1

G.R. No. 223274

RCBC BANKARD SERVICES CORPORATION, Petitioner

vs.
MOISES ORACION, JR. AND EMILY* L. ORACION, Respondents

CAGUIOA, J.:

Before the Court is the petition for review on certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court (Rules) filed by petitioner RCBC Bankard Services Corporation (petitioner) assailing the
Decision2 dated August 13, 2013 (RTC Decision) and the Order3 dated March 1, 2016 (RTC
Order) of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City (RTC) in Civil Case No. 73756. The
RTC Decision affirmed in toto the Decision4 dated September 28, 2012 of the Metropolitan Trial
Court, Branch 72, Pasig City (MeTC) in Civil Case No. 18629, which dismissed the complaint of
petitioner for lack of preponderance of evidence.5 The RTC Order denied petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration.6

The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings

The antecedent facts as gleaned from the MeTC Decision and narrated in the RTC Decision are
straightforward.

Respondents Moises Oracion, Jr. (Moises) and Emily L. Oracion (Emily) (collectively,
respondents) applied for and were granted by petitioner credit card accommodations with the
issuance of a Bankard PESO Mastercard Platinum7 with Account No. 5243-0205-8171-4007
(credit card) on December 2, 2010.8 Respondents on various dates used the credit card in
purchasing different products but failed to pay petitioner the total amount of ₱117,157.98,
inclusive of charges and penalties or at least the minimum amount due under the credit
card.9 Petitioner attached to its complaint against respondents "duplicate original" copies of the
Statements of Account from April 17, 2011 to December 15, 201110 (SOAs, Annexes "A", "A-l"
to "A-8") and the Credit History Inquiry (Annex "B").11 The SOAs bear the name of Moises as
the addressee and the Credit History Inquiry bears the name: "MR ORACION JR M A" on the
top portion.12 Despite the receipt of the SOAs, respondents failed and refused to comply with
their obligation to petitioner under the credit card.13 Consequently, petitioner sent a written
demand letter (dated January 26, 2012, Annex "C" to the complaint 14) to respondents but despite
receipt thereof, respondents refused to comply with their obligation to petitioner.15 Hence,
petitioner filed a Complaint for Sum of Money16 dated February 7, 2012 before the MeTC.17

Acting on the complaint, the MeTC issued summons on March 13, 2012.18 Based on the return of
the summons dated April 12, 2012 of Sheriff III Inocentes P. Villasquez, the summons was duly
effected to respondents through substituted service on April 11, 2012.19 For failure of
respondents to file their answer within the required period, the MeTC motu proprio, pursuant to
Section 6 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, considered the case submitted for resolution.20

Ruling of the MeTC

 2

The MeTC, without delving into the merits of the case, dismissed it on the ground that petitioner,
as the plaintiff, failed to discharge the required burden of proof in a civil case, which is to
establish its case by preponderance of evidence.21 The MeTC justified the dismissal in this wise:

Perusal of the records shows that the signature in the attachments in support of the [complaint]
are mere photocopies, stamp mark22 in the instant case. The Best Evidence Rule provides that the
court shall not receive any evidence that is merely substitutionary in its nature, such as stamp
mark, as long as the original evidence can be had. Absent a clear showing that the original
writing has been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court; the photocopies must be
disregarded being unworthy of any probative value and being an inadmissible piece of evidence
(PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
LEONILO MARCOS, respondents, G.R. No 127469 2004 Jan 15, 1st Division).23

The decretal portion of the MeTC Decision dated September 28, 2012 reads:

WHEREFORE, for lack of [preponderance of evidence, herein [complaint] is hereby

DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.24

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal25 dated December 17, 2012 on the ground that the MeTC
Decision was contrary to the facts and law.26

In its Memorandum for Appellant27 dated February 19, 2012, petitioner argued that what it
attached to the complaint were the "duplicate original copies" and not mere
photocopies.28 Petitioner also argued that:

x x x [if for] unknown reasons or events the said Duplicate Original Copies were no longer found
in the record of the court or that the copy of the Complaint intended for the court, where these
Originals were attached, was not forwarded to the x x x MTC, [petitioner] respectfully submits
that justice and equity dictates that the x x x MTC should have required [petitioner] to produce or
reproduce the same instead of immediately dismissing the case on that ground alone. In which
case, a clarificatory hearing for that purpose is proper. This is especially true in the present case
considering that there were allegations in the complaint that the Duplicate Original Copies were
attached as annexes therein; and that the x x x MTC motu proprio submitted the case for
decision. Not to mention the fact that these documents are computer generated reports, in which
case, [petitioner] could simply present another set of printed Duplicate Original Copies for the x
x x MTC['s] perusal.29

Ruling of the RTC

The RTC found petitioner's appeal to be without merit.30 It reasoned out that:

In the instant case, it is up to [petitioner] to prove that the attachments in support of the
complaint are originals and not merely substitutionary in nature. Only after submission of such
original documents can the court delve into the merit of the case.
 3

[Petitioner's] insistence that it attached Duplicate Original Copies of the [SOAs] and the Credit
History Inquiry as Annexes x x x in its complaint is entirely for naught, as such documents could
not be considered as original.

A perusal of the said annexes would show that there is a stamp mark at the bottom right portion
of each page of the said annexes, with the words "DUPLICATE ORIGINAL (signature)
CHARITO O. HAM, Senior Manager, Collection Support Division Head, Collection Group,
Bankard Inc."

Further inspection of the said stamp marks would reveal that the signatures appearing at the top
of the name CHARITO O. HAM in the respective annexes are not original signatures but are part
of the subject stamp marks.

Indeed, Annexes "A", "A-1" to "A-8" and "B", attached to the complaint, cannot be considered
as original documents contemplated under Section 3, Rule 130 of the x x x Rules of Court. In
fact, even [petitioner] found the need to stamp mark them as "DUPLICATE ORIGINAL" to
differentiate them from the original documents.

The Court also noted the fact that [petitioner] filed a MANIFESTATION dated August 9, 2012,
attaching therewith as Annexes "A", "A-1" to "A-8" the Duplicate Original Itemized [SOAs],
and as Annex "B" the Credit History Inquiry. Upon examination of these latter annexes, the
Court observed that they are merely photocopies of the annexes attached to the complaint, but
with a mere addition of stamp marks bearing the same inscription as the first stamp marks. These
only demonstrate that whenever [petitioner] describes a document as "DUPLICATE
ORIGINAL", it only refers to a copy of the document and not necessarily the original thereof.
Such substitutionary documents could not be given probative value and are inadmissible pieces
of evidence.31

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision dated August 13, 2013 reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, and finding no cogent reason to disturb the Decision of
the [MeTC] dated September 28, 2012, said DECISION is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

SO ORDERED.32

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration33 dated August 29, 2013, which was denied by the
RTC in its Order34 dated March 1, 2016.

Hence, the instant Rule 45 Petition. The Court in its Resolution35 dated June 27, 2016 required
respondents to comment on the Petition and directed the Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC to
elevate the complete records of Civil Case No. 73756, which were subsequently received by the
Court. In view of the returned and unserved copy of the Resolution dated June 27, 2016, the
Court in its Resolution36 dated June 6, 2018 dispensed with respondents' comment.

The Issues
 4

Petitioner raises the following issues:

1. on pure question of law, whether the RTC erred in affirming the MeTC's dismissal of
petitioner's complaint in that pursuant to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence
(A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC), an electronic document is to be regarded as an original thereof under the
Best Evidence Rule and thus, with the presented evidence in "original duplicate copies,"
petitioner has preponderantly proven respondents' unpaid obligation; and

2. in any event, invoking the rule that technicalities must yield to substantial justice, whether
petitioner must be afforded the opportunity to rectify its mistake, offer additional evidence and/or
present to the court another set of direct print-outs of the electronic documents.

