SHERATON PALACE VS.

QUIJANO

64 OG 9116

FACTS:

The plaintiff in this case, Sheraton had instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of money
amounting to $1,257.34 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency from defendant Cristina Quijano

for the latter’s alleged unpaid hotel charges when the defendant stayed and lodged in plaintiff’s
hotel in San Francisco, California.

Plaintiff relies upon Exhibit E-1, which is a letter of Mueller and McLeod, plaintiff’s lawyer in the
US, to plaintiff’s counsel in the Philippines, in an attemptto show that it was the defendant who asked
that her hotel accounts be charged against FredDevine and Company, but the latter declined to pay the
bills claiming that it had not authorizedthe defendant to charge any of her hotel bills
to it. Such evidence was presented together with thetestimony of Atty. Syquia, the plaintiff’s counsel. T
he trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint alleging that defendant’s stay at the hotel
was as a guest of a certain Fred Devine whohad assumed to pay all the costs for his account.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Exhibit E-1 constitutes proof of facts related therein independent of the testimony of
Atty. Syquia.

RULING:
A document or writing which is admitted not as an independent evidence but
merely as part of the testimony of a witness or merely insofar as such witness has made reference
thereto in the course of his testimony, does not constitute proof of facts related therein. It was correct
forthe trial court not to admit the said documentary evidence as an independent piece of
evidence but merely as part of the testimony of Atty. Syquia or merely insofar as Atty.
Syquia has made reference thereto in the course of his testimony so that it cannot constitute proof the
facts relatedin the said exhibit.

Hence, the recitals contained in it about defendant’s request that the bills be charged against Fred
Devine, that the plaintiff extended credit to defendant but Fred Devine refused to pay on the ground
that it did not authorize the defendant to charge it with her hotel bills cannot now be considered as
evidence in this case as the appellant had not assigned as an error the ruling of the trial acourt admitting
the said exhibit merely as part of testimony of Atty. Syquia and not as independent evidence.

Besides, the statements in Exh. E-1 to the effect that “when Ms. Quijano came to the hotel, she told
them that her bills would be charged to Fred Devine and Company” and that her request, credit was
extended to her and her bills were sent to Fred Devine and Company, which refused to pay the same
are hearsay in nature as they are based on info furnished to plaintiff’s lawyer in America, who wrote
the letter, thus having no probative force.