G.R. No. 170071 & G.R. No. 170125, July 16, 2012
HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA vs. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION and G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA

FACTS

The heirs of Jose Marcial K. Ochoa filed a complaint for damages against G & S Transport Corporation after Jose Marcial died while onboard a taxicab owned and operated by the company. The Regional Trial Court found G & S guilty of breach of contract of carriage and awarded damages, including a substantial amount for loss of earning capacity based on a certification of income from the deceased’s employer, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of liability but deleted the award for loss of income, ruling the USAID certification was self-serving and not supported by competent evidence like tax returns.
In its March 9, 2011 Decision, the Supreme Court partly granted the heirs’ petition, reinstating the award for loss of earning capacity based on the USAID certification and reducing moral damages. G & S filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing the certification was inadmissible for lack of proper authentication and that it had exercised the required diligence in supervising its employees. The heirs countered that the arguments involved factual questions not reviewable via certiorari and that the certification was properly admitted as the signatory personally issued it to the widow.

ISSUE

The primary issue for resolution is whether the USAID Certification of the deceased’s income is admissible as evidence to support the award for loss of earning capacity.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration. The Court held the USAID Certification is a public document, not a private one, and thus does not require the same authentication. Under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, public documents include the written official acts or records of official acts of sovereign authority or official bodies, whether of the Philippines or a foreign country. USAID is an independent federal government agency of the United States, constituting a sovereign authority. Therefore, certifications issued by it in the course of its official functions are public documents.
As a public document, due execution and authenticity are presumed. The requirement for authentication under Section 20, Rule 132 applies only to private documents offered as authentic. Consequently, the certification was admissible as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, including the deceased’s income. The Court found no merit in G & S’s claim that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, as this defense was already considered and rejected in the main decision, which affirmed its liability for breach of contract of carriage. The arguments raised in the motion were mere rehashes of previously adjudicated issues.