The Court's Ruling

On the first issue, petitioner invokes for the first time on appeal the Rules on Electronic
Evidence to justify its position that it has preponderantly proven its claim for unpaid obligation
against respondents because it had attached to its complaint electronic documents. Petitioner
argues that since electronic documents, which are computer-generated, accurately representing
information, data, figures and/or other modes of written expression, creating or extinguishing a
right or obligation, when directly printed out are considered original reproductions of the same,
they are admissible under the Best Evidence Rule.37 Petitioner explains that since the attachments
to its complaint are wholly computer-generated print-outs which it caused to be reproduced
directly from the computer, they qualify as electronic documents which should be regarded as
the equivalent of the original documents pursuant to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence.38

Procedurally, petitioner cannot adopt a new theory in its appeal before the Court and abandon its
theory in its appeal before the RTC. Pursuant to Section 15, Rule 44 of the Rules, petitioner may
include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court
below and is within the issues framed by the parties.

In the Memorandum for Appellant which it filed before the RTC, petitioner did not raise the
Rules on Electronic Evidence to justify that the so-called "duplicate original copies" of the SOAs
and Credit History Inquiry are electronic documents. Rather, it insisted that they were duplicate
original copies, being computer-generated reports, and not mere photocopies or substitutionary
evidence, as found by the MeTC. As observed by the RTC, petitioner even tried to rectify the
attachments (annexes) to its complaint, by filing a Manifestation dated August 9, 2012 wherein it
attached copies of the said annexes. Unfortunately, as observed by the RTC, the attachments to
the said Manifestation "are merely photocopies of the annexes attached to the complaint, but
with a mere addition of stamp marks bearing the same inscription as the first stamp marks" 39 that
were placed in the annexes to the complaint. Because petitioner has not raised the electronic
document argument before the RTC, it may no longer be raised nor ruled upon on appeal.

Even in the complaint, petitioner never intimated that it intended the annexes to be considered as
electronic documents as defined in the Rules on Electronic Evidence. If such were petitioner's
 5

intention, then it would have laid down in the complaint the basis for their introduction and
admission as electronic documents.

Also, estoppel bars a party from raising issues, which have not been raised in the proceedings
before the lower courts, for the first time on appeal. 40 Clearly, petitioner, by its acts and
representations, is now estopped to claim that the annexes to its complaint are not duplicate
original copies but electronic documents. It is too late in the day for petitioner to switch theories.

Thus, procedurally, the Court is precluded from resolving the first issue.

Even assuming that the Court brushes aside the above-noted procedural obstacles, the Court
cannot just concede that the pieces of documentary evidence in question are indeed electronic
documents, which according to the Rules on Electronic Evidence are considered functional
equivalent of paper-based documents41 and regarded as the equivalent of original documents
under the Best Evidence Rule if they are print-outs or outputs readable by sight or other means,
shown to reflect the data accurately.42

For the Court to consider an electronic document as evidence, it must pass the test of
admissibility. According to Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, "[a]n
electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility
prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed
by these Rules."

Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence lays down the authentication process of electronic
documents. Section 1 of Rule 5 imposes upon the party seeking to introduce an electronic
document in any legal proceeding the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided
therein. Section 2 of Rule 5 sets forth the required proof of authentication:

SEC. 2. Manner of authentication. - Before any private electronic document offered as authentic
is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:

(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same;

(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the
Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the
document; or

(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.

As to method of proof, Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence provides:

SECTION 1. Affidavit of evidence. - All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary
weight of an electronic document may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct
personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit must affirmatively
show the competence of the affiant to testify on the matters contained therein.
 6

Evidently, petitioner could not have complied with the Rules on Electronic Evidence because it
failed to authenticate the supposed electronic documents through the required affidavit of
evidence. As earlier pointed out, what petitioner had in mind at the inception (when it filed the
complaint) was to have the annexes admitted as duplicate originals as the term is understood in
relation to paper-based documents. Thus, the annexes or attachments to the complaint of
petitioner are inadmissible as electronic documents, and they cannot be given any probative
value.

Even the section on "Business Records as Exception to the Hearsay Rule" of Rule 8 of the Rules
on Electronic Evidence requires authentication by the custodian or other qualified witness:

SECTION 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. - A memorandum, report, record or data

compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or
other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a
person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity,
and such was the regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation
by electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian
or other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.

In the absence of such authentication through the affidavit of the custodian or other qualified
person, the said annexes or attachments cannot be admitted and appreciated as business records
and excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence. Consequently, the annexes to the complaint fall
within the Rule on Hearsay Evidence and are to be excluded pursuant to Section 36, Rule 130 of
the Rules.

In fine, both the MeTC and the RTC correctly applied the Best Evidence Rule. They correctly
regarded the annexes to the complaint as mere photocopies of the SOAs and the Credit History
Inquiry, and not necessarily the original thereof. Being substitutionary documents, they could not
be given probative value and are inadmissible based on the Best Evidence Rule.

The Best Evidence Rule, which requires the presentation of the original document, is
unmistakable:

SEC. 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
 7

(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office. (2a)43

With respect to paper-based documents, the original of a document, i.e., the original writing,
instrument, deed, paper, inscription, or memorandum, is one the contents of which are the
subject of the inquiry.44 Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, an electronic document is
regarded as the functional equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it
is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately.45 As
defined, "electronic document" refers to information or the representation of information, data,
figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by
which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and
affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically; and it includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by
sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic
document.46 The term "electronic document" may be used interchangeably with "electronic data
message"47 and the latter refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic,
optical or similar means.48

Section 4, Rule 130 of the Rules and Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence
identify the following instances when copies of a document are equally regarded as originals:

[1] When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.

[2] When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at
or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.49

[3] When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical
contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same
matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other
equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall
be regarded as the equivalent of the original.50

Apparently, "duplicate original copies" or "multiple original copies" wherein two or more copies
are executed at or about the same time with identical contents are contemplated in 1 and 3 above.
If the copy is generated after the original is executed, it may be called a "print-out or output"
based on the definition of an electronic document, or a "counterpart" based on Section 2, Rule 4
of the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

It is only when the original document is unavailable that secondary evidence may be allowed
pursuant to Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules, which provides:

SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. - When the original document has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence
and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy,
 8

or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the
order stated. (4a)

Going back to the documents in question, the fact that a stamp with the markings:

DUPLICATE ORIGINAL

(Sgd.)
CHARITO O. HAM
Senior Manager
Collection Support Division Head

Collection group
Bankard Inc.51

was placed at the right bottom of each page of the SOAs and the Credit History Inquiry did not
make them "duplicate original copies" as described above. The necessary allegations to qualify
them as "duplicate original copies" must be stated in the complaint and duly supported by
the pertinent affidavit of the qualified person.

The Court observes that based on the records of the case, only the signature in the stamp at the
bottom of the Credit History Inquiry appears to be original. The signatures of the "certifying"
person in the SOAs are not original but part of the stamp. Thus, even if all the signatures of
Charito O. Ham, Senior Manager, Collection Support Division Head of petitioner's Collection
Group are original, the required authentication so that the annexes to the complaint can be
considered as "duplicate original copies" will still be lacking.

If petitioner intended the annexes to the complaint as electronic documents, then the proper
allegations should have been made in the complaint and the required proof of authentication as
"print-outs", "outputs" or "counterparts" should have been complied with.

The Court is aware that the instant case was considered to be governed by the Rule on Summary
Procedure, which does not expressly require that the affidavits of the witness must accompany
the complaint or the answer and it is only after the receipt of the order in connection with the
preliminary conference and within 10 days therefrom, wherein the parties are required to submit
the affidavits of the parties' witnesses and other evidence on the factual issues defined in the
order, together with their position papers setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by
them.52

Given the nature of the documents that petitioner needed to adduce in order to prove its cause of
action, it would have been prudent on the part of its lawyer, to make the necessary allegations in
the complaint and attach thereto the required accompanying affidavits to lay the foundation for
their admission as evidence in conformity with the Best Evidence Rule.
 9

This prudent or cautionary action may avert a dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of
evidence, as what happened in this case, when the court acts pursuant to Section 6 of the Rule on
Summary Procedure, which provides:

SEC. 6. Effect of failure to answer. — Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within
the period above provided, the court, motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render
judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed
for therein: Provided, however, That the court may in its discretion reduce the amount of
damages and attorney's fees claimed for being excessive or otherwise unconscionable. This is
without prejudice to the applicability of Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, if there are two
or more defendants.

