Previous Conduct

Adoracion E. Cruz, Thelma Debbie E. Cruz And Gerry E. Cruz vs. Court Of Appeals And
Spouses Eliseo And Virginia Malolos,
G.R. No. 126713. July 27, 1998

Panganiban, J

FACTS

Delfin I. Cruz and Adoracion were spouses and their children were Thelma, Nerissa,
Arnel and Gerry Cruz. Upon the death of Delfin, they executed Deed of Partial
Partition.(DPP) Each one of them was given a share of several parcels of registered lands all
situated in Tanay Rizal. They also executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and
registered and annotated in the titles of the lands covered by the Deed of Partial Partition.
Titles were issued in their names. Seven(7) titles of land were issued in favor of Nerissa
Cruz Tamayo, which is the land in question. Meanwhile, the spouses Eliseo and Virginio
Malolos filed a Civil Cases against spouses Tamayo for sum of money. The CFI decided in
favor of spouses Malolos. By virtue of the execution sale ,Malolos as the highest bidder
bought the properties. Nerissa refused to surrender the owner’s duplicate copy. Petitoners
intervene , they alleged that they were co- owners of Nerissa Cruz Tamayo.

ISSUE :

WON petitioners were estopped from claiming that there was a co-ownership over the
disputed parcels of land which were also covered by the DPP.

Ruling

No. Petitioners’ contention is untenable. Res inter alios acta, as a general rule, prohibits the
admission of evidence that tends to show that what a person has done at one time is probative
of the contention that he has done a similar act at another time. Evidence of similar acts or
occurrences compels the defendant to meet allegations that are not mentioned in the
complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of irrelevant issues, and diverts the
attention of the court from the issues immediately before it. Hence, this evidentiary rule
guards against the practical inconvenience of trying collateral issues and protracting the trial
and prevents surprise or other mischief prejudicial to litigants. The rule, however, is not
without exception. While inadmissible in general, collateral facts may be received as
evidence under exceptional circumstances, as when there is a rational similarity or
resemblance between the conditions giving rise to the fact offered and the circumstances
surrounding the issue or fact to be proved. Evidence of similar acts may frequently become
relevant, especially in actions based on fraud and deceit, because it sheds light on the state of
mind or knowledge of a person; it provides insight into such person’s motive or intent; it
uncovers a scheme, design or plan; or it reveals a mistake.

In this case, petitioners argue that transactions relating to the other parcels of land
they entered into, in the concept of absolute owners, are inadmissible as evidence to show
that the parcels in issue are not co-owned. The Court is not persuaded. Evidence of such
transactions falls under the exception to the rule on res inter alios acta. Such evidence is
admissible because it is relevant to an issue in the case and corroborative of evidence already
received.Wherefore, petition is DENIED.

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Marina B. Custodio

G.R. No.173780
March 21, 2011
Sereno, J

FACTS
Marina Custodio was a teller in Metrobank – Laoag Branch. At the close of
banking hours, respondent balanced her transaction and turned over the funds to the bank’s
cash custodian, Ms. Marinel Castro, which the latter signed the Cash Transfer Slip. Ms.
Castro discovered that there was amounting to P 600,000.00. Respondent bank attributed the
shortage to the respondent. Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money against
respondent. Petitioner argues that Custodio’s prior involvement in a cash shortage in its
Cubao branch is admissible as evidence to prove that scheme or habit on her part.

ISSUE

WON the previous cash shortage in Cubao is admissible as evidence to prove

that she is responsible for the loss of P600, 000.00 in Laoag City Branch.

