G.R. No. 43, September 23, 1901
SERVILIO ROBLES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JUAN SANZ, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Servilio Robles filed a declarative action against Juan Sanz to recover compensation for services rendered as an employee in Sanz’s store from January 9, 1886, to March 12, 1895. A key issue was whether Sanz had made any payments to Robles during that period. Robles alleged no payments were made, while Sanz claimed payments were recorded in his commercial books. As part of his evidence, Robles designated Sanz’s commercial books for examination by the court to verify the alleged payments. The court examined the books after due notice, but neither Robles nor his counsel was present. The court prepared a statement noting entries of payments to Robles in the books, that the books were properly stamped, and that the entries showed no signs of alteration. Robles contended that the entries were made after the books had been closed, a fact he claimed was apparent from the books themselves but was omitted from the court’s statement. The Court of First Instance denied Robles’s motion to present evidence on this point in an incident regarding the nullity of the proceedings. Robles appealed, arguing the omission invalidated the proceedings and petitioned the Supreme Court to take evidence on the matter at second instance.

ISSUE:
Whether the court’s omission to state in its report that the entries in the defendant’s books appeared to have been made after the books were closed invalidates the proceedings for the taking of that evidence.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition to take evidence at second instance and affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The Court held that the plaintiff, having designated the commercial books as documentary proof, was required to specify what he wanted the court to examine and report on. Since Robles did not request the court to ascertain and report whether the entries were made after the books were closed, he could not later object that the court’s failure to do so invalidated the proceeding. The Court further stated that the sole procedural question in the incident did not depend on the character or probative value of the entries. Any issue regarding the credibility of the entries, such as if they were made post-closure, pertained to the weight of the evidence in the main action, not to the validity of the procedural step of examining the books. Therefore, the alleged omission did not constitute a fatal defect.