As provided in the said Section, the judgment that is to be rendered is that which is "warranted
by the facts alleged in the complaint" and such facts must be duly established in accordance with
the Rules on Evidence.

Upon a perusal of the items in the SOAs, the claim of petitioner against respondents is less than
₱100,000.00,53 if the late charges and interest charges are deducted from the total claim of
₱117,157.98. Given that the action filed by petitioner is for payment of money where the value
of the claim does not exceed ₱100,000.00 (the jurisdictional amount when the complaint was
filed in January 2013), exclusive of interest and costs, petitioner could have opted to prosecute
its cause under the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (Revised Rules for Small
Claims).

Section 6 of the Revised Rules for Small Claims provides: "A small claims action is commenced
by filing with the court an accomplished and verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) in
duplicate, accompanied by a Certification Against Forum Shopping, Splitting a Single Cause of
Action, and Multiplicity of Suits (Form 1-A-SCC), and two (2) duly certified photocopies of the
actionable document/s subject of the claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses and other
evidence to support the claim. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not
attached to or submitted together with the Statement of Claim, unless good cause is shown for
the admission of additional evidence."

If petitioner took this option, then it would have been incumbent upon it to attach to its Statement
of Claim even the affidavits of its witnesses. If that was the option that petitioner took, then
maybe its complaint might not have been dismissed for lack of preponderance of evidence.
Unfortunately, petitioner included the late and interest charges in its claim and prosecuted its
cause under the Rule on Summary Procedure.

Proceeding to the second issue, petitioner begs for the relaxation of the application of the Rules
on Evidence and seeks the Court's equity jurisdiction.

Firstly, petitioner cannot, on one hand, seek the review of its case by the Court on a pure
question of law and afterward, plead that the Court, on equitable grounds, grant its Petition,
nonetheless. For the Court to exercise its equity jurisdiction, certain facts must be presented to
justify the same. A review on a pure question of law necessarily negates the review of facts.
 10

Petitioner has not presented any compelling equitable arguments to persuade the Court to relax
the application of elementary evidentiary rules in its cause.

Secondly, petitioner has not been candid in admitting its error as pointed out by both the MeTC
and the RTC. After being apprised that the annexes to its complaint do not conform to the Best
Evidence Rule, petitioner did not make any effort to comply so that the lower courts could have
considered its claim. Rather, it persisted in insisting that the annexes are compliant. Even before
the Court, petitioner did not even attach such documents which would convince the Court
that petitioner could adduce the original documents as required by the Best Evidence Rule
to prove its claim against respondents.

A Final Note

The present Petition is clearly a frivolous appeal. An appeal is frivolous if it presents no

justiciable question and is so readily recognizable as devoid of any merit on the face of the
record that there is little, if any, prospect that it can ever succeed. 54 The Petition indubitably
shows the counsel's frantic search for any ground to resuscitate petitioner's lost cause, which due
to the counsel's fault was doomed with the filing of a deficient complaint. 55 Thus, pursuant to
Section 3, Rule 142 of the Rules the imposition of treble costs on petitioner, to be paid by its
counsel, is justified.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated August 13, 2013 and the
Order dated March 1, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City in Civil Case No.
73756 are AFFIRMED. Treble costs are hereby charged against the counsel for petitioner
RCBC Bankard Services Corporation. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the personal
records of Atty. Xerxes E. Cortel in the Office of the Bar Confidant.

SO ORDERED.
 11

[ G.R. No. 242328, April 26, 2021 ]

UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE, CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. PASCUAL LINER, INC.,
RESPONDENT.

LOPEZ, J., J.:

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is an exception to the rule that hearsay evidence is devoid of
probative value, whether objected to or not. This is because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor
establishes a rule on negligence that can stand on its own, independent of the hearsay character
of the evidence presented.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking
the reversal of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated June 13, 2018 and its
Resolution2 dated September 28, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 149281. The Decision of the CA
granted the petition for review under Rule 42 filed by the herein respondent Pascual Liner, Inc.
and set aside the Decision3 dated September 22, 2016 rendered by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) Branch 66 of Makati City, which affirmed the Order4 dated November 17, 2015 rendered
by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 63 of Makati City. In the aforesaid Order, the
MeTC found Pascual Liner, Inc. liable to pay the herein petitioner UCPB General Insurance Co.
Inc. the amount of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P350,000.00) plus interest, attorney's
fees, and cost of suit.

FACTS AND ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS

On September 21, 2005, petitioner UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. (petitioner) issued
Comprehensive Car Insurance Policy No. DLS05MD-MNP111436 to its assured, Rommel B.
Lojo (Lojo), over the latter's vehicle, a 1997 BMW A/T 2000 four-door sedan bearing plate
number JMU-777 (insured vehicle).5

On December 09, 2005, at around 3:30 p.m., the insured vehicle was cruising northbound along
the South Luzon Expressway in front of Concepcion Bldg. Sucat, Parañaque City when it was
bumped at the rear portion by respondent Pascual Liner, Inc.'s (respondent) bus with plate
number PWN-447 driven by Leopoldo L. Cadavido (Cadavido).6 As a result of the impact, the
insured vehicle was pushed forward, causing it to hit another vehicle, an aluminum van with
plate number TNR-217 driven by Nilo L. Nuñez. The vehicular accident was investigated by the
Traffic Management and Security Department of the Philippine National Construction
Corporation (PNCC) Skyway Corporation, for which Solomon Tatlonghari (Tatlonghari)
 12

prepared a Traffic Accident Sketch. Thereafter, the matter was endorsed to the Philippine
National Police, for which PO3 Joselito Quila (PO3 Quila) prepared a Traffic Accident Report.7

Under the Traffic Accident Report, PO3 Quila described the incident as follows:

Prior to the incident, all involved vehicles were travelling along SLEX heading north direction.
[vehicle] 1 (aluminum closed van) ahead of [vehicle] 2 (BMW) and [vehicle] 3 (Pascual bus)
respectively. Upon reaching the place of occurrence, [vehicle] 2 was hit on the right rear end by
the left front end of [vehicle] 3. Due to the impact [vehicle] 2 was pushed and its front rammed
into the rear end of [vehicle] 1.

Driver of [vehicle] 3 claimed that allegedly [vehicle] 2, from the rightmost lane veered to the left
and stopped momentarily, thus, a collision.8

With serious damage caused to the rear and front portions of the insured vehicle, Lojo filed a
claim with petitioner under his insurance policy. Upon examination, the insured vehicle was
determined to be beyond economical repair, and after proper evaluation, the claim was found to
be compensable by petitioner. In turn, petitioner paid Lojo the amount of Five Hundred Twenty
Thousand Pesos (P520,000.00), while Lojo issued a Release of Claim in petitioner's favor,
including a waiver of all his rights over the insured vehicle.9

On November 12, 2009, petitioner filed a Complaint10 for sum of money before the RTC against
respondent and Cadavido alleging that as a result of Lojo's receipt of the insurance indemnity it
paid arising from the damage caused on the insured vehicle, it was subrogated to the rights of
Lojo. It asked the court to order respondent and Cadavido to pay the amount of Three Hundred
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P350,000.00) equivalent to the amount it paid to Lojo minus the salvage
value.11 The complaint was initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the amount claimed by
petitioner falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MeTC.

On December 21, 2009, petitioner filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Direct Transmittal of

Records12 to the Executive Clerk of Court, which the RTC granted. The case was then raffled to
the MeTC Branch 61 and docketed as Civil Case No. 100078. Thereafter, the parties were
directed to coordinate with the court sheriff for the expeditious service of summons. However,
petitioner failed to comply with the said Order and the complaint was dismissed without
prejudice.

