Canque v.
CA (Short title) RULING & RATIO
G.R. No. 96202 | | April 13, 1999
Petitioner: ROSELLA D. CANQUE
Respondents: CA and SOCOR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
FACTS
1. Rosella D. Canque is a contractor under the name of RDC Construction.
She had contracts with the government. Most of her project is to repair
roads.
2. In connection to her projects, she entered into two contracts with Socor
Construction Corporation, the latter as a sub-contractor.
3. Socor sent a bill to Canque. However, Canque refused to pay and calimed
that Socor failed to submit the delivery receipts showing actual weight in
metric tons of the items delivered and acceptance by the government.
a. Hence, Socor filed a complaint to recover the money.
4. Canque, in her anwer, admitted the existence of contract, but she disputed
the correctness of the bill. However, later on, she amended her answer and
denied that she entered into sub-contracts with Socor.
5. During the trial, Socor, presented its vice-president and bookkeeper. While
Canque’s evidence was only her testimony.
TC: Ruled in favor of Socor. The court ordered Canque to pay the sum of money.
- Analyzing Socor’s Book of Collectible Accounts, the Court is convinced that
the entries (both payments and billings) recorded thereat are credible.
CA: Affirmed the decision of Trial Court.
Hence, this Petition.
Canque’s Contention:
-the business entries in question 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. Hence, neither justification nor necessity for the presentation of the entries
as the person who made them was available to testify in court.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N the court can admit in evidence as “entries in the course of business”, the
entries of Socor, considering that the person who made the entries has no
personal knowledge.
2. W/N the entries can be admitted under Rule 132, Sec. 10.
- NO
1. The admission in evidence of entries in corporate books requires the
satisfaction of the following conditions:
a. The person who made the entry must be dead, outside the country
or unable to testify;
b. The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to
which they refer;
c. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
d. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the
performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or
religious; and
e. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business
or duty.
2. Necessity is given as a ground for admitting entries, in that they are the best
available evidence
3. 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. But
she has no knowledge of the truth or falsity of the facts stated in the bills.
- NO
1. Under the above provision (Rule 132, 10), the memorandum used to refresh
the memory of the witness does not constitute evidence, and may not be
admitted as such, for the simple reason that the witness has just the same
to testify on the basis of refreshed memory.
2. In other words, where the witness has testified independently of or after his
testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute,
such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence.
HOWEVER, in the case at bar, the court granted the collection of sum of money
because Socor presented other documents to support the entries recorded. Also,
Caque received the billings and never object regarding the amount. Thus, Art. 1235,
CC, when the oblige accepts the performance, knowing its incompleteness and
without expressing any objection, the obligation is deem complied with.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Page !1 of !1