G.R. No. 179470 ; April 20, 2010
NISSAN NORTH EDSA (MOTOR CARRIAGE, INC.), Petitioner, vs. UNITED PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE AGENCY, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent United Philippine Scout Veterans Detective and Protective Agency (United) provided security services to petitioner Nissan North Edsa under a contract. On January 31, 1996, Nissan verbally terminated United’s services effective 5:00 p.m. that same day. United sought reconsideration, but Nissan ignored the pleas. United then formally demanded payment equivalent to thirty days of service, citing paragraph 17 of their contract which required a 30-day prior written notice for termination. Nissan refused, prompting United to file a sum of money case.
Nissan, in its defense, claimed it validly terminated the contract without prior notice because United allegedly violated its terms. Nissan cited two incidents: a supervisor and guard did not report on November 3, 1995, and a security supervisor abandoned his post on January 16, 1996. Nissan argued these lapses constituted violations under paragraph 17, allowing immediate termination. However, Nissan’s counsel later withdrew, and Nissan failed to secure new representation, leading the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) to decide the case based solely on United’s evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the lower courts’ decisions holding Nissan liable for damages despite United’s alleged failure to formally offer the service contract in evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. Nissan’s reliance on the best evidence rule was misplaced. The rule requires the original document when the contents are the subject of inquiry. Here, the contents of the contract were not in dispute; the core issue was Nissan’s act of termination without the required notice and its claim of contractual breach by United. Since Nissan admitted the contract’s existence and even invoked its paragraph 17 to justify termination, it could not later claim the contract was not proved. By failing to present evidence to substantiate its allegation that United’s lapses were violations warranting immediate termination under the contract, Nissan did not discharge its burden of proof. Its unilateral termination without the stipulated 30-day notice constituted a breach, making it liable for actual damages. The award of exemplary damages was correctly deleted by the Court of Appeals, as the breach was not shown to be wanton or fraudulent.