“With the 2019 amendment, documents that are not actionable but material and relevant, and support the cause of action or defense of a party, must be alleged”
“[A] written instrument or document is ‘actionable’ when an action or defense is based upon such instrument or document.
“While no contract… [may] be set up as [an] exhibit which is not the foundation of the cause of action or defense, those instruments which are merely to be used as evidence do not fall within the rule on actionable document[s]” (Young Builders Corporation v. Benson Industries, Inc., G.R. 198998, June 19, 2019).
“To illustrate, in an action to enforce a written contract of lease, the lease contract is the basis of the action and therefore a copy thereof must either be set forth in the complaint or its substance must be recited therein, attaching either the original or a copy to the complaint.
“The lease contract is an actionable document” (see Section 7, Rule 8; G.R. 198998, June 19, 2019).
“Any letter or letters written by the lessee to the lessor or vice versa concerning the contract should not be set forth in the complaint.”
“However, the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure now requires that every pleading stating a party’s claims or defenses shall state, among others, the documentary evidence in support of the allegations contained in the pleading” (Section 6, Rule 7).
With the 2019 amendment, documents that are not actionable but material and relevant, and support the cause of action or defense of a party, must be alleged and copies attached or annexed to the complaint or answer.
However, if a document qualifies as an actionable document, it must be pleaded in the manner provided in Section 7, Rule 8.
This means “the substance [of the actionable document must be] set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof attached to the pleading as an exhibit[; only] then [can] the genuineness and due execution thereof [be] deemed admitted[,] unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts…” (G.R. 198998, June 19, 2019)
On the contrary “a simple specific denial without oath is sufficient: ( 1) where the instrument or document is not the basis but a mere evidence of the claim or defense; (2) when the adverse party does not appear as a party to the document or instrument; and (3) when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused” (G.R. 198998, June 19, 2019).
In the case of Young Builders Corporation (YBC) v. Benson Industries, Inc. (BII), “[t]he complaint filed by YBC is an action for a sum of money arising from its main contract with BII for the construction of a building. YBC’s cause of action is primarily based on BII’s alleged non-payment of its outstanding debts to YBC arising from their main contract, despite demand” (G.R. No. 198998, June 19, 2019).
“If there was a written building or construction contract that was executed between BII and YBC, then that would be the actionable document because its terms and stipulations would spell out the rights and obligations of the parties.
“However, no such contract or agreement was attached to YBC’s Complaint” (G.R. 198998, June 19, 2019).
“YBC alleged [in the complaint] it had accomplished works on the main contract amounting to P54,022,551.39, of which only P40,678,430 was paid by BII leaving a balance of P13,344,121.39.
“In addition, BII required YBC to do extra works amounting to… a total collectible of P24,832,352.38 both on the main contract and the extra works as per accomplishment billing…” (G.R. 198998, June 19, 2019).
“Clearly, the subject Accomplishment Billing is not an actionable document… [a]s such, there was no need for BII to specifically deny its genuineness and due execution under oath.”
Further, “[s]ince BII does not appear to have taken part in the execution of the Accomplishment Billing, a verified specific denial of its genuineness and due execution is therefore unnecessary” (G.R. 198998, June 19, 2019).
To illustrate, “heirs who are sued upon a written contract executed by their father, are not bound to make a verified specific denial; and the defendant, in an action upon a note executed by him and endorsed by the payee to the plaintiff, is not bound to make a verified specific denial of the genuineness and due execution of the indorsement” (G.R. 198998, June 19, 2019).
“The Court cannot, thus, sustain YBC’s contention that the subject Accomplishment Billing should be admitted in evidence due to BII’s failure to specifically deny under oath its genuineness and due execution.”
Instead, YBC should have proven the due execution and authenticity of the Accomplishment Billing, it being a private document, in accordance with Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence, which it failed to do so (G.R. 198998, June 19, 2019).