Home Insurance Corp. v CA and Mabuhay Brokerage Co. Inc.
G.R. No. 109293 August 18, 1993
FACTS: On April 25, 1979, INDERECO consigned to Nestle two hydraulic engines from the U.S and shipped to Manila. Upon its arrival on May 17, 1979, it was turned over to E. Razon Arrastre, the cargo was later hauled by Mabuhay Brokerage Co. to its warehouse, where it stayed until July 26, 1979. When it was delivered to Nestle, the latter found out that the engines were damaged. Nestle subsequently filed a claim against E. Razon, Mabuhay, the Port Authority, and its insurer, the Home Insurance Corporation. When the other companies denied liability, Home Insurance paid the claim and was issued a subrogation receipt. Mabuhay alone was sued by Home Insurance for the recovery of the amount it had paid to Nestle. Mabuhay again denied liability. After trial, the RTC of Manila rendered judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis that the insurance contract between the corporation and the consignee was not presented and that the other supporting documents were all only photocopies. No explanation was given for the failure of the plaintiffs to submit the originals. This was later on affirmed by the CA on appeal. The CA stressed out that it could be excused from presenting the original of the insurance contract only if there was proof that this had been lost. The unrebutted claim, however, is that the original was in its possession all the time. ISSUE: Whether photocopies to support to existence of an insurance contract can be admissible as evidence? HELD: No. Rule 130, Section 3, of the Rules of Court is quite clear: 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; 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. It is curious that the Home Insurance disregarded this rule, knowing that the best evidence of the insurance contract was its original copy, which was presumably in its possession.
Ardis Gadd Killpack, and Ardis Gadd Killpack, As of The Estate of Theron William Killpack, Deceased v. National Old Line Insurance Company, A Corporation, 229 F.2d 851, 10th Cir. (1956)
L. Tyson Betty v. The Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company, Limited, and The North British and Mercantile Insurance Company, 310 F.2d 308, 4th Cir. (1962)
Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee, a Corporation v. L'Union Atlantique S.A. D'assurances, Vesta (Uk) Insurance Company, and Chiyoda Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Ltd., Tokyo, 723 F.2d 357, 3rd Cir. (1983)
First State Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Third Party v. Mini Togs, Inc. v. Illinois Employer Insurance of Wausau, Third Party, 841 F.2d 131, 1st Cir. (1988)
J. B. Cowles, JR., Administrator of The Estate of Hilda A. Nightengale, Deceased v. Ohio Farmers Insurance Company and Ohio Farmers Indemnity Company, 242 F.2d 73, 4th Cir. (1957)