Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    Edsa Shangri-La v. BF Corporation GR No. 145842, June 27, 2008 TOPIC: Rule 130 PONENTE: Velasco, Jr. FACTS: (Chronological Order)

    Uploaded by

    Nadzlah Bandila
    1) BF Corporation filed a case against Edsa Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts Inc. (ESHRI) to collect unpaid construction fees for building the Edsa Shangri-La Hotel based on progress billings 14 to 19. 2) ESHRI argued that BF did not properly lay the basis for presenting photocopies of the progress billings as secondary evidence. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that BF had complied with the laying the basis requirement because the original documents were in ESHRI's possession and control despite BF's requests, establishing an exception that allowed the photocopies to be admitted as secondary evidence.

    Copyright:

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

    Edsa Shangri-La v. BF Corporation GR No. 145842, June 27, 2008 TOPIC: Rule 130 PONENTE: Velasco, Jr. FACTS: (Chronological Order)

    Uploaded by

    Nadzlah Bandila
    61 views3 pages
    1) BF Corporation filed a case against Edsa Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts Inc. (ESHRI) to collect unpaid construction fees for building the Edsa Shangri-La Hotel based on progress billings 14 to 19. 2) ESHRI argued that BF did not properly lay the basis for presenting photocopies of the progress billings as secondary evidence. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that BF had complied with the laying the basis requirement because the original documents were in ESHRI's possession and control despite BF's requests, establishing an exception that allowed the photocopies to be admitted as secondary evidence.

    Original Title

    Edsa-Shangrila-vs.-BF-Corporation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) BF Corporation filed a case against Edsa Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts Inc. (ESHRI) to collect unpaid construction fees for building the Edsa Shangri-La Hotel based on progress billings 14 to 19. 2) ESHRI argued that BF did not properly lay the basis for presenting photocopies of the progress billings as secondary evidence. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that BF had complied with the laying the basis requirement because the original documents were in ESHRI's possession and control despite BF's requests, establishing an exception that allowed the photocopies to be admitted as secondary evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    61 views3 pages

    Edsa Shangri-La v. BF Corporation GR No. 145842, June 27, 2008 TOPIC: Rule 130 PONENTE: Velasco, Jr. FACTS: (Chronological Order)

    Uploaded by

    Nadzlah Bandila
    1) BF Corporation filed a case against Edsa Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts Inc. (ESHRI) to collect unpaid construction fees for building the Edsa Shangri-La Hotel based on progress billings 14 to 19. 2) ESHRI argued that BF did not properly lay the basis for presenting photocopies of the progress billings as secondary evidence. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that BF had complied with the laying the basis requirement because the original documents were in ESHRI's possession and control despite BF's requests, establishing an exception that allowed the photocopies to be admitted as secondary evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Edsa Shangri-La v.

    BF Corporation
    GR No. 145842, June 27, 2008
    TOPIC: Rule 130
    PONENTE: Velasco, Jr.

    FACTS: (chronological order)

    1. Edsa Shangila Hotels and Resorts Inc. (ESHRI) contracted with BF Corp. to
    build the Edsa Shangri-La Hotel on May 1, 1991.
    1.1 their construction contract was denominated as Agreement for the
    Execution of Builder’s Work for the EDSA Shangrila Hotel Project.
    1.2 In the contract, the manner of payment agreed upon was that BF shall
    submit a monthly progress billing to ESHRI which would then re-
    measure the work accomplished and prepare a Progress Payment
    Certificate for that month’s progress billing.
    2. Since the start of the construction up to June 30, 1992, BF submitted a total of
    19 monthly progress reports.
    2.1 as per records ESHRI paid a total of 85m plus for the progress billings of
    1 to 13.
    2.2 For progress billings 14 to 19, BF claimed that no re-measure was done by
    ESHRI and no payments were made.
    3. BF filed a case with the RTC a complaint for collection of sum of money after
    several futile attempts to collect from ESHRI.
    3.1 As part of BF’s claims, it submitted photocopies of Progress Billings Nos.
    14 to 19.
    3.2 ESHRI on the other hand alleged over payments for billings 1 to 13 and
    also alleged that BF performed inferior work.
    4. RTC: ruled in favor of BF.
    4.1 24.7m as unpaid construction work; 5.8m as retention sum; legal interest;
    3m in moral, exemplary and attorney’s fees.
    4.2 (no reason provided as to why RTC ruled in favor of BF)
    4.3 MR of ESHRI denied.
    5. ESHRI appealed to CA.
    6. CA: affirmed the RTC in toto.
    7. Petition to SC by ESHRI.
    7.1 Edsa Shangri-la argued that BF Corp ought to have laid the basis for the
    presentation of the photocopies as secondary evidence before the court
    admitted the evidence.
    BF claims that it had complied with the laying-the basis requirement. BF explained
    that it could not present the original of the documents since they were in the
    possession of ESHRI which refused to hand them over to BF despite requests.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not BF has complied with the laying the basis requirement for the
    admission of the photocopies as secondary evidence?

    HELD: Yes.
    RATIO:
    1. The only actual rule that the term “best evidence” denotes is the rule requiring
    that the original of a writing must, as a general proposition, be produced [17] and
    secondary evidence of its contents is not admissible except where the original
    cannot be had. Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court enunciates the best
    evidence rule:
             
              SEC. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. –
    When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
    shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in
    the following cases:
     
    (a)    When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
    produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the
    offeror;
     
    (b)   When the original is in the custody or under the
    control of the party against whom the evidence is
    offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
    reasonable notice; (Emphasis added.)
     
     
                Complementing the above provision is Sec. 6 of Rule 130, which reads:
     
              SEC. 6. When original document is in adverse party’s custody
    or control. – If the document is in the custody or under control of the
    adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after
    such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to
    produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the
    case of loss.

    2. Secondary evidence of the contents of a written instrument or document


    refers to evidence other than the original instrument or document itself. A
    party may present secondary evidence of the contents of a writing not
    only when the original is lost or destroyed, but also when it is in the
    custody or under the control of the adverse party. In either instance,
    however, certain explanations must be given before a party can resort to
    secondary evidence.

    3. Four factual premises are readily deducible from the above exchanges, to wit:
    (1) the existence of the original documents which ESHRI had possession of;
    (2) a request was made on ESHRI to produce the documents; (3) ESHRI was
    afforded sufficient time to produce them; and    (4) ESHRI was not inclined to
    produce them.        
     
    Clearly, the circumstances obtaining in this case fall under the exception under
    Sec. 3(b) of Rule 130.
    3.1 In other words, the conditions sine qua non for the presentation and
    reception of the photocopies of the original document as secondary evidence
    have been met. These are: (1) there is proof of the original document’s
    execution or existence; (2) there is proof of the cause of the original
    document’s unavailability; and (3) the offeror is in good faith.

    You might also like