This document summarizes two cases: Nacu vs CSC and Heirs of Ochoa vs GS Transport. In Nacu vs CSC, the issue was whether overtime billing statements bearing Nacu's signature were genuine. The court ruled the signatures were genuine based on testimony from another employee familiar with Nacu's signature. In Heirs of Ochoa vs GS Transport, the issue was whether an income certification from the victim's employer (USAID) was properly authenticated. The court ruled the certification was a public document from a foreign government agency, and thus its authenticity was presumed without need for further proof.
This document summarizes two cases: Nacu vs CSC and Heirs of Ochoa vs GS Transport. In Nacu vs CSC, the issue was whether overtime billing statements bearing Nacu's signature were genuine. The court ruled the signatures were genuine based on testimony from another employee familiar with Nacu's signature. In Heirs of Ochoa vs GS Transport, the issue was whether an income certification from the victim's employer (USAID) was properly authenticated. The court ruled the certification was a public document from a foreign government agency, and thus its authenticity was presumed without need for further proof.
This document summarizes two cases: Nacu vs CSC and Heirs of Ochoa vs GS Transport. In Nacu vs CSC, the issue was whether overtime billing statements bearing Nacu's signature were genuine. The court ruled the signatures were genuine based on testimony from another employee familiar with Nacu's signature. In Heirs of Ochoa vs GS Transport, the issue was whether an income certification from the victim's employer (USAID) was properly authenticated. The court ruled the certification was a public document from a foreign government agency, and thus its authenticity was presumed without need for further proof.
PEZA issued a memorandum prohibiting its employees from
charging and collecting overtime fees from PEZA registered enterprises. EBCC filed a complaint against Nacu for allegedly charging it overtime fees despite the memorandum order. During the investigation, Ligan attested, among others, that the overtime fees went to Nacu's group, and that, during the time Nacu was confined in the hospital, she pre-signed documents and gave them to him. Nacu denied that the signatures appearing on the ten overtime billing statements were hers.
Issue:
Whether or not the signatures appearing on the overtime billing
was of Nacu.
Ruling: YES!
Margallo, a co-employee who holds the same position as Nacu,
also identified the latter's signatures on the SOS. Such testimony deserves credence. It has been held that an ordinary witness may testify on a signature he is familiar with. Anyone who is familiar with a person's writing from having seen him write, from carrying on a correspondence with him, or from having become familiar with his writing through handling documents and papers known to have been signed by him may give his opinion as to the genuineness of that person's purported signature when it becomes material in the case
Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 50 provides:SEC. 50. Opinion of
ordinary witnesses. -- The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is
given, may be received in evidence regarding --
xxxx(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity.
Heirs of Ochoa vs GS Transport
Facts:
Jose Marcial died in an accident on board a taxicab owned and
operated by G & S. A complaint for damages was filed against the latter. The RTC adjudged G & S guilty of breach of contract of carriage and awarded the victim damages for loss of earning capacity. The CA affirmed the decision of RTC, but modified the award on the ground that on the ground that the income certificate issued by Jose Marcial’s employer, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), is self-serving, unreliable and biased, and that the same was not supported by competent evidence such as income tax returns or receipts.
G & S file an MR arguing that the USAID Certification used as
basis in computing the award for loss of income is inadmissible in evidence because it was not properly authenticated and identified in court by the signatory thereof.
Issue:
Whether or not authentication of the USAID certification is
admissible.
Ruling:
It therefore becomes necessary to first ascertain whether the
subject USAID Certification is a private or public document before this Court can rule upon the correctness of its admission and consequent use as basis for the award of loss of income in these cases.
Sec. 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court classifies documents as
either public or private, viz: Sec. 19. Classes of Documents – For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private. Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts
of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
The USAID is an official government agency of a foreign country,
the United States. Hence, Cruz, as USAID’s Chief of the Human Resources Division in the Philippines, is actually a public officer. Apparently, Cruz’s issuance of the subject USAID Certification was made in the performance of his official functions, he having charge of all employee files and information as such officer. In view of these, it is clear that the USAID Certification is a public document pursuant to paragraph (a), Sec. 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Hence, and consistent with our above discussion, the authenticity and due execution of said Certification are already presumed.
It is true that before a private document offered as authentic be
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must first be proved. However, it must be remembered that this requirement of authentication only pertains to private documents and “does not apply to public documents, these being admissible without further proof of their due execution or genuineness. Two reasons may be advanced in support of this rule, namely: said documents have been executed in the proper registry and are presumed to be valid and genuine until the contrary is shown by clear and convincing proof; and, second, because public documents are authenticated by the official signature and seals which they bear and of which seals, courts may take judicial notice.”