Entries in the course of business

ROSELLA D. CANQUE vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and  SOCOR CONSTRUCTON

CORPORATON !Sa"#

Facts$ Petitioner Rosella D. Canque is a contractor doing business

b usiness under the name and style RDC
Construction. At the time material to this case, she had contracts with the government for (a) the
restoration of Cebu!oledo
Cebu!oledo wharf road" (b) the as#halting of $uto#an access road" and (c) the as#halting
of %abag road in $a#ula#u City. &n connection with these #ro'ects, #etitioner entered into two contracts
with #rivate res#ondent ocor Construction Cor#oration.

n *ay +, -/, #rivate res#ondent sent #etitioner a bill (01h. C), containing a revised com#utation,  
for P+,2-2.23, re#resenting the balance of #etitioners total account of P+,4,544.+3 under the two
contracts. 6owever, #etitioner
#etitioner refused to #ay the amount, claiming that #rivate res#ondent failed to submit
the delivery recei#ts showing the actual weight in metric tons of the items delivered and the acce#tance
thereof by the government.

6ence, on e#tember ++, -/, #rivate res#ondent filed a collection suit.

&n her answer, #etitioner admitted the e1istence of the contracts with #rivate res#ondent as well as recei#t
of the billing (01h. C), dated *ay +, -/. 6owever, she dis#uted the correctness of the bill7

. . . considering that the deliveries of [private respondent] were not signed and acknowledged by the
checkers of [petitioner], the bituminous tack coat it delivered to [petitioner] consisted of 60% water, and
[petitioner] has already paid [private respondent] about P,!00,000.00 but [private respondent] has not
issued any receipt to [petitioner] for said payments and there is no agreement that [private respondent]
will charge "% per month interest.

Petitioner subsequently amended her answer denying she had entered into subcontracts with #rivate
res#ondent. During the trial, #rivate res#ondent, as #laintiff, #resented its vice#resident, ofia .
anche8, and Dolores Aday, its boo99ee#er.

Petitioner:s evidence consisted of her lone testimony

R!C ruled for #rivate res#ondent. n a##eal, the Court of A##eals affirmed. &t u#held the trial courts
reliance on #rivate res#ondents %oo9 of Collectible A
Accounts
ccounts (01h. ;) on the basis of Rule -<4, <2 of the

Rules of Court.
ssue$ =o> CA decision should be reversed as it has only inadmissible evidence to su##ort it.

He%d$ >o.

First. Petitioner contends that the #resentation of the delivery recei#ts duly acce#ted by the then *inistry
First. Petitioner
of Public =or9s and 6ighways (*P=6) is required under the contracts (01hs. A and %) and is a condition
#recedent for her #ayment of the amount claimed by #rivate res#ondent. Petitioner argues that the entries
in #rivate res#ondents %oo9 of Collectible Accounts (01h. ;) cannot ta9e the #lace of the delivery recei#ts
and that such entries are mere hearsay and, thus, inadmissible in evidence.

!he sti#ulation in the two contracts requiring the submission of delivery recei#ts does not #reclude #roof
of delivery of materials by #rivate res#ondent in some other way. !he question is whether the entries in

the %oo9 of Collectible

res#ondent Accounts
cites Rule -<4, <2 of (01h. ;) constitute
the Rules com#etent
of Court and arguesevidence to show
that the entries insuch delivery.
question Private
constitute
 

entries in the course of business sufficient to #rove deliveries made for the government #ro'ects.
# ro'ects. !his
#rovision reads7

#ntries in the course of business.

business . 0ntries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a #erson deceased,
outside of the Phili##ines or unable to testify, who was in a #osition to 9now the facts therein stated, may be received as prima
as  prima
facie evidence, if such #erson made the entries in his #rofessional ca#acity or in the #erformance of duty and in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty.

!he admission in evidence of entries in cor#orate boo9s requires the satisfaction of the following
conditions7

-. !he #erson who made the entry must be dead, outside the country or unable to testify"

+. !he entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer"

<. !he entrant was in a #osition to 9now the facts stated in the entries"

5. !he entries were made in his #rofessional ca#acity or in the #erformance of a duty, whether legal,
contractual, moral or religious" and

3. !he entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.

 As #etitioner #oints

#oints out, the bu
business
siness entries in question
question (01h. ;) do not meet the fi
first
rst and third

requisites.
account Dolores
of RDC Aday, who made
Aday,
Construction. &t was the entries,
in the coursewas
of #resented by #rivate
her testimony that theres#ondent to #resented
entries were testify on the
and
mar9ed in evidence. !here was, therefore, neither 'ustification nor necessity for the #resentation of the
entries as the #erson who made them was available to testify in court.