On July 26, 2010, petitioner filed an Ex-Parte Compliance13 and the MeTC reconsidered and set
aside its Order that dismissed the complaint of petitioner. Per the sheriffs Return dated February
2, 2011, a copy of the summons, together with a copy of the complaint and its annexes, was
personally served upon respondent. However, the summons was returned unserved upon
Cadavido.14

On February 9, 2011, respondent filed its Answer (with Affirmative Defense),15 denying

petitioner's allegations. It asserted that the Traffic Accident Report and the Traffic Accident
Sketch were not categorical in proving its negligence or that of its employee; rather, these only
proved that the driver of the insured vehicle was at fault.
 13

With respect to its affirmative defenses, respondent alleged that the complaint of petitioner must
be dismissed due to the following reasons: (1) the cause of action has prescribed, as the alleged
accident took place on December 9, 2005, while the complaint was served only on February
2011, thus petitioner failed to prosecute its case for an unreasonable length of time; (2) there is
utter lack of compliance with the appropriate Verification and Certification against Forum
Shopping since there is no proof attached to the complaint that the person who signed the
aforesaid documents was duly authorized by petitioner; and (3) there is no prior demand to pay
petitioner, which is a condition sine qua non prior to filing a case for collection and/or sum of
money.16

On February 17, 2011, petitioner filed its Reply17 to respondent's Answer, stating that the date
of service of summons is not included in counting the prescriptive period and that the complaint
was filed on time since it was instituted on November 9, 2009, which falls within four (4) years
from the date of occurrence of the accident on December 9, 2005. With respect to the alleged
defect in the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping, petitioner attached the
Secretary's Certificate containing the board resolution that authorized Atty. Francisco M. Nob to
sign the said documents. As to the allegation regarding prior demand, petitioner alleged that
respondent's conclusion that demand is a condition sine qua non to the filing of cases is bereft of
merit since demand may be made judicially or extrajudicially, and whichever kind of demand is
chosen, if the obligor fails to fulfill its obligation, it will be in mora solvendi and liable for
damages.

On February 17, 2011, petitioner filed a Request for Admission addressed to respondent. On
March 8, 2011, respondent filed a Response thereto admitting that it is the owner of passenger
bus with plate no. PWN 447, but denying the following: (1) that Cadavido was its employee as
of December 9, 2005; (2) that Cadavido was tasked to drive the said bus on the said date; and (3)
that the Traffic Accident Sketch and the Traffic Accident Report were genuine and duly
executed.18

The parties were later directed to attend the mediation and the judicial dispute resolution, which,
however, failed to produce a settlement between the parties. The case was then raffled to the
MeTC Branch 63 of Makati City.19

Due proceedings were conducted and the parties were given time to file the judicial affidavits of
their witnesses. It was only petitioner that complied with the order. Respondent was considered
in default in view of its inability to file the required judicial affidavits. Consequently, the case
was deemed submitted for decision.20

MeTC DECISION

In its Decision21 dated January 26, 2015, the MeTC found that the proximate cause of the
vehicular accident was the negligence of Cadavido in driving respondent's bus. However, to be
adjudged as liable to petitioner, respondent must be found to be in default of its
obligation.ℒαwρhi ৷ Since demand was not made by petitioner to either respondent or Cadavido,
neither of them can be considered to be in default, and thus it cannot be said that there existed a
 14

delay for there to arise an obligation to pay. The MeTC added that it did not acquire jurisdiction
over Cadavido since the summons upon him was returned unserved.22

On Motion for Reconsideration23 filed by petitioner on April 27, 2015, the MeTC set aside its
Decision and rendered an Order24 dated November 17, 2015, this time finding respondent liable
to pay petitioner the amount of P350,000.00, plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum and
attorney's fees of 25% of the recoverable amount, plus cost of suit. In rendering judgment in
favor of petitioner, the MeTC applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, which creates a
presumption of negligence on the part of Cadavido who was in control of the bus, without which,
the insured vehicle would not have been bumped. Such negligence gave rise to the obligation to
pay the insured. Since the assured owner decided to file an insurance claim with petitioner,
which the latter paid, petitioner was subrogated to the rights of the assured in claiming for the
damages incurred by the assured in accordance with Article 2207 of the New Civil Code. The
dismissal of the case against Cadavido was reiterated since the court did not acquire jurisdiction
over him as the summons upon him was returned unserved.25

RTC DECISION

Respondent appealed the MeTC Order before the RTC, which was raffled to Branch 66 and
docketed as R-MKT-16-00862-CV. After due proceedings, the RTC rendered a Decision[26]
dated September 22, 2016 affirming in toto, the assailed Order.ℒαwρhi ৷ The RTC found that
respondent has not clearly demonstrated any reversible error committed by the MeTC. Liability
by way of legal subrogation was clearly established by petitioner by preponderance of evidence.
Negligence was likewise established taking into consideration the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration,27 which the RTC denied in an Order28 dated

January 5, 2017.

CA DECISION

Thereafter, respondent elevated the RTC Decision and Order before the CA, which rendered the
assailed Decision that reversed the RTC Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
September 22, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati City, in Civil Case No. R-
MKT-16-00862-CV, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent UCPB General Insurance
Company, Incorporated's Complaint is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.29

In its Decision, the CA held that the Traffic Accident Sketch and the Traffic Accident Report
were inadmissible in evidence as they failed to comply with the requisites of Entries in Official
Records as an exception to the Hearsay Rule. It found that since neither the police officer who
prepared the report nor the traffic enforcer who prepared the sketch gave a testimony in support
thereof, these documents were not exempted from the Hearsay Rule.30 It opined that the
 15

vehicular incident was investigated by the Traffic Management and Security Department of
Department of the PNCC Skyway Corporation, which prepared a Traffic Accident Sketch. The
incident was only endorsed to the PNP, which in turn prepared a Traffic Accident Report. Thus,
the matters indicated in the Traffic Accident Report were not personally known to the
investigating officer. Rather, it was Solomon Tatlonghari, of the PNCC, who had personal
knowledge of the facts stated in the Traffic Accident Report. Yet, no affidavit of his testimony
was submitted before the MeTC.31

Aggrieved, petitioner brought the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. On
June 13, 2019, respondent filed its Comment32 to the petition echoing the CA Decision.

ISSUES

The issues brought forth by petitioner are the following:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Rule 130, Sec. 40 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence is not applicable to the case at bar because the third requisite was not satisfied

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor

RULING

At the core of the instant petition is the applicability of the hearsay rule and entries made in
official records as an exception thereto, as well as the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitor. While the MeTC and the RTC admitted and appreciated the Traffic Accident Report in
favor of petitioner, the CA found otherwise, treating it as an inadmissible hearsay evidence, as it
failed to satisfy all the requirements of entries made in official records, which could have made it
an admissible hearsay evidence. With respect to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, the MeTC and
the RTC applied the same in favor of petitioner while the CA no longer proceeded to discuss the
doctrine since the Traffic Accident Report, which served as the anchor to prove negligence, was
found to be inadmissible in evidence.

We shall discuss the applicability of these doctrines in seriatim.

Hearsay evidence rule

Under the amended Rules on Evidence,33 hearsay evidence is defined as follows:

Section 37. Hearsay. - Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A statement
is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him
or her as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these
Rules.

A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-
examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (a) inconsistent with the declarant's
 16

testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other
proceeding, or in a deposition; (b) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to
rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper
influence or motive; or (c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her. (n)

Nonetheless, at the time when petitioner filed its complaint before the MeTC on December 21,
2009, the prevailing Rules on Evidence was the Rules adopted on March 14, 1989, under which
Sec. 36, Rule 130, governed the appreciation of hearsay evidence, to wit:

Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. - A witness
can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.

