MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE NAILS AND WIRES CORPORATION, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Philippine Nails and Wires Corporation insured a shipment of steel billets with petitioner Malayan Insurance Company. Upon delivery, a shortage was discovered. Respondent filed a claim, which petitioner refused to pay, prompting a complaint for sum of money. Petitioner moved to dismiss on grounds of improper venue and failure to state a cause of action, which was denied. After procedural maneuvers, the trial court declared petitioner in default for filing its answer late, expunged the answer from the records, and allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte. Judgment by default was rendered, ordering petitioner to pay the insured value of the lost cargo, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) Whether the testimony of respondent’s sole witness, Jeanne King, was hearsay and without probative value; and (2) Whether the documentary evidence submitted by respondent was properly authenticated and admissible.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the appellate court’s decision. On the first issue, the Court held that while Jeanne King, as respondent’s employee handling the importation, could testify on matters within her personal knowledge derived from her own perception, her testimony regarding the execution of critical documents like the sales contract, invoice, bill of lading, and the Marine Cargo Policy was hearsay. She had no personal knowledge of the facts surrounding the execution of these documents or the actual weighing of the shipped billets. Her testimony on these points was based merely on what she learned from the documents themselves or from others, not from her own perception, making it inadmissible hearsay under the Rules of Court.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the documentary exhibits, being private documents, required authentication under the Rules of Evidence. Their due execution and authenticity must be proved by anyone who saw them executed or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature of the maker. Respondent failed to present such proof for most documents. Consequently, these unauthenticated private documents could not be admitted to prove the loss or shortage of the cargo. The Court concluded there was insufficient competent evidence to establish petitioner’s liability under the insurance contract, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.
