Petitioner Rosella D.

Canque is a contractor doing business under the

name and style RDC Construction. In connection with these projects,
petitioner entered into two contracts with private respondent Socor
Construction Corporation.

On the contract it stated that” private respondent shall submit the

delivery receipts showing the actual weight in metric tons of the
items delivered and the acceptance thereof by the government.

On May 28, 1986, private respondent sent petitioner a bill (Exh. C),
containing a revised computation,[6] for P299,717.75, plus interest at
the rate of 3% a month, representing the balance of petitioner's total
account of P2,098,400.25 for materials delivered and services
rendered by private respondent under the two contracts. However,
petitioner refused to pay the amount, claiming that private
respondent failed to submit the delivery receipts showing the actual
weight in metric tons of the items delivered and the acceptance
thereof by the government.

During the trial, private respondent, as plaintiff, presented its vice-

president, Sofia O. Sanchez, and Dolores Aday, its bookkeeper. That
the entries in the book are sufficient proof of such delivery.

Petitioner's evidence consisted of her lone testimony.

Issue: The question is whether the entries in the Book of Collectible

Accounts (Exh. K) constitute competent evidence to show such
delivery.

HELD: NO. IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUISITES FOR ENTRIES IN THE
COURSE OF BUSINESS.

As petitioner points out, the business entries in question (Exh. K) do

not meet the first and third requisites. Dolores Aday, who made the
entries, was presented by private respondent to testify on the
account of RDC Construction. It was in the course of her testimony
that the entries were presented and marked in evidence. There was,
therefore, neither justification nor necessity for the presentation of
the entries as the person who made them was available to testify in
court.
Necessity is given as a ground for admitting entries, in that they are
the best available evidence.

The admission in evidence of entries in corporate books requires the

satisfaction of the following conditions:

1. The person who made the entry must be dead, outside the
country or unable to testify;

2. The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions

to which they refer;

3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the

entries;

4. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the

performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or
religious; and

5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of

business or duty.

Moreover, Aday admitted that she had no personal knowledge of

the facts constituting the entry. She said she made the entries based
on the bills given to her. The deliveries of the materials stated in the
bills were supervised by "an engineer for (such) functions."[18] The
person, therefore, who has personal knowledge of the facts stated in
the entries, i.e., that such deliveries were made in the amounts and
on the dates stated, was the company's project engineer. Whether
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 project engineer alone who, however, was not
presented during trial.
 EMMANUEL B. AZNAR, Petitioner, vs.

CITIBANK, N.A., (Philippines), Respondent.

G.R. No. 164273; March 28, 2007

Facts:

Petitioner is a holder of a credit card and claims that when he presented his credit card in some
establishments in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, the same was not honored. And when he
tried to use the same in Ingtan Tour and Travel Agency (Ingtan Agency) in Indonesia to purchase
plane tickets to Bali, it was again dishonored for the reason that his card was blacklisted by the
respondent bank.

To prove that respondent blacklisted his credit card, Petitioner presented a computer print-out,
denominated as ON-LINE AUTHORIZATIONS FOREIGN ACCOUNT ACTIVITY REPORT,
issued to him by Ingtan Agency with the signature of one Victrina Elnado Nubi which shows that
his card in question was “DECL OVERLIMIT” or declared over the limit.

The Regional Trial Court rendered its decision dismissing petitioner’s complaint for lack of
merit. It held that as between the computer print-out presented by petitioner and the Warning
Cancellation Bulletins presented by respondent, the latter had more weight as their due execution
and authenticity was duly established by respondent.

Upon motion for reconsideration, the decision was reversed. Judge De la Peña ruled that the
computer print-out was printed out by Nubi in the ordinary or regular course of business in the
modern credit card industry and Nubi was not able to testify as she was in a foreign country and
cannot be reached by subpoena. The same took judicial notice of the practice of automated teller
machines (ATMs) and credit card facilities which readily print out bank account status, therefore
the print-out can be received as prima facie evidence of the dishonor of petitioner’s credit card.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the computer print-out is an electronic document
which must be authenticated pursuant to Section 2, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence
or under Section 20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court by anyone who saw the document
executed or written; Petitioner, however, failed to prove its authenticity, thus it must be
excluded.

Issues:

i. Whether or not the “On Line Authorization Report” is an electronic document?

ii. Whether or not the “On Line Authorization Report” constitutes electronic
evidence?

Aznar next invokes Section 43 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which pertains to entries in the
course of business, to support Exh. "G". Said provision reads:
Sec. 43. Entries in the course of business. – Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions
to which they refer, by a person deceased or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the
facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in
his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of
business or duty.

Under this rule, however, the following conditions are required:

1. the person who made the entry must be dead, or unable to testify;

2. the entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer;

3. the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;

4. the entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty,
whether legal, contractual, moral or religious; and

5. the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.47

As correctly pointed out by the RTC in its May 29, 1998 Decision, there appears on the
computer print-out the name of a certain "Victrina Elnado Nubi" and a signature purportedly
belonging to her, and at the left dorsal side were handwritten the words "Sorry for the delay since
the records had to be retrieved. Regards. Darryl Mario." It is not clear therefore if it was Nubi
who encoded the information stated in the print-out and was the one who printed the same. The
handwritten annotation signed by a certain Darryl Mario even suggests that it was Mario who
printed the same and only handed the print-out to Nubi. The identity of the entrant, required by
the provision above mentioned, was therefore not established. Neither did petitioner establish in
what professional capacity did Mario or Nubi make the entries, or whether the entries were made
in the performance of their duty in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.

And even if Exh. "G" is admitted as evidence, it only shows that the use of the credit card of
petitioner was denied because it was already over the limit. There is no allegation in the
Complaint or evidence to show that there was gross negligence on the part of Citibank in
declaring that the credit card has been used over the limit.

The Court is also perplexed that stated on Exh. "G" is the amount of "6,289,195.10" opposite
petitioner's account number, which data, petitioner did not clarify.48 As plaintiff in this case, it
was incumbent on him to prove that he did not actually incur the said amount which is above his
credit limit. As it is, the Court cannot see how Exh. "G" could help petitioner's claim for
damages.