FACTS: Lorenzo
Shipping is the owner and operator of the commercial vessel MV Lorcon Luzon.
National Power Corporation is the owner of Power Barge 104, "a
nonpropelled power plant barge."
On March 20, 1993, Power Barge 104 was berthed and stationed
at the Makar Wharf in General Santos City when the MV Lorcon Luzon "hit
and rammed Power Barge 104."
Following this incident, Nelson Homena, Plant Manager of
Power Barge 104, filed a Marine Protest before the Board of Marine Inquiry.
Captain Villarias also filed his own Marine Protest. For his part, Captain Yape
filed a Marine Accident Report. The Board of Marine Inquiry conducted joint
hearings on the Marine Protests and Captain Yape's report.
To forestall the prescription of its cause of action for
damages, National Power Corporation filed before the Quezon City Regional Trial
Court a Complaint for Damages against Lorenzo Shipping. In this Complaint,
National Power Corporation recalled the damage resulting from the ramming.
The Regional Trial Court issued the Decision dated February
18, 2002 absolving Lorenzo Shipping of liability.
Nevertheless, as Lorenzo Shipping supposedly exercised due
diligence in its selection and supervision of Captain Villarias, no liability
could be attributed to it.
The Court of Appeals rendered the Decision dated September
14, 2007 reversing and setting aside the February 18, 2002 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court and entering another judgment ordering Lorenzo Shipping to
pay National Power Corporation.
ISSUE: Regarding
the "Total Incidental Cost for Drydock and Repair," which was
National Power Corporation's Exhibit "F" before
the Regional Trial Court, Lorenzo Shipping underscored that when the Regional
Trial Court ruled on National Power Corporation's Formal Offer of Evidence, it
denied the admission of Exhibit "F" for not having been identified
nor authenticated.
It emphasized that no witness came forward to attest to its
authenticity and due execution, let alone allowed himself or herself to be
cross-examined on these points.
HELD: It is
basic that any material presented as evidence will not be considered unless
duly admitted by the court before which it is presented. Just as basic is that
a private document offered as authentic evidence shall not be admitted unless
its due execution and authenticity are established in the manner specified by
Rule 132, Section 30 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
Exhibit "F" was ruled to have been inadmissible
for failing to comply with Rule 132, Section 20 thus, it failed the standard of
competency. Consistent with this, reliance on National Power Corporation's
Exhibit "F" and its contents, so as to establish the extent of
National Power Corporation's pecuniary loss, is misplaced. Not having been
admitted, Exhibit "F" does not form part of the body of evidence
worthy of judicial consideration.
Comments
Post a Comment