constitutional right to
meet and cross-examine P02 Diestro, the police who investigated the
accident and prepared the police report. He claimed that the police blotter is
not conclusive proof of the truth of its entry since the officer who prepared it
was never presented in court. Guerrero also questioned the probative value
of the pictures presented by Phoenix because these do not show that they
were taken at the scene of the accident and were not identified by the person
who took the said pictures. Guerrero now asks this Court to determine
whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies based on a picture of the
damaged vehicle alone. 35

Respondent's Comment

In its Comment, 36 Phoenix sought to have the instant pet1t10n

dismissed for raising a factual issue since it questions the probative value of
Phoenix's testimonial and documentary evidence. 37 It also averred that the
constitutional right of an accused to meet the witnesses face to face does not
apply to a civil complaint for damages. 38 Lastly, Phoenix agreed with the
RTC and CA when they applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, citing the
same reasons used by the trial and appellate courts. 39

33
Rollo, pp. 28-29.
34
Id. at 30-31.
35 Id. at 12-16.
36
Additional rollo, pp. 8-17.
37
Ia. at 9-11.
38
Id. at 11-12.
39
Id. at 12-16.
 ---- --··-··-----------------·--------··-----L- .. -----·- -···-

Decision 8 G.R. No. 223178

Ruling of the Court

The strength of Phoenix's claim for damages mainly rests on the

admissibility and probative value of the police certificate (embodying the
contents of the police blotter) and the pictures of the damaged Isuzu. The
lower courts both concluded that the police blotter is an exception to the
hearsay rule because it is classified as an entry in official record, following
Section 46, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. 40

A police blotter entry, or a certification thereof, is admissible in

evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule under Section 46, Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court. In order for it to be admissible, the said evidence must be
properly presented in evidence. What must have been presented in evidence
was either the police blotter itself or a copy thereof certified by its legal
keeper. 41

Otherwise stated, the nature of the evidence as admissible - being an

exception to the hearsay rule - is different from how a party should
introduce the evidence to make it admissible.

The police blotter itself could have been presented to prove the
existence of the blotter entry and a copy of the said entry made in order for
the opposing party to determine whether the copy is a faithful representation
of the entry in the police blotter. The party offering the blotter entry may opt
to present secondary evidence in the form of a certified copy of the blotter
entry since such is allowed under Section 8, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Following Section 8, Rule 13 0 of the Rules of Court, " [w ]hen the original of
the document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public
officer in custody thereof."

Here, the Certification42 dated January 5, 2009 issued by Zarraga

Municipal Police Station's Chief of Police, PI Peregil, did not state that PI
Peregil was the legal custodian of the police blotter. 43 Even if We were to
assume that PI Peregil had legal custody of the police blotter as Zarraga
Municipal Station's Chief of Police, the Certification should still be
identified by PI Peregil himself or his representative to attest to the contents
of the Certification, as copied from the police blotter, and the authenticity of
PI Peregil's signature. Salaver is incompetent to testify on the Certification's
authenticity and due execution because Salaver is not an authorized
representative of PI Peregil or even a police officer assigned to the Zarraga
Municipal Police Station. Phoenix's failure to properly present the
Certification does not extinguish any doubts on the genuineness of the said
Certification.

40 Supra note 2 at 28-29; supra note 4 at 114-116.

41 See Francisco (2017), Basic Evidence (3 rd Ed.)., p. 325, citing 4 Jones on Evidence, 2 nd Ed.,
Section 1704.
42 Rollo, pp. 53, 69.
43
Id.
 Decision 9 G.R. No. 223178

With its inadmissibility, the lower courts erred in assigning any

probative value to the Certification. Therefore, the Certification cannot be
used as basis for applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

This Court is now left to determine whether the pictures Phoenix

presented during trial will suffice to prove Cordero' s negligence under the
principle of res ipsa loquitur.

The pictures presented by Phoenix are likewise inadmissible in

evidence for Phoenix's its failure to prove its due execution and authenticity.
As this Court held, "photographs, when presented in evidence, must be
identified by the photographer as to its production and he must testify as to
the circumstances under which they were produced. " 44 This requirement for
admissibility was similarly stated in Section 1, Rule 11 of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence when it required photographic evidence of events to be
"identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the
recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy
thereof." While We have allowed witnesses (other than the person who took
the photograph) to identify pictures presented in evidence, the said witness
must be competent to identify the photograph as a faithful representation of
the object portrayed. 45 A competent witness must be able to "assure the court
that they know or are familiar with the scenes or objects shown in the
pictures and the photographs depict them correctly." 46

Salaver is not competent to identify the pictures presented in evidence.

Salaver was not at the scene of the crime. Therefore, he does not have
personal knowledge of the scene or objects shown in the pictures. More
importantly, the said pictures do not depict the vehicular accident - i.e., the
position of the Isuzu and the Chevrolet along the National Highway at the
time of the accident. The Chevrolet was not in any of the pictures presented
by Phoenix. It cannot be presumed that (1) the Chevrolet was the
instrumentality that caused the accident; (2) Gaticales was the only injured
party; and (3) Gaticales was not guilty of any contributory negligence.

All told, Phoenix failed to discharge its burden of proving its case
with preponderance of evidence.

Guerrero's prayer for PS00,000.00 as moral damages, P200,000.00 as

exemplary damages, and PlS0,000.00 as attorney's fees are denied for lack
of any factual or legal basis. Guerrero failed to justify why he should be
awarded the abovementioned monetary claims as the instant petition focused
solely on the inadmissibility of the police certificate and pictures.

44 Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Padoson Stainless Steel Corp., G.R. No. 211876, June 25, 2018, citing
People v. Gonzales, 582 Phil. 412,421 (2008);
45 Sison v. People, 320 Phil. 112, 131 (1995).
46 Pronove, Jr. (1995), pp. 40-41, citing 5 Mora, Rules of court 80 ( 1980), citing New York v. Moore,
105 F. 725.
 . --- · · - - - - · · - - - - - - - - - - - - -~----__J ___________________ _

,. .
-

Decision 10 G.R. No. 223178

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June

23, 2015 and the Resolution dated January 20, 2016 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 101902 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Complaint in Civil Case No. 09-122267 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

AL~!1OBE S.CAGUIOA
~ l Assa

~
s1kmrLi_2~
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the OP,· of the Court's Division.

DIOSDADO
Chief