Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    G.R. No. 157766 July 12, 2007 ERNESTO L. SALAS, Petitioner, Sta. Mesa Market Corporation and The Heirs of Primitivo E. DOMINGO, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    AJ Santos
    The document discusses a court case regarding a dispute over financial documents. It analyzes whether the financial documents presented were public or private, and what authentication was required for private documents to be admissible as evidence. It determines that the documents presented were private and not properly authenticated, as the best proof of authenticity from the auditor who prepared the documents was not provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 157766 July 12, 2007 ERNESTO L. SALAS, Petitioner, Sta. Mesa Market Corporation and The Heirs of Primitivo E. DOMINGO, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    AJ Santos
    80 views2 pages
    The document discusses a court case regarding a dispute over financial documents. It analyzes whether the financial documents presented were public or private, and what authentication was required for private documents to be admissible as evidence. It determines that the documents presented were private and not properly authenticated, as the best proof of authenticity from the auditor who prepared the documents was not provided.

    Original Title

    Authentication of Documents

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a court case regarding a dispute over financial documents. It analyzes whether the financial documents presented were public or private, and what authentication was required for private documents to be admissible as evidence. It determines that the documents presented were private and not properly authenticated, as the best proof of authenticity from the auditor who prepared the documents was not provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 157766 July 12, 2007 ERNESTO L. SALAS, Petitioner, Sta. Mesa Market Corporation and The Heirs of Primitivo E. DOMINGO, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    AJ Santos
    The document discusses a court case regarding a dispute over financial documents. It analyzes whether the financial documents presented were public or private, and what authentication was required for private documents to be admissible as evidence. It determines that the documents presented were private and not properly authenticated, as the best proof of authenticity from the auditor who prepared the documents was not provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    157766               July 12, 2007

    ERNESTO L. SALAS, Petitioner,
    vs.
    STA. MESA MARKET CORPORATION and the HEIRS OF PRIMITIVO E.
    DOMINGO,** Respondents

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    The documents in question were supposedly copies of the audited financial statements of
    SMMC. Financial statements (which include the balance sheet, income statement and
    statement of cash flow) show the fiscal condition of a particular entity within a specified
    period. The financial statements prepared by external auditors who are certified public
    accountants (like those presented by petitioner) are audited financial statements.
    Financial statements, whether audited or not, are, as general rule, private
    documents.27 However, once financial statements are filed with a government office
    pursuant to a provision of law,28 they become public documents.29

    Whether a document is public or private is relevant in determining its admissibility as


    evidence. Public documents are admissible in evidence even without further proof of their
    due execution and genuineness. 30 On the other hand, private documents are inadmissible
    in evidence unless they are properly authenticated. 31 Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of
    Court provides:

    Section 20. Proof of private documents. Before any private document offered as authentic


    is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:

    a. By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

    b. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

    Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.

    Petitioner and respondents agree that the documents presented as evidence were
    mere copies of the audited financial statements submitted to the BIR and SEC. Neither
    party claimed that copies presented were certified true copies32 of audited financial
    statements obtained or secured from the BIR or the SEC which under Section 19(c), Rule
    132 would have been public documents. Thus, the statements presented were private
    documents. Consequently, authentication was a precondition to their admissibility in
    evidence.

    During authentication in court, a witness positively testifies that a document presented as


    evidence is genuine and has been duly executed33 or that the document is neither spurious
    nor counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under duress. 34 In this case, petitioner merely
    presented a memorandum attesting to the increase in the corporation's monthly market
    revenue, prepared by a member of his management team. While there is no fixed criterion
    as to what constitutes competent evidence to establish the authenticity of a private
    document, the best proof available must be presented. 35 The best proof available, in this
    instance, would have been the testimony of a representative of SMMC's external auditor
    who prepared the audited financial statements. Inasmuch as there was none, the audited
    financial statements were never authenticated.

    Nevertheless, petitioner insists on the application of an exception to this rule:


    authentication is not necessary where the adverse party has admitted the genuineness
    and due execution of a document. 36 The fact, however, was that nowhere in his testimony
    did Amado Domingo categorically admit the authenticity of the copies of the audited
    financial statements. He only testified that SMMC regularly submitted its audited financial
    statements to the BIR and SEC.37 There was never any admission that the documents
    presented by petitioner were true or faithful copies of those submitted to the BIR and the
    SEC.

    You might also like