CasesAssigned:Rule130,Section4547

Rule130,Section45
CommercialListsandthelike

[G.R.No.107518.October8,1998]
PNOC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
petitioner, vs.
HONORABLE
COURTOFAPPEALSandMARIAEFIGENIAFISHINGCORPORATION,
respondents.

Facts:
M/V Maria Efigenia XV collided with the vessel Petroparcel, owned at that time by
Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (LSC).The Board of Marine Inquiry found the Petroparcel at
fault for the collision. CFI Caloocan ruled in favor of private respondent. On appeal,petitioner
questioned the admissibility and competency of private respondents documents as basis for
damages.
On appeal to the SC, petitioner argued, among other things, that the documentswere
not sufficient evidence to support the extent and actual damagesincurredbyprivaterespondent.
The price quotations were not duly authenticated and that the witness did not have personal
knowledge on the contents of the writings and neither was he an expert on the subjects thereof.
CA argued that the documents were sufficient and exempt from thehearsayruleastheyarepart
of commercial lists defined in sec.45 Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence in so far as
theyfallundertheorotherpublishedcompilationphraseoftherule.

Issue:
Whether or not the documents fall undertheexceptiontothehearsayevidenceruleunder
sec. 45 rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence and would thereforebecompetentenoughto
establishtheamountofactualandcompensatorydamages.

Ruling:
With respect to the documentary evidence, the SC ruled in favor of the petitioner
PNOCSTC.
For actualandcompensatorydamages,theinjuredpartyisrequiredtoprovetheactualamountof
loss withreasonabledegreeofcertaintypremiseduponcompetentproofandonthebestevidence
available.
Damages may not be awarded on the basis of on the basis of hearsay evidence. The documents
presented by private respondent were regarded as
hearsay evidence
. Del Rosariocouldnothave
testified ontheveracityofthe documentsashewasnottheauthorofthem.Hecanonlytestifyas
to facts of his personal knowledge. As such, the price quotations were considered ordinary
private writings which under the Revised Rules of Court should be proferred along with the

testimony of the writers thereof. One of the exemptions to the hearsay evidence rule under
Sec.3747 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence is commercial lists. However, the
quotations do not fall under other published compilation mentioned in the said exemption as
they are not published in any list, register, periodical, or other compilation. They are also not
standard handbooks or periodicals containing data of everyday professionals need and relied
uponintheworkofoccupation.TheyaremerelylettersrespondingtothequeriesofDelRosario.
Under the principle of ejusdem generis, where general wordsfollowan enumerationofpersons
or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be
construed in their widest extent but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the
samekindorclassasthosespecificallymentioned.

Rule130,Section47
Testimonyordepositionataformerproceeding

G.R.No.206970,July29,2015
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES
,
PlaintiffAppellee
,
v.

ANTONIOEDAOAND
NESTOREDAO,ACCUSED,ANTONIOEDAO,
AccusedAppellant
.

Facts:

Accusedappellant Antonio Edano, together with coaccused Nestor Edao was charged
with murder . Nestorwasarrested.Trialproceededagainsthim. He waseventuallyconvictedby
the RTC . Later on Antonio was also arrested. During Antonios arraignment, he entered anot
guilty plea to the offense charged. The trial proceeded. The prosecution presented four
witnesses and adopted the testimonies andexhibitspresentedinthecaseagainstNestorinlieu of
thedeathofwitnessesFernandoandMonico.

NestorwasheldguiltyofmurderintheRTC.Hethenfiledtheinstantappeal.
In his Brief, Nestor targets the credibility of Fernando as an eyewitness to the alleged stabbing
incident.AccusedappellantarguesthatFernandostestimonywasfraughtwithimprobabilities.

Issue:Whetherornotthetestimoniesofdeceasedwitnessesmaybepresentedincourt.

Ruling : Yes. At the outset,wegiveimprimaturtotheutilizationofthetestimoniesofFernando

and Monico presented in the trial of Nestor. Both of these witnesses were already deceased
during accusedappellants trial.
Pursuant to Section 47, Rule 130 of theRulesofCourt,the
testimony or deposition of a witness deceasedorunabletotestify,giveninaformercaseor
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subjectmatter,may
be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to crossexamine
him. In this case, the prosecution properly offered the testimonies of Fernando and Monico in
thecaseagainstNestor.