RULING

No. The general evidentiary rule is that evidence that one did or did not do a
certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that one did or did not do the same or a
similar thing at another time. However, evidence of similar acts may be received to prove a
specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan system, scheme, habit, custom or usage and the
like. In Citibank N.A. (Formerly First National City Bank) v. Sabeniano, 504 SCRA 378
(2006), the Court explained the rationale for this rule: The rule is founded upon reason,
public policy, justice and judicial convenience. The fact that a person has committed the
same or similar acts at some prior time affords, as a general rule, no logical guaranty that he
committed the act in question. This is so because, subjectively, a man’s mind and even his
modes of life may change; and, objectively, the conditions under which he may find himself
at a given time may likewise change and thus induce him to act in a different way. Besides, if
evidence of similar acts are to be invariably admitted, they will give rise to a multiplicity of
collateral issues and will subject the defendant to surprise as well as confuse the court and
prolong the trial. Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant, especially to
actions based on fraud and deceit, because it sheds light on the state of mind or knowledge of
a person; it provides insight into such person’s motive or intent; it uncovers a scheme, design
or plan, or it reveals a mistake.

In this case however, respondent Custodio’s prior involvement in a cash shortage in

the bank’s Cubao branch does not conclusively prove that she is responsible for the loss of
PhP600,000 in the Laoag City branch, subject of the instant case. Although the previous
cash shortage in Cubao could possibly shed light on the intent, scheme or habit of respondent
Custodio, that previous cash shortage is not sufficient to affirm a definitive finding of fact
that she took the funds in the Laoag City branch. If the prior cash shortage in Cubao showed
a reasonable intent or habit on the part of respondent, then there was no reason for petitioner
Metrobank to continue to employ her, considering the degree of trust and confidence required
of a bank teller. Nevertheless, respondent Custodio continued to serve the bank even after the
case in petitioner Metrobank’s Cubao branch. Her continued employment was an affirmation
that she was still worthy of the bank’s trust, insofar as she was allowed to continue to handle
sums of money in the Laoag City branch.

Wherefore, Petition is DENIED.

OPINION RULE

#3
Equitable Cardnetwork, Inc., vs. Josefa Borromeo Capistrano,
G.R. No. 180157
February 8, 2012

ABAD, J.
FACTS
Petitioner alleged that Mrs. Capistrano applied for membership at the Manila
Yatch Club (MYC). MYC and Equitable Cardnetwork ,Inc had credit card sponsorship
agreement. Mrs. Capistrano allegedly applied for and was granted with ECI Visa Credit Card.
It also alleged that respondent authorized Valentina Redulla to claim the credit card . After
using the credit card, Redulla issued a P45, 000.00 check as partial payment however it
bounced upon deposit. Petitioner demanded payment to Mrs. Capistrano but she refused to
pay. It filed a suit for collection of sum of money. In her answer, she averred that she did not
authorized Redulla to claim the credit card. She also averred that the signatures on the
document were forged.
 ISSUE

WON expert witness is necessary to prove that the signatures on the document
was forged.

RULING
No. Here, apart from presenting an officer who identified its documents, ECI
presented no other evidence to support its claim that Mrs. Capistrano did business with it. On
the other hand, the evidence for the defense shows that it was not likely for Mrs. Capistrano
to have applied for a credit card since she was already 81 years old, weak, bedridden, and
suffering from senility at the time in question. What is more, she had been staying in
Cagayan de Oro under the care of his son Mario; whereas she made the alleged cash
advances and purchases using the credit card in different malls in Cebu City, Bohol, and
Muntinlupa City. Further, as the CA found,Mrs. Capistrano’s specimen signatures on a Deed
of Sale, an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Person, a Waiver of Rights, and a
handwritten note, executed at about the time in question, clearly varied from the signatures
found on ECI’s documents. The testimony of a handwriting expert, while useful, is not
indispensable in examining or comparing handwritings or signatures. The matter here is not
too technical as to preclude the CA from examining the signatures and ruling on whether or
not they are forgeries.