The applicability of procedural rules was explained by the Court in the case of Tan Jr. vs. Court
of Appeals34 as follows:

There is no dispute that rules of procedure can be given retroactive effect. This general rule,
however, has well-delineated exceptions. We quote author Agpalo:

xxxx

Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending
and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and
to that extent. The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights may not
preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The retroactive application of
procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely
affected. Nor is the retroactive application of procedural statutes constitutionally objectionable.
The reason is that as a general rule no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws.
It has been held that "a person has no vested right in any particular remedy, and a litigant cannot
insist on the application to the trial of his case, whether civil or criminal, of any other than the
existing rules of procedure. xxxx

xxxx

The rule that procedural laws are applicable to pending actions or proceedings admits certain
exceptions. The rule does not apply where the statute itself expressly or by necessary implication
provides that pending actions are excepted from its operation, or where to apply it to pending
proceedings would impair vested rights. Under appropriate circumstances, courts may deny the
retroactive application of procedural laws in the event that to do so would not be feasible or
would work injustice. Nor may procedural laws be applied retroactively to pending actions if to
do so would involve intricate problems of due process or impair the independence of the
courts.35

In the instant case, the principle of retroactivity of procedural rules cannot be applied. The
Traffic Accident Report serves as the anchor by which liability for negligence is claimed by
petitioner. To adopt the amended Rules would affect the manner by which the Traffic Accident
 17

Report was appreciated, which could be used as basis for re-examination to determine its
admissibility in evidence. This will result into a violation of due process, which will ultimately
cause injustice on the part of the respondent who relied on the Rules then existing. As such, We
shall continue to be guided by the superseded provisions of the Rules of Court.

Under the Rules applicable to the instant case, hearsay evidence was premised on the
requirement that a witness can testify only to those facts which they know of their personal
knowledge, that is, which are derived from their perception. A witness, therefore, may not testify
as to what they merely learned from others either because they were told or read or heard the
same. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of
what they have learned. The theory of the hearsay rule is that the many possible deficiencies,
suppressions, sources of error, and untrustworthiness, which lie underneath the bare untested
assertion of a witness, may be best brought to light and exposed by the test of cross-examination.
The hearsay rule, therefore, excludes evidence that cannot be tested by cross examination.36

While hearsay evidence is generally considered inadmissible in evidence, there are exceptions
thereto. One of the exceptions is entries made in official records, governed by the following
provision:

Section 44. Entries in official records. - Entries in official records made in the performance of his
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. (38)

Jurisprudence has laid down the requisites for this exception to apply as follows:

(a) that the entry was made 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 duty 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
information.37

In the present case, the first and second requisites are undeniably present. The entries made in the
Traffic Accident Report was made by a public officer, PO3 Quila, and done in the performance
of his duties. The bone of contention, however, revolves around the presence of the third
requisite.

While the MeTC and the RTC did not dwell on the third requisite, the CA, upon examination of
the Traffic Accident Report, concluded that PO3 Quila had no personal knowledge of the
vehicular accident that happened as he merely relied on the traffic sketch prepared by
Tatlonghari. Relying on the case of Standard Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Cuaresma, et al.,38 the CA
held that it was Tatlonghari who had sufficient knowledge of the facts stated in the Traffic
Accident Report prepared by PO3 Quila and who must, therefore, be presented as a witness. In
 18

the absence of his testimony, the Traffic Accident Report cannot be considered as an admissible
hearsay.

Petitioner disagrees with the ruling of the CA and raises before Us the doctrine laid down in the
case of Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Alberto, et al.,39 which upheld the right of subrogation
of the insurer despite the absence of testimony of the police officer who prepared the Traffic
Accident Report. According to petitioner, PO3 Quila had sufficient knowledge of the facts stated
in his Traffic Accident Report, which was acquired by him personally. He would not be able to
fill in the details of his report had he not conducted a separate investigation. Petitioner alleges
that PO3 Quila actually investigated the incident since he was able to talk to the driver of
respondent. Thus, he had sufficient knowledge of the facts stated in his report.40

Moreover, while it was Tatlonghari of the Traffic Management and Security Department of the
PNCC Skyway Corporation who prepared the Traffic Accident Sketch, the same sketch was
signed by the driver of respondent. Tatlonghari's name appears on the Traffic Accident Report by
way of reference as the one who prepared the sketch, but it was still PO3 Quila who conducted a
separate investigation on the incident. Thus, it was PO3 Quila who prepared the traffic accident
report and not Tatlonghari.41 It further asseverated that respondent could have questioned at the
earliest possible time the admission of the Traffic Accident Sketch and the Traffic Accident
Report before the trial court rendered its decision, but respondent did not do so until the MeTC
rendered its ruling that was unfavorable to it.42

Petitioner's argument that it was actually PO3 Quila who investigated the vehicular accident, and
had personal knowledge of the contents he entered in the Traffic Accident Report is bereft of
evidentiary support. As found by the CA, petitioner presented Christian S. Cruz whose testimony
merely proved the existence of the insurance policy on Lojo's vehicle, while Mary Jane Villamor
merely showed the legal fees incurred by petitioner in connection with the case.43 Thus, none of
the evidence presented by petitioner supports the argument that it is espousing before Us.

Nevertheless, with respect to the absence of a timely objection on the issue of admissibility of
the Traffic Accident Report, the same requires further examination. We further take this occasion
to harmonize this Court's ruling in Standard Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Cuaresma44 as applied by the
CA and the case of Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Spouses Reyes45 espoused by petitioner.

While at first glance, these cases may conflict with each other, an examination of the factual
milieu by which the rule on entries in official records was applied in the two cases would show
their differences. In the case of Standard Insurance, while the MeTC granted the claims of the
insurer therein, the RTC, on appeal, reversed the MeTC's findings as there were inconsistencies
in the evidence presented by the insurer. There was also a failure on the part of the insurer to
sufficiently prove that the proximate cause of the damage incurred by the assured's vehicle was
respondents' fault or negligence. The respondents in the said case also claimed that in order for
the Traffic Accident Report to have probative value, the police officer who prepared it must be
identified in court. This Court, applying the rule on entries in official records, denied the
admissibility of the Traffic Accident Report in this wise:
 19

Moreover for the Traffic Accident Investigation Report to be admissible as prima facie evidence
of the facts therein stated, the following requisites must be present:

x x x (a) that the entry was made 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 duty 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 information.

Regrettably, in this case, petitioner failed to prove the third requisite cited above. As correctly
noted by the courts below, while the Traffic Accident Investigation Report was exhibited as
evidence, the investigating officer who prepared the same was not presented in court to testify
that he had sufficient knowledge of the facts therein stated, and that he acquired them personally
or through official information. Neither was there any explanation as to why such officer was not
presented. We cannot simply assume, in the absence of proof, that the account of the incident
stated in the report was based on the personal knowledge of the investigating officer who
prepared it.

Thus, while petitioner presented its assured to testify on the events that transpired during the
vehicular collision, his lone testimony, unsupported by other preponderant evidence, fails to
sufficiently establish petitioner's claim that respondents' negligence was, indeed, the proximate
cause of the damage sustained by Cham's vehicle.46

This was eventually reiterated in the case of DST Movers Corporation vs. People's General
Insurance Corporation,47 when this Court held as follows:

Here, petitioner insists that the Traffic Accident Investigation Report prepared by PO2 Tomas
should not have been admitted and accorded weight by the Metropolitan Trial Court as it was
"improperly identified [and] uncorroborated." Petitioner, in effect, asserts that the non-
presentation in court of PO2 Tomas, the officer who prepared the report, was fatal to
respondent's cause.

Unlike in Dela Llana and Standard Insurance, the findings of the Metropolitan Trial Court, the
Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals in this case are all in accord. They consistently
ruled that the proximate cause of the damage sustained by the sedan was the negligent driving of
a vehicle owned by petitioner. As with Standard Insurance, however, this conclusion is founded
on the misplaced probative value accorded to a traffic accident investigation report. In the first
place, this Report should not have been admitted as evidence for violating the Hearsay Rule.
Bereft of evidentiary basis, the conclusion of the lower courts cannot stand as it has been reduced
to conjecture. Thus, we reverse this conclusion.

xxxx

The statements made by this court in Standard Insurance are on point:

 20

[F]or the Traffic Accident Investigation Report to be admissible as prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated, the following requisites must be present:

. . . (a) that the entry was made 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 duty 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 information.