G.R.No.140079March31,2005
AUGUSTOR.SAMALIO,
Petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALS,CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION,DEPARTMENTOFJUSTICE
andBUREAUOFIMMIGRATION,
respondents.

Doctrine:
ForSection47,Rule130toapply,thefollowingrequisitesmustbesatisfied:(a)the
witnessisdeadorunabletotestify(b)histestimonyordepositionwasgiveninaformercaseor
proceeding,judicialoradministrative,betweenthesamepartiesorthoserepresentingthesame
interests(c)theformercaseinvolvedthesamesubjectasthatinthepresentcase,althoughon
differentcausesofaction(d)theissuetestifiedtobythewitnessintheformertrialisthesame
issueinvolvedinthepresentcaseand(e)theadversepartyhadanopportunitytocrossexamine
thewitnessintheformercase.

Facts:
Weng Sai Qin, was taken to Samalio, Intelligence Officer of the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation (BID), because Immigration Officer suspected thatherpassportwasfake.Sensinga
demand for moneyin exchange for her passport, Qin flashed $500 in frontofSamaliowhichthe
latter grabbed. Samalio returned Qins passport but without an immigration arrival stamp. The
City ProsecutorsOffice,recommendedthatSamaliobeprosecutedforRobberyandViolationof
Section46oftheImmigrationLawbeforetheSandiganbayan.

BID Commissioner issued an order commencing an administrative case against Samalio for
violation requiring Samalio to submit his answer to the charges together with supporting
statements and documents, and whether or not he elects a formal investigation if his answer is
not considered satisfactory. In the same order, Samalio was preventively suspended for 90 days
since the chargeagainsthiminvolves dishonesty,oppressionandmisconduct.Samalioattempted
to lift his preventivesuspensionbutwasstruckdown. Inhis Answer,Samaliodeniedthecharges
against him and elected a formal investigation if thesame was not found to be satisfactory. His

answercontained theaffidavitsofhiswitnesses.Sincehisanswerwasfoundtobeunsatisfactory,
thecasewassetforformalhearingbeforetheBoardofDisciplineofBID.

The BID Acting Commissioner , issued the decision finding Samalio guilty of the charges and
wasordereddismissedfromservice.

Issue:
Whether the petitioner was deprived of due process since no witness or evidence was
presented against him, that the CA erred in the interpretation of Section 47, Rule 130 of the
RulesofCourtandthattherewasnohearingconductedonhiscase.

Ruling:
No. The CSC and the Secretary of Justice did not errinapplyingSection47,Rule130
of the Revised Rules of Court, otherwise known as the "rule on former testimony," in deciding
petitioners administrative case. The provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied
suppletorily to the rules of procedure of administrative bodies exercising quasijudicial powers,
unless otherwise provided by law or the rules of procedure of the administrative agency
concerned. The Rules ofCourt,whicharemeanttosecuretoeverylitiganttheadjectivephaseof
due process of law, may be applied to proceedings before an administrative body with
quasijudicial powers in the absence of different and valid statutoryoradministrativeprovisions
prescribingthegroundrulesfortheinvestigation,hearingandadjudicationofcasesbeforeit.

For Section 47, Rule 130 to apply, the following requisites must be satisfied: (a) the witness is
dead or unable to testify (b) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same
interests (c) the former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on
different causes of action (d) the issue testified to by the witness in the former trial isthesame
issue involved in the present case and (e) the adverse partyhadanopportunitytocrossexamine
thewitnessintheformercase.

Petitioner contends that the CA, aswellastheCSCandthe SecretaryofJustice,shouldnothave

applied Section 47, Rule 130 because there was failure to lay the basis or predicatefortherule.
The argument is specious and deserves scant consideration. The records of this case reveal that
even in the early stages of the proceedings before the BoardofDisciplineoftheBID, WengSai
Qins departure from the country and consequent inability to testify in the proceedings had
alreadybeendisclosedtotheparties.