September 3, 1928

GREGORIO FIGUERAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SIMEON SERRANO, as administrator of

the Estate of Leandro Serrano, Defendant-Appellant.
PRINCIPLE:
It is absolutely necessary for the admission of such entries to prove that they were made at or about the time
of the transaction to which they relate. Once this is proven they may be admitted to corroborate the testimony
of the person who made them.
Written memoranda made at or about the time of the transaction to which they relate are sometimes
admitted in evidence to corroborate the testimony of the person by whom they were made.
FACTS:
This is an action to collect the balance of professional fees, for medical services amounting
to P52,229, with P7,310 interest, plus P5,000 damages, and the costs of the
action.chanroblesvir
Herein plaintiffs Figueras contend that defendants Primitiva Serrano and Leandro Serrano
(deceased) promised to pay for plaintiff's trip to the town of Cabugao (deceased residence)
at the rate of P4 per kilometer made in the course of their medical attendance during the
years 1919, 1920, and 1921.
The principal evidence adduced to prove this promise is the letter Exhibit C which is alleged
to be addressed to the plaintiff and signed by Leandro Serrano. This was objected to by the
deceased administrator assailing the authenticity of letter and the signature at the bottom
thereof.

Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Appeal was brought.
The case finally brought up to the SC.
ISSUE:
1. Rule on the competency of Exh. C (stating the defendants [romised to pay)
2. Rule on the competency in Exhs. 6,7,9,10. (no. of medical visits made)
RULING:
1. A careful examination of Exhibit C reveals some details which bear out the
presumption that it was written on the same typewriter as document Exhibit 2. The
latter is a letter written by the plaintiff's brother.
Observations:

There are changes and erasures which have not been satisfactory explained
The remarkable resemblance almost identical, in point of size and contour, between
the signature in Exhibit C and the one in Exhibit J, as may be clearly seen by placing
one upon the other, casts serious doubts on its genuineness. It seems hardly
probable that Leandro Serrano should have been able to write two signatures so

exactly alike, not only in the curvature at the base of the letters, and in the form of
the small as well as the capital letters, but also in the distance between them, the
space they occupy, and the slant of the strokes of the whole signature as well as of
each letter thereof, and even in the length, contour, and other details of the paraph.c
The burden of proof was on plaintiff to show, at least by a preponderance of
evidence, that this document was admissible evidence of record, and, in this case
the preponderance militates against the document.chanrob
Exhibits Q and R (handwriting made by the plaintiffs in connection with the agreed
payment of services- P25.00 per visit):
No proof that the notes in these exhibits were written with the knowledge and consent, or
even in the presence, of Leandro Serrano. Neither does it appear that such notes were made
at the time of the visits and professional services referred to therein, or that they were
written about that time. And the appearance of the writing in these books (Exhibit Q and R )
does not show that such notes were made therein on different occasions and at different
periods of time, considering the noticeable uniformity of the handwriting and of the
color of the ink used (in Exhibit Q), in almost all the entries, notwithstanding the
fact that these entries cover a period of over one year.
It is absolutely necessary for the admission of such entries to prove that they were made at or about the time
of the transaction to which they relate. Once this is proven they may be admitted to corroborate the testimony
of the person who made them.
Written memoranda made at or about the time of the transaction to which they relate are sometimes
admitted in evidence to corroborate the testimony of the person by whom they were made.
Exhibits Q and R not only do not meet the requirement as to being contemporaneous, but it appears that the plaintiff
who made the memoranda noted therein did not even testify concerning them.
2.

No. of visits in Exh. 6,7,9, 10 are competent evidence:

These were dentified by Pedro Suero and Simeon Serrano, the plaintiff made twenty-six medical
visits to Primitiva Serrano in Cabugao, and ninety in Vigan. Not only are these Exhibits 6, 7, 9
and 10, identified, but it appears from the testimony of Pedro Suero, that he, as former clerk to
Leandro Serrano, was enjoined to note down in Exhibits 6 and 7, which are Bristol
Almanacs for the years 1919 and 1920.
It appearing that the plaintiff admitted, and that the trial judge so held without any objection from
said plaintiff, that the latter has already been paid the sum of P1,025 on account of the fees here
in question, and as the sum of P830 as above stated to which he is thus entitled is less than that,
said fees have already been amply satisfied.
defendant is absolved from the complaint.
SHORT DIGEST:

Plaintiffs made a medical service to defendants, one of them already died. It was the contention of the plaintiffs that
they agreed as to the payment of the medical service, P4.00 per visit (Exh. Q and R). This was objected to by
deceased administrator assailing the genuineness of the document.
Another exhibits were presented (Exh. 6,7,8,10) as to the number of visits made. These were also objected by the
defendants.
ISSUE:
Rule on the competency of each exhibits.
RULING:
1.

Exh. Q and R are incompetent

No proof that the notes in these exhibits were written with the knowledge and consent, or
even in the presence, of Leandro Serrano. Neither does it appear that such notes were made
at the time of the visits and professional services referred to therein, or that they were
written about that time. And the appearance of the writing in these books (Exhibit Q and R )
does not show that such notes were made therein on different occasions and at different
periods of time, considering the noticeable uniformity of the handwriting and of the
color of the ink used (in Exhibit Q), in almost all the entries, notwithstanding the
fact that these entries cover a period of over one year.
It is absolutely necessary for the admission of such entries to prove that they were made at or about the time
of the transaction to which they relate. Once this is proven they may be admitted to corroborate the testimony
of the person who made them.
Written memoranda made at or about the time of the transaction to which they relate are sometimes
admitted in evidence to corroborate the testimony of the person by whom they were made.
2.

Exh. 6,7,8,10 are competent

Pedro Suero a former clerk to Leandro Serrano, was enjoined to note down in
Exhibits 6 and 7, which are Bristol Almanacs for the years 1919 and 1920.
It was testified to by

It appearing that the plaintiff admitted, and that the trial judge so held without any
objection from said plaintiff, that the latter has already been paid the sum of P1,025 on account
of the fees here in question, and as the sum of P830 as above stated to which he is thus entitled is
less than that, said fees have already been amply satisfied.
HOWEVER,

defendant is absolved from the complaint.