Regrettably, in this case, petitioner failed to prove the third requisite cited above. As correctly
noted by the courts below, while the Traffic Accident Investigation Report was exhibited as
evidence, the investigating officer who prepared the same was not presented in court to testify
that he had sufficient knowledge of the facts therein stated, and that he acquired them personally
or through official information. Neither was there any explanation as to why such officer was not
presented. We cannot simply assume, in the absence of proof, that the account of the incident
stated in the report was based on the personal knowledge of the investigating officer who
prepared it.

Thus, while petitioner presented its assured to testify on the events that transpired during the
vehicular collision, his lone testimony, unsupported by other preponderant evidence, fails to
sufficiently establish petitioner's claim that respondents' negligence was, indeed, the proximate
cause of the damage sustained by Cham's vehicle. [Emphasis supplied]

Respondent presented proof of the occurrence of an accident that damaged Fidel Yuboco's
Honda Civic sedan, that the sedan was insured by respondent, and that respondent paid Fidel
Yuboco's insurance claims. As to the identity, however, of the vehicle or of the person
responsible for the damage sustained by the sedan, all that respondent relies on is the Report
prepared by PO2 Tomas.

It is plain to see that the matters indicated in the Report are not matters that were personally
known to PO2 Tomas. The Report is candid in admitting that the matters it states were merely
reported to PO2 Tomas by "G. Simbahon of PNCC/SLEX." It was this "G. Simbahon." not PO2
Tomas, who had personal knowledge of the facts stated in the Report. Thus, even as the Report
embodies entries made by a public officer in the performance of his duties, it fails to satisfy the
third requisite for admissibility for entries in official records as an exception to the Hearsay Rule.

To be admitted as evidence, it was thus imperative for the person who Prepared the Report-PO2
Tomas-to have himself presented as a witness and then testify on his Report. However, even as
the Report would have been admitted as evidence, PO2 Tomas' testimony would not have
sufficed in establishing the identity of the motor vehicle and/or the person responsible for the
damage sustained by the sedan. For this purpose, the testimony of G. Simbahon was
necessary.48

It is the absence of a timely objection that differentiates Standard Insurance and DST Movers on
one hand and the case of Malayan Insurance, on the other hand. As this Court found in Malayan
Insurance, the failure of the respondent therein to raise timely objection to the admissibility of
 21

the police report despite the absence of proof as to whether the police officer who prepared it had
personal knowledge of the facts contained therein, resulted in the admissibility of the said report
despite being hearsay evidence, thus:

Notably, the presentation of the police report itself is admissible as an exception to the hearsay
rule even if the police investigator who prepared it was not presented in court, as long as the
above requisites could be adequately proved.

Here, there is no dispute that SPO1 Dungga, the on-the-spot investigator, prepared the report,
and he did so in the performance of his duty. However, what is not clear is whether SPO1
Dungga had sufficient personal knowledge of the facts contained in his report. Thus, the third
requisite is lacking.

Respondents failed to make a timely objection to the police report's presentation in evidence;
thus, they are deemed to have waived their right to do so. As a result, the police report is still
admissible in evidence.49

Timely objection made by a party against the evidence presented by the other party is significant
since the Rules mandates that objections to evidence must be made as soon as the grounds
therefor become reasonably apparent. In the case of testimonial evidence, the objection must be
made when the objectionable question is asked or after the answer is given if the objectionable
features become apparent only by reason of such answer, otherwise, the objection is waived and
such evidence will form part of the records of the case as competent and complete evidence and
all parties are thus amenable to any favorable or unfavorable effects resulting from the
evidence.50 In the case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the
party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being
offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence
may be made. When a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they
were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived. This is true even if by its
nature the evidence is inadmissible and would have surely been rejected if it had been challenged
at the proper time. Moreover, grounds for objection must be specified in any case. Grounds for
objections not raised at the proper time shall be considered waived, even if the evidence was
objected to on some other ground. Thus, even on appeal, the appellate court may not consider
any other ground of objection, except those that were raised at the proper time.51

Poring over the pleadings submitted in support of the arguments raised by the parties, We found
that no timely objection was made by respondent on the admissibility of the Traffic Accident
Report. An oversight committed by the CA in ruling the inadmissibility of the Traffic Accident
Report lies in the characterization of the complaint filed by petitioner as one falling under the
Rules on Summary Procedure. This led to the conclusion that petitioner should have at least
attached the affidavit of Tatlonghari on his personal knowledge of the vehicular accident.

Under A.M. No. 02-11-09-SC, which amended the Rules on Summary Procedure, and which was
the Rule applicable at the time of filing the complaint, the threshold amount for the applicability
of the said Rule is P200,000.00 for cases filed in Metro Manila.52 Considering that the total
amount of petitioners claim is P350,000.00, it is the ordinary rules of procedure that governs the
 22

said action. Thus, the rules on objection applies. In the absence of a timely objection made by
respondent at the time when petitioner offered in evidence the Traffic Accident Report, any
irregularity on the rules on admissibility of evidence should be considered as waived.

As argued by petitioner and not refuted by respondent, there was no timely objection made by
respondent during the proceedings at the MeTC with respect to the admissibility of the Traffic
Accident Report. The issue of hearsay was not raised by respondent either in its Answer, its Pre-
Trial Brief, during trial or after petitioner's offer of evidence. It was only on appeal with the RTC
when respondent raised the issue of admissibility of the Traffic Accident Report, which the RTC
did not take into consideration.

In the case of Philippine Ports Authority vs. City of Iloilo,53 We clarified that:

As a rule, a party who deliberately adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and
decided by the first level court will not be permitted to change theory on appeal. Points of law,
theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the first level court need not be,
and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first
time at such late stage. Basic considerations of due process underlie this rule. It would be unfair
to the adverse party who would have no opportunity to present further evidence material to the
new theory, which it could have done had it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the
trial court.54

In Del Rosario vs. Bonga,55 We held thusly:

Indeed, there are exceptions to the aforecited rule. Though not raised below, the issue of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter may be considered by the reviewing court, as it may be raised
at any stage. The said court may also consider an issue not properly raised during trial when
there is plain error. Likewise, it may entertain such arguments when there are jurisprudential
developments affecting the issues, or when the issues raised present a matter of public policy.56

In the instant case, none of the exceptions apply. It must be added that had the claim of petitioner
fallen within the coverage of the Rules on Summary Procedure at the time it was filed, it would
only be on appeal when the issue of admissibility of evidence could be assailed by respondent.
This is because the Rules on Summary Procedure does not provide rules on offer of evidence;
rather, it requires the submission of position-papers and affidavits of witnesses of the parties
before a judgment is rendered.57 However, as mentioned, the amount sought to be recovered by
petitioner was P350,000.00, which is above the threshold set by the prevailing Rules on
Summary Procedure at the time of filing of petitioner's complaint. The ordinary rules on offer
and objection should, therefore, be applied, and the issue of admissibility of the Traffic Accident
Report as hearsay evidence should not have been entertained by the CA.

Hearsay evidence is devoid of probative value; exception

We are not unmindful of Our previous pronouncement that hearsay evidence, whether objected
to or not, cannot be given credence except in very unusual circumstances.58 One of the
circumstances for which hearsay evidence must be given probative value is when it establishes
 23

proof that is independent of its character as hearsay. Under the superseded Rules,59 the standard
for which hearsay evidence was appreciated is the opportunity to subject the person who has the
actual personal knowledge of the facts being testified by a witness, to cross-examination. It is
because the witness had no personal knowledge of the facts being testified that no cross-
examination could be effectively conducted. However, this no longer holds true when the
evidence, despite its hearsay character, establishes a presumption or a fact which does not
necessitate the conduct of cross-examination.

