August 26, 2016

Dr. Towler
St. Katherines Catholic Hospital
Boston, United States
Dear Sir,
This letter is for the purpose of recommending that an appeal be filed in the Court of
Appeals on the ground that the trial judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in: 1) granting damages to the plaintiff regardless of the fact
that they failed to meet the quantum of evidence required to prove award for damages; 2)
considering the inadmissible evidence presented and witness testimony of Costelo in
rendering judgment; and 3) granting damages more than that what is alleged and prayed for.
The Judge misapplied the facts and evidence and made an erroneous conclusions
based on said evidence. Obviously, the trial court effectively failed and/or refused to weigh
the evidence admitted in court against the plaintiff, which it was duty-bound to do as a trier of
facts. The trial court should have conducted itself with circumspection and engaged in
intelligent reflection in resolving the issues.
An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion
when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act
at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic
manner by reason of passion and hostility.

The following laws and jurisprudence could be cited as basis:

judges must act with utmost circumspection and must engage in intelligent deliberation
and reflection, drawing on their experience, the law and jurisprudence, and delicately
evaluating the evidence on hand. (People vs. Jose Go, August 6, 2014)

"It is necessary for a party seeking the award of actual damages to produce competent proof
or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award." (People v. Caraig, 400 SCRA 67)
Favorable relief can be granted only after the court has ascertained that the evidence
offered and the facts proven by the presenting party, petitioners in this case, warrant the
grant of the same. (Pascua vs Florendo)
In doing so, the respondent judge brazenly went around the explicit command of Rule 9,
Section 3(d) of the Rules of Court which defines the extent of the relief that may be awarded
in a judgment by default, i.e., only so much as has been alleged and proved. The court acts in
excess of jurisdiction if it awards an amount beyond the claim made in the complaint or
beyond that proved by the evidence. While a defaulted defendant may be said to be at the
mercy of the trial court, the Rules of Court and certainly the imperatives of fair play see to it
that any decision against him must be in accordance with law. In the abstract, this means that
the judgment must not be characterized by outrageous one-sidedness, but by what is fair, just
and equitable that always underlie the enactment of a law. (Republic vs Hidalgo)
In rendering judgment on the basis of evidence and witness testimony not admitted to
court, the basis would be:
Under the best evidence rule, the original document must be produced whenever its contents
are the subject of inquiry. The rule is encapsulated in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court, as follow:
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a documents, 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;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them
is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office.
A photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is not admissible unless it is shown that the
original is unavailable. Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC.5 When original document is unavailable. When the original document has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or
existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its
contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original,
the offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or due execution of the original; (2)
the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its non-production in court; and (3)

on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original
can be attributed. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and
contents.
(CBIC vs. Lagman)
I strongly believe that such recommendation ensures a favorable judgment.
Sincerely,
INNA THERESE GUTIERREZ
2014400073
San Beda College Alabang