# 4 Dr. Rubi Li, vs. Spouses Reynaldo And Lina Soliman, as Parents/Heirs of
Deceased Angelica Soliman,
G.R. No. 165279
June 7, 2011
Villarama, J

FACTS
Respondents’ 11- year old daughter,Angelica Soliman, underment a biopsy of
mass located in her lower extremity in St. Luke’s Medical Center(SLMC). She was suffering
from osteosarcoma. Dr. Jaime Tamayo suggested chemotherapy to eliminate the remaining
cancer cells. She referred Angelica to Dr. Rubi Lee. She died,just eleven (11) days after the
(intravenous) administration of the first cycle of the chemotherapy regimen. Because SLMC
refused t release a death certificate without full payment of their hospital bill, respondents
brought the cadaver of Angelica to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory at
Camp Crame for post-mortem examination. The MedicoLegal Report issued by said
institution indicated the cause of death as “Hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple organ
hemorrhages and Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation. Dr. Vergara and Dr. Balmaceda
were presented as witnesses. The RTC dismissed the complaint, petitioner was not liable for
damages. It cited the testimony of Dr. Tamayo who testified that he considered petitioner one
of the most proficient in the treatment of cancer and that the patient in this case was afflicted
with a very aggressive type of cancer necessitating chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment. In
CA, found her guilty of negligence in not explaining to the respondents all the possible side
effects of the chemotherapy on their child.
ISSUE
WON Dr. Vergara and Dr. Balmaceda were qualified expert witnesses.
 RULING
No. This Court has recognized that medical negligence cases are best proved by
opinions of expert witnesses belonging in the same general neighborhood and in the same
general line of practice as defendant physician or surgeon. The deference of courts to the
expert opinion of qualified physicians stems from the former’s realization that the latter
possess unusual technical skills which laymen in most instances are incapable of intelligently
evaluating, hence the indispensability of expert testimonies. In this case, both the trial and
appellate courts concurred in finding that the alleged negligence of petitioner in the
administration of chemotherapy drugs to respondents’ child was not proven considering that
Drs. Vergara and Balmaceda, not being oncologists or cancer specialists, were not qualified
to give expert opinion as to whether petitioner’s lack of skill, knowledge and professional
competence in failing to observe the standard of care in her line of practice was the
proximate cause of the patient’s death.

AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

# 7. Re: Complaint of Concerned Menbers of Chinese Grocers Association against
Justice Socorro B. Inting of the Court of Appeals
A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-177-CA-J. April 12, 2011
BRION, J.
FACTS

In their letter complaint the Concerned Members of CGA claimed that

Justice Inting acted with gross neglect when she granted dela Cruz’spetition for
the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 42417. To recall, dela
Cruz filed the petition as the alleged vendee of the property. However, the
complainants point out that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 15, 2008,the
basis for dela Cruz’s interest and right to file the petition, should have aroused
Justice Inting’s suspicion as it was allegedly signed on behalf of CGA by Ang E.
Bio, who died on August 28, 2001. Justice Inting averred that there was nothing
suspicious in dela Cruz filing the petition as a vendee since Section 109 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) allows another
person in interest to file a petition for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate
title. Since no representative of CGA appeared to participate in theproceedings
or oppose the petition at the initial hearing on June 3, 2009, Justice Inting
granted the petition.
ISSUE
WON CGA ABLE TO PROVE THAT JUDGE INTING ACTED
WITH GROSS NEGLECT WHEN SHE GRANTED NEW OWNER’S
DUPLICATE TO dela Cruz
RULING
No. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has theburden of
proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence, i.e., that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to justify a conclusion. We set the applicable standard in deciding cases involving
accusations of misconduct leveled at judges in Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v.
VillalonPornillos, where we said: “The burden of substantiating the charges in an
administrative proceeding against court officials and employees falls on the complainant,
who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that respondent regularly
performed her duties will prevail. Apart from the questionable nature of the Deed
of Absolute Sale in dela Cruz’s favor, brought to light only now upon the
presentation of the Certificate of Death, the complainants have not presented
any other evidence to support the charge of misconduct leveled against Justice
Inting. Significantly, however, the complainants attached a mere photocopy of
Ang Bio’s Certificate of Death to their letter complaint. While the Certificate of
Death is indeed a public document, to prove its contents, there is a need to
present a certified copy of this document, issued by the public officer in custody
of the original document.7 Since the Certificate of Death is not a certified copy, it
is inadmissible as proof, and is considered a mere scrap of paper without any
evidentiary value. Wherefore, administrative complaint is Dismissed.