“But Alberto and Noah’s Ark ‘failed to object to the formal offer of the 105 invoices by Chevron without their due authentication’”
(Last of 2 parts)
“Further, the Court notes that the 105 invoices actually constituted actionable documents that needed to be contested in the manner provided in Section 8, Rule 8 of both the 1997 and 2019 Rules of Court.”
“Thus, [Alberto] was required to contest under oath the genuineness and due execution of the invoices” (G.R. No. 236525, March 29, 2023).
“The invoices themselves are actually presumed to have happened in the ordinary course of business in accordance with Section 3(q), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence…”
“His flat-out denials of any personal knowledge or participation in the questioned transactions, purchases, or deliveries – even under oath, but without any further explanations or supporting evidence– are thus insufficient to be specific denials.”
“The Court is aware of its ruling in Young Builders Corp. v. Benson Industries, lnc., (Young Builders) wherein an accomplishment billing was declared not to be an actionable document vis-a-vis a collection case filed by a construction company against its client that failed to pay the balance of its indebtedness to said construction company for services rendered.”
In the Chevron case, “the 105 invoices are significantly different in substance from a mere bill for services rendered.
The portion where the customer or customer’s representative puts his or her name and signature to evidence the refinery’s receipt of the bunker fuel makes an invoice here not merely evidentiary in nature.”
Since “Alberto admitted to being the refinery’s proprietor (the name of which appeared on the 105 invoices), and… failed to deny employing or authorizing the refinery’s employees who accepted and received the bunker fuel, he prima facie appeared to be a party to the invoices.
“[T]hus [he was] under obligation to properly contest the 105 invoices as actionable documents in accordance with the Rules of Court [which] [h]e evidently failed to do so” (loc. cit.).
“[T]he Court [further] emphasized in Young Builders the importance of authenticating private documents before their admission into evidence, viz.:
Under Section 20 of Rule 137, before a private document is admitted in evidence, it must be authenticated by any of the following: the person who executed it, the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it executed, the person who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signature, being familiar thereto, or an expert, or the person to whom the parties to the instrument had previously confessed execution thereof.”
Chevron “thus should have presented witnesses who actually saw the invoices’ generation, or the invoices’ acceptance, receipt, and subscription by the refinery’s representatives, or at least someone in charge of keeping and managing [Chevron’s] records for due authentication.”
Hence, the trial court erred in admitting the 105 invoices as part of the testimonies of Chevron’s witnesses.
But Alberto and Noah’s Ark “failed to object to the formal offer of the 105 invoices by Chevron without their due authentication.”
The former did not offer any objection during the testimonies of Chevron’s witnesses and failed to sufficiently contest the authenticity of the invoices in their Comment/Opposition to Chevron’s Formal Offer of Exhibits.
As discussed, Alberto “failed to both properly contest the 105 invoices as actionable documents in the Answer with Counter-Claim, and to contest the admission of the said 105 invoices into evidence without proper authentication.
“[Alberto and Noah’s Ark] are therefore deemed to have waived their right to object to the 105 invoices as both actionable documents that form the bases of [Chevron’s] claim, and as private documentary evidence in support of said claim” (loc. cit.).