It must be noted that the purpose of cross-examination is not simply to afford the other party due
process. Moreso, it is to ferret out the truth being contested by both parties. This is the purpose of
the Rules on Evidence, for evidence is defined as the means, sanctioned by the Rules, to
ascertain in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a matter. 60 In ascertaining the truth, the
Rules of Court takes into consideration not only the nature of the evidence presented but also on
the manner as to how it was obtained. Hearsay evidence primarily lacks sufficient standard to
determine the truth thereof because the manner by which it was obtained becomes questionable.
The supposed truth accompanying it cannot also be subjected to examination by the court.
However, this cannot be applied to a situation where a piece of evidence, despite its hearsay
character, establishes a principle established in law, independent of its character as a hearsay;
such as those establishing negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.

Res ipsa loquitor

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is an exception to the rule that hearsay evidence is devoid of
probative value. This is because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor establishes a rule on negligence,
whether the evidence is subjected to cross-examination or not. It is a rule that can stand on its
own independently of the character of the evidence presented as hearsay. The doctrine was
eloquently explained in the case of Solidum vs. People61 as follows:

Res ipsa loquitur is literally translated as "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself." The
doctrine res ipsa loquitur means that "where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under
the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things
does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable
evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of
care." It is simply "a recognition of the postulate that, as a matter of common knowledge and
experience, the very nature of certain types of occurrences may justify an inference of negligence
on the part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing the injury in the absence of
some explanation by the defendant who is charged with negligence. It is grounded in the superior
logic of ordinary human experience and on the basis of such experience or common knowledge,
negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident itself.62

As such, the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor establishes a presumption of
negligence based on the occurrence of the incident in itself. In cases involving vehicular
accidents, it is sufficient that the accident itself be established, and once established through the
admission of evidence, whether hearsay or not, the rule on res ipsa loquitor already starts to
apply.
 24

It is settled that there are two stages that a piece of evidence must hurdle before it becomes
favorable to the party introducing it. The first one is admissibility and the second one is its
weight or probative value. It has been held that the admissibility of evidence depends on its
relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted
and its tendency to convince and persuade. As explained by the Court in the case of Mancol Jr.
vs. Development Bonk of the Philippines:63

The admissibility of a particular item of evidence has to do with whether it meets various tests by
which its reliability is to be determined, so as to be considered with other evidence admitted in
the case in arriving at a decision as to the truth. The weight of evidence is not determined
mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact, but
depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case.
"Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at
all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an
issue.64

In the case of hearsay evidence seeking to prove negligence, which is not objected to, as in the
instant case, the same becomes admissible in evidence because of the waiver by the other party
as to its admissibility. With respect to its probative value, unlike other hearsay evidence, where
the truth could not still be determined by the court despite its admissibility because of the issue
of reliability of the source of the information and the absence of opportunity on the part of the
court to examine the truth of such hearsay evidence; hearsay evidence that seek to prove
negligence can stand on their own despite their character as hearsay. This is because the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitor establishes a rule on negligence, which pinpoints the person guilty of
negligence based on a given set of facts. It springs from common knowledge by which liability
can already be determined from the occurrence of the mishap or accident. As such, it fills in the
gap that usually accompanies the appreciation of the probative value of a hearsay evidence that is
not objected to. Once negligence is established, there is no need for the court to make further
examination simply because the presumption of negligence is already provided by the rule of res
ipsa loquitor, as the event, which is a vehicular accident in this case, already speaks for itself.
Thus, while as a general rule, hearsay evidence does not have probative value whether it be
objected to or not, an exception to this is a hearsay evidence that seeks to prove negligence under
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, which carries probative weight when not objected to.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor established the negligence of Cadavido

The elements of res ipsa loquitur are: (1) the accident is of such character as to warrant an
inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant's negligence; (2) the accident
must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or
control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not
have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.65

In the instant case, the Traffic Accident Report of PO3 Quila and the Traffic Accident Sketch
prepared by Tatlonghari showed that all the three vehicles involved in the accident were
traversing the same traffic direction. The aluminum van was in front of the insured vehicle of
Lojo, while the Pascual Liner bus driven by Cadavido was at the rear of the insured vehicle.
 25

Being at the rear end of the vehicles, it was Cadavido who had a clear view of the traffic
direction and the presence of the vehicles in front of him. It was him who had the responsibility
to observe the proper distance between vehicles and had the last opportunity to take the needed
maneuvers to avoid a collision. Based on the Traffic Accident Sketch, the insured vehicle was hit
at the right side of its rear because of the impact of collision from the right side of the front of the
bus of respondent. This caused it to be pushed toward the left lane, and in turn hit an aluminum
van that was in front. As he failed to take the necessary precautions, it was Cadavido who set
into motion the vehicles that caused the vehicular accident, hitting the insured vehicle in the rear
and the latter vehicle in turn hitting the rear of the aluminum van that was in front. There was
also no evidence adduced to show contributory negligence on the part of the insured vehicle.

Moreover, as pointed out by petitioner, the Traffic Accident Sketch66 bore the signature of
Cadavido as the driver of the Pascual Liner bus. There was nothing from the pleadings made
available before this Court, that would show that respondent made a denial of this fact.
Cadavido's signature on the said sketch served as an admission of the location of the damage
caused by the collision to the vehicles involved. It was also an affirmation that the Traffic
Accident Sketch was able to accurately reflect the respective positions of the vehicles involved in
the accident. As explained, the positions of these vehicles as they appeared on the sketch showed
that respondent's driver was negligent.

The rule is when an employee causes damage due to their own negligence while performing their
own duties, there arises a presumption that their employer is negligent. This presumption can be
rebutted only by proof of observance by the employer of the diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of its employees.67 In this case, respondent did not
adduce proof to show that it observed the required diligence of a good father of a family. Thus, it
is liable for the negligence committed by its employee.

Principle of subrogation

Petitioner, being an insurer who paid Lojo of his claims filed under his insurance policy, is
subrogated to the rights of the insured. This is provided under Article 2207 of the Civil Code,
which reads as follows:

Article 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the
insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract
complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the
wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance
company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover
the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.

As such, payment made by petitioner to Lojo entitles it to recover from the party liable for the
damage caused to the insured vehicle. Payment by the insurer to the assured operates as an
equitable assignment to the former of all remedies which the latter may have against the third
party whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss. The right of subrogation is not
dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any privity of contract or upon written assignment of
claim. It accrues simply upon payment of the insurance claim by the insurer.68 As such, there is
 26

no need for petitioner to make a demand to respondent for the law itself provides the obligation
to pay upon payment by the insured. Having established the negligence committed by Cadavido
and for which respondent was likewise liable, the latter should be liable for the damages caused
by its employee.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
June 13, 2018 and its Resolution dated September 28, 2018 are SET ASIDE. Pascual Liner Inc.
is liable to pay UCPB General Insurance Co. Inc. the amount of P350,000.00, plus interest at the
rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until its full
payment.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 205333

MA. MELISSA VILLANUEVA MAGSINO, Petitioner vs. ROLANDO N. MAGSINO,
Respondent
REYES, J. JR., J.:

The case stemmed from a Petition to Fix the Rights of the Father Pendente Lite with Prayers for
the Issuance of a Temporary Protection Order and Hold Departure Order filed by Rolando N.
Magsino (respondent) against his wife Ma. Melissa V. Magsino (petitioner), docketed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 102, as Civil Case No. Q-0862984.1
Respondent and petitioner were married on December 6, 1997 and their union was blessed with
two children - one born in 2002 and the other 2003.2 Sometime in 2005, Melissa started
suspecting that Rolando was sexually molesting his own children, then aged 3 years old and 2
years old, as she would often see them playing with their genitalia.3 When she asked who taught
 27

them of such activity, the children would answer "Papa."4 Thus, to protect the minors from
further abuse, Melissa left the conjugal dwelling and took the children to their maternal
grandparents.5
In July 2008, Rolando filed the aforesaid petition.6 Melissa filed her Answer (to the petition)
with Prayer for Protection Order.7
During pre-trial, Rolando manifested that he would be presenting, among other witnesses, Dr.
Cristina Gates (Gates), who will testify on the mental status and fitness of Rolando to exercise
parental authority over the minors.
At the hearing, Gates was presented as an expert witness. She confirmed the technical
qualifications and professional skill stated in her judicial affidavit and curriculum vitae. She also
discussed the findings contained in Rolando's psychological evaluation report. Applying clinical
hypnosis, phenomenological-existential study and historical-contextual approach, Gates opined
that Rolando could not have molested the minors. As retrieved from Rolando's memory while
under hypnotic trance, Gates narrated that the children have accidentally witnessed their parents
in the act of sexual intercourse for several occasions and explained that this experience caused
them to develop sexual hyperactivity.
Gates was then subjected to cross-examination. But before propounding any questions, Melissa's
counsel, in open court, moved to strike out the direct testimony of Gates on grounds that her
expertise had not been established and that any evidence derived from hypnotically-induced
recollection is inadmissible.
The RTC ruled to retain the testimony as part of the record subject to a continuing objection on
the qualification of the witness. Melissa's counsel thereafter proceeded with the cross-
examination, grilling Gates about her qualifications and the methodology used in conducting her
sessions with Rolando.