>ecessity is given as a ground for admitting entries, in that they are the best available evidence. !he
#erson who may be called to court to testify on these entries being dead, there arises the necessity of
their admission without the one who made them being called to court be sworn and sub'ected to cross
e1amination. And this is #ermissible in order to #revent a failure of 'ustice.

*oreover, Aday admitted that she had no #ersonal 9nowledge of the facts constituting the entry. he said
she made the entries based on the bills given to her. %ut she has no 9nowledge of the truth or falsity of
the facts stated in the bills. !he deliveries of the materials stated in the bills were su#ervised by an
engineer. !he #erson, therefore, who has #ersonal 9nowledge of the facts stated in the entries, i.e., i.e., that
 that

such deliveries were made in the amounts and on the dates stated, was the com#any:s #ro'ect engineer.
=hether or not the bills given to Aday correctly reflected the deliveries made in the amounts and on the
dates indicated was a fact that could be established by the #ro'ect engineer alone who, however, was not
#resented during trial. !he rule is stated by former Chief ?ustice *oran, thus7

@=hen the witness had no #ersonal 9nowledge of the facts entered by him, and the #erson who gave him
the information is individually 9nown and may testify as to the facts stated in the entry which is not #art of
a system of entries where scores of em#loyees have intervened, such entry is not admissible without the
testimony of the informer
informer..

Second. &t is nonetheless argued by #rivate res#ondent that although the entries cannot be considered
Second. &t
an e1ce#tion to the hearsay rule, they may be admitted under Rule -<+, -4.

n the other hand, #etitioner

# etitioner contends that evidence which is inadmissible for the #ur#ose for which it

was offered cannot be admitted for another #ur#ose.

 

&t should be noted, however,

ho wever, that
that 01h. ; is not really being #resented for another #ur#ose. Private
res#ondents counsel offered it for the #ur#ose of showing the amount of #etitioners indebtedness. !his is
also the #ur#ose for which its admission is sought as a memorandum to refresh the memory of Dolores
 Aday as a witness.
witness. &n other words, it is the nature
nature of the evidence tthat
hat is changed, not the #ur#ose for
which it is offered.

%e that as it may, considered

considered as a memorandum, 01h. ; does not itself constitute evidence. As e1#lained
in $orromeo v. ourt of &ppeals7
&ppeals7

Bnder the above #rovision (Rule -<+, -4), the memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness
does not constitute evidence, and may not be admitted as such, for the sim#le reason that the witness
has 'ust the same to testify on the basis of refreshed memory. &n other words, where the witness has
testified inde#endently of or after his testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in
dis#ute, such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence. &t is selfevident that a witness
may not be corroborated by any written statement #re#ared wholly by him.

 As the entries in question (01h. ;) were not made

made based on #ersonal 9nowledge,
9nowledge, they could only
corroborate Dolores Adays
Adays testimony that she made the entries as she received the bills.

Third. Does this, therefore, mean there is no com#etent evidence of #rivate res#ondents claim as
Third. Does
#etitioner argues >. Aside from 01h. ;, #rivate res#ondent #resented other documents li9e contract
agreements, affidavits, wor9 accom#lishment re#orts, bills, certifications etc.

!he entries recorded under 01hibit ; were su##orted by 01hibits $, *, >,  which are all ocor %illings
under the account of RDC Construction. !hese billings were #resented and duly received by the
authori8ed re#resentatives of defendant. !he circumstances obtaining in the case at bar clearly show that
for a long #eriod of time after recei#t thereof, RDC never manifested its dissatisfaction or ob'ection to the
aforestated billings submitted by #laintiff.

&>A$$E, 01hibit D- is material #roof of #laintiffs com#lete fulfillment of its obligation.

!here is no question that #laintiff su##lied RDC Construction

Construction with &tem <4+ (%itunimous Prime Coat), &tem
<4< (%ituminous !ac9
!ac9 Coat) and &tem <-4 (%itunimous Concrete urface Course) in all the three #ro'ects
of the latter. !he $uto#an Access Road #ro'ect, the !o
!oledo
ledo wharf #ro'ect and the %abag$a#ula#u Road
#ro'ect.

n the other hand, no #roof was ever offered by defendant to show the #resence of other contractors in
those #ro'ects. =e can therefore conclude that it was ocor Construction Cor#. A$>0 who su##lied
RDC with %ituminous Prime Coat, %ituminous !ac9
!ac9 Coat and %ituminous Concrete urface Course for all
the aforenamed three #ro'ects.