EDSA SHANGRI-LA Vs BF CORP (Original Document Rule)

EDSA SHANGRI-LA HOTEL AND RESORT, INC., et.al vs.
BF CORPORATION
G.R. No. 145842, June 27, 2008
Nasheya Khryzle M. Inere
FACTS:
A construction contract denominated as Agreement for the Execution of Builder's Work

for the EDSA Shangri-la Hotel Project that ESHRI and BF executed for the construction
of the EDSA Shangri-la Hotel starting May 1, 1991. Among other things, the contract
stipulated for the payment of the contract price on the basis of the work accomplished
as described in the monthly progress billings.
Under this arrangement, BF shall submit a monthly progress billing to ESHRI which
would then remeasure the work accomplished and prepare a Progress Payment
Certificate for that month's progress billing. In a memorandum-letter dated August 16,
1991 to BF, ESHRI laid out the collection procedure BF was to follow, to wit:
(1) submission of the progress billing to ESHRI's Engineering Department;
(2) following-up of the preparation of the Progress Payment Certificate with the
Head of the Quantity Surveying Department; and
(3) following-up of the release of the payment with one Evelyn San Pascual.
BF adhered to the procedures agreed upon in all its billings for the period from May 1,
1991 to June 30, 1992, submitting for the purpose the required Builders Work Summary,
the monthly progress billings, including an evaluation of the work in accordance with the
Project Manager's Instructions (PMIs) and the detailed valuations contained in the Work
Variation Orders (WVOs) for final re-measurement under the PMIs. BF said that the
values of the WVOs were contained in the progress billings under the section "Change
Orders."
From May 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992, BF submitted a total of 19 progress billings
following the procedure agreed upon. Based on Progress Billing Nos. 1 to 13, ESHRI
paid BF P86,501,834.05, to be exact.
According to BF, however, ESHRI, for Progress Billing Nos. 14 to 19, did not
re-measure the work done, did not prepare the Progress Payment
Certificates, let alone remit payment for the inclusive periods covered. In this
regard, BF claimed having been misled into working continuously on the
project by ESHRI which gave the assurance about the Progress Payment
Certificates already being processed.
After several futile attempts to collect the unpaid billings, BF filed, on July 26, 1993,
before the RTC a suit for a sum of money and damages. In its defense, ESHRI claimed
having overpaid BF for Progress Billing Nos. 1 to 13 and, by way of counterclaim with
damages, asked that BF be ordered to refund the excess payments. ESHRI also charged
BF with incurring delay and turning up with inferior work accomplishment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the [CA] committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding issues of
law raised by petitioners in their appeal [particularly in admitting in evidence
photocopies of Progress Billing Nos. 14 to 19, PMIs and WVOs.
RULING:
The Court ruled that the petition has no merit.
The only actual rule that the term "best evidence (now original document rule)" denotes
is the rule requiring that the original of a writing must, as a general proposition, be
produced and secondary evidence of its contents is not admissible except where the
original cannot be had. Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court enunciates the [original
document] rule which states that:
SEC. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. - When the subject of inquiry
is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the
following cases: but this case cited only 2 exceptions, these are:
(a) When the original is 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 or
[under the new rules] the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or
procedures ;
Complementing the said provision is Sec. 6 of Rule 130, which reads:
SEC. 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. - If the

document is in the custody or under control of the adverse party, he must have
reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its
existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as
in the case of loss.
Secondary evidence of the contents of a written instrument or document

refers to evidence other than the original instrument or document itself. A party may
present secondary evidence of the contents of a writing not only when the original is
lost or destroyed, but also when it is in the custody or under the control of the adverse
party. In either instance, however, certain explanations must be given before a party
can resort to secondary evidence.
In SC’s view, the trial court correctly allowed the presentation of the photocopied
documents in question as secondary evidence. Any suggestion that BF failed to lay the
required basis for presenting the photocopies of Progress Billing Nos. 14 to 19 instead of
their originals has to be dismissed.
Clearly, the circumstances obtaining in this case fall under the exception under Sec. 3(b)
of Rule 130. In other words, the conditions sine qua non for the presentation and
reception of the photocopies of the original document as secondary evidence have been
met. These are: (1) there is proof of the original document's execution or existence;
(2) there is proof of the cause of the original document's unavailability; and
(3) the offeror is in good faith.
The Court also quote Magdayao v. People, which states that.

“To warrant the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original of a writing is in
the custody or control of the adverse party, Section 6 of Rule 130 provides that the
adverse party must be given reasonable notice, that he fails or refuses to produce the
same in court and that the offeror offers satisfactory proof of its existence.”
In other words, the mere fact that the original of the writing is in the custody or control
of the party against whom it is offered does not warrant the admission of secondary
evidence.
The offeror must prove that he has done all in his power to secure the best evidence by
giving notice to the said party to produce the document. The notice may be in the form
of a motion for the production of the original or made in open court in the presence
of the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party in
custody of the original has sufficient time to produce the same. When such party
has the original of the writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce it or refuses to
produce it, secondary evidence may be admitted.
Therefore, the petition has no merit and the admissibility of the secondary evidence is
proper.

EDSA SHANGRI-LA Vs BF CORP (Original Document Rule)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDSA SHANGRI-LA Vs BF CORP (Original Document Rule)

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

EDSA SHANGRI-LA Vs BF CORP (Original Document Rule)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDSA SHANGRI-LA HOTEL AND RESORT, INC., et.al vs.

G.R. No. 145842, June 27, 2008

Nasheya Khryzle M. Inere

A construction contract denominated as Agreement for the Execution of Builder's Work

(1) submission of the progress billing to ESHRI's Engineering Department;

Complementing the said provision is Sec. 6 of Rule 130, which reads:

SEC. 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. - If the

Secondary evidence of the contents of a written instrument or document

The Court also quote Magdayao v. People, which states that.

You might also like