On June 5, 2010, Melissa's counsel filed a Motion to Expunge the testimony of Gates reiterating
the doubts on her expertise and to suppress related evidence particularly the psychological
evaluation report by reason of inadmissibility of hypnotically-induced recollection.
In its Order8 dated October 11, 2010, the RTC denied the motion to expunge the testimony on
the ground of waiver of objection for failure to timely question the qualifications of the witness.
On the motion to suppress psychological evaluation report, the RTC ruled that the same is
premature considering that such documentary evidence has not yet been formally offered.
Melissa moved to reconsider but it was denied. Hence, Melissa filed a petition for certiorari with
the Court of Appeals (CA) ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC.
In the now assailed Decision9 dated September 28, 2012, in CA-G.R. SP No. 119205, the CA
dismissed the petition and ruled that the RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying
the motion to suppress evidence and to expunge the testimony of a witness. The CA ruled that
petitioner's counsel failed to make a timely objection to the presentation of Gates' testimonial
 28

evidence. It was observed that no objection was raised during the course of Gates' direct
testimony where she confirmed her qualifications as an expert witness and explained the
psychological examination conducted on respondent. According to the CA, such silence at the
time of the testimony, when there was an opportunity to speak, operates as an implied waiver of
the objection to the admissibility of evidence. Moreover, petitioner's counsel repeatedly cross-
examined Gates thereby waiving any objection to her testimony. As to the motion to suppress the
psychological evaluation report, the CA ruled that an objection thereto cannot be made in
advance of the offer of the evidence sought to be introduced.

Dissatisfied with the aforesaid ruling, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review10 with this
Court, arguing as follows:
THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT
PETITIONER WAIVED HER RIGHT TO RAISE OBJECTIONS TO THE TESTIMONY OF
CRISTINA GATES SIMPLY BECAUSE THE OBJECTION WAS RAISED BEFORE CROSS-
EXAMINATION, NOT DURING DIRECT EXAMINATION, CONSIDERING THAT
PETITIONER'S COUNSEL OBJECTED TO THE TESTIMONY AS SOON AS THE
GROUNDS THEREFORE BECAME REASONABLY APPARENT.
THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN UPHOLDING THE DENIAL
OF PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXPUNGE TESTIMONY ON THE GROUND THAT
CROSS- EXAMINATION CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
CONSIDERING THAT THE OBJECTION WAS RAISED BEFORE CROSS-EXAMINATION,
AND THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY WAS REINFORCED DURING
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
THE TESTIMONY INVOLVING HYPNOTICALLY INDUCED MEMORY IN THE
PRESENT CASE MAY PROPERLY BE SUPPRESSED FOR BEING INADMISSIBLE AND
VIOLATIVE OF PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
OF LAW.

THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE

DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPER ON THE GROUND THAT
EVIDENCE MAY NOT BE OBJECTED TO BEFORE A FORMAL OFFER IS MADE
CONSIDERING THAT A MOTION TO SUPPRESS IS NOT THE SAME AS AN OBJECTION
TO THE OFFER OF EVIDENCE.11
No error can be ascribed on the part of the CA when it affirmed the RTC in denying petitioner's
(a) Motion to Expunge the testimony of the expert witness for failure to timely question her
qualifications and her (b) Motion to Suppress psychological report containing hypnotically-
induced evidence as the said motion is premature.
 29

In order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of evidence must be made at the
proper time, and the grounds specified.12 Grounds for objections not raised at the proper time
shall be considered waived, even if the evidence was objected to on some other ground.13 Thus,
even on appeal, the appellate court may not consider any other ground of objection, except those
that were raised at the proper time.14
Thus, it is basic in the rule of evidence that objection to evidence must be made after the
evidence is formally offered.15 Thus, Section 35, Rule 132 of the 1997 Rules of Court, provides
when to make an offer of evidence, thus:
SEC. 35. When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made
at the time the witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial
evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing.
On the other hand, Section 36, Rule 132 of the same rules, provides when objection to the
evidence offered shall be made, thus:
SEC. 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the
offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be
made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of the offer
unless a different period is allowed by the court.
In other words, objection to oral evidence must be raised at the earliest possible time, that is after
the objectionable question is asked or after the answer is given if the objectionable issue
becomes apparent only after the answer was given.16 In case of documentary evidence, offer is
made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose
for which the evidence is being offered.17 It is only at this time, and not at any other, that
objection to the documentary evidence may be made.18

As correctly found by the CA, the objections interposed by petitioner - as to both oral and
documentary evidence - were not timely made.
Petitioner should have objected during the course of Gates' direct testimony on her qualifications
as an expert witness and explaining the mechanics of the psychological examination which she
conducted on respondent. Petitioner should not have waited in ambush after the expert witness
had already finished testifying. By so doing, petitioner did not save the time of the court in
hearing the testimony of the witness that after all according to her was inadmissible.19 And thus,
for her failure to make known her objection at the proper time, the procedural error or defect was
waived.20 Indeed, the reason why offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify
and the objection thereto be made, so that the court could right away rule on whether the
 30

testimony is necessary on the ground of irrelevancy, immateriality or whatever grounds that are
available at the onset. Here, petitioner allowed a substantial amount of time to be wasted by not
forthrightly objecting to the inadmissibility of the respondent's testimonial evidence.
It bears to stress however that allowing the testimony does not mean that courts are bound by the
testimony of the expert witness. It falls within the discretion of the court whether to adopt or not
to adopt testimonies of expert witnesses, depending on its appreciation of the attendant facts and
applicable law. As held by the Court:
Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever weight
they may choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The relative
weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to
decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand,
the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion; his possible bias
in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative
opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other
matters which deserve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert may not be
arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances
in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given
controlling effect. The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his
testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in
the absence of abuse of discretion.21
Objections to documentary evidence should likewise be timely raised. True, petitioner acted
prematurely when it objected to the psychological report at the time when it is still being
identified. Objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered,
not earlier.22 Because at that time the purpose of the offer has already been disclosed and
ascertained. Suffice it to say that the identification of the document before it is marked as an
exhibit does not constitute the formal offer of the document as evidence for the party presenting
it.23 Objection to the identification and marking of the document is not equivalent to objection to
the document when it is formally offered in evidence.24 What really matters is the objection to
the document at the time it is formally offered as an exhibit.25 However, while objection was
prematurely made, this does not mean that petitioner had waived any objection to the admission
of the same in evidence. Petitioner can still reiterate its former objections, this time seasonably,
when the formal offer of exhibits was made.26
At any rate, it must be stressed that admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its
probative value.27 Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are
to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted
evidence proves an issue.28 Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its
evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of
evidence.29
 31

Hence, the CA is correct when it ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction when it denied petitioner's Motion to Expunge the
testimony of the expert witness and the Motion to Suppress the documentary evidence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed September 28, 2012 Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 119205 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.