Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

Malate >arehouse ,Division ;)., sho&in" pa$#ents in the total su# of P38,;88.88 #ade b$ 'bi"ail:s Store. Petitioners contended that had the a#ounts in the 7PRs been credited in their favor, the$ &ould not be indebted to Pepsi Cola. 7he details of said receipts are as follo&s? 7PR No. Date of Issue '#ount
;884(8 <88 6ulls returned ;@<@38 P(4,;(8.88 ;884(< <88 6ulls returned ;@18@38 (4,;(8.88 ;88455 <88 6ulls returned ;@15@38 (4,;(8.88 ;8845< Cash ;@1;@38 18,888.88 )

G.R. No. 103737 December 15, 1994 NORA S. EUGENIO a ! A"#REDO $. EUGENIO, petitioners, vs. %ON. COURT O# APPEA"S a ! PEPSI&CO"A 'OTT"ING COMPAN$ O# T%E P%I"IPPINES, INC., respondents. Public Attorney's Office for petitioners. Romualdo M. Jubay for private respondent.

AAAAA 7otal P38,;<8.88 6urther, petitioners #aintain that the si"nature purportin" to be that of petitioner Nora S. Eu"enio in Sales Invoice No. 3;4<< dated Ma$ 1;, 1238 in the a#ount of P;,<41.88, 3 &hich &as included in the co#putation of their alle"ed debt, is a falsification. In su#, petitioners ar"ue that if the afore#entioned a#ounts &ere credited in their favor, it &ould be respondent corporation &hich &ould be indebted to the# in the su# of P4,;5<.8( representin" overpa$#ent. 'fter trial on the #erits, the court a quo rendered a decision on 6ebruar$ 1), 123<, orderin" petitioners, as defendants therein to Bointl$ and severall$ pa$ private respondent the a#ount of P)5,352.88, plus 1(C interestper annum until the principal a#ount shall have been full$ paid, as &ell as P(8,888.88 as attorne$:s fees. 4 On appeal in C' D.R. CV No. 18<(4, the Court of 'ppeals declared said decision a nullit$ for failure to co#pl$ &ith the reEuire#ent in Section 15, 'rticle VIII of the 123) Constitution that decisions of courts should clearl$ and distinctl$ state the facts and the la& on &hich the$ are based. 7he Court of 'ppeals accordin"l$ re#anded the records of the case to the trial court, directin" it to render another decision in accordance &ith the reEuire#ents of the Constitution. 5 In co#pliance &ith the directive of the Court of 'ppeals, the lo&er court rendered a second decision on Septe#ber (2, 1232. In this ne& decision, petitioners &ere this ti#e ordered to pa$, Bointl$ and severall$, the reduced a#ount of P<5,133.<8, plus le"al interest of <C per annum fro# the filin" of the action until full pa$#ent of the a#ount adBud"ed. * On appeal therefro#, the Court of 'ppeals affir#ed the Bud"#ent of the trial court in a decision pro#ul"ated on Septe#ber (), 1221. 7 ' #otion for the reconsideration of said Bud"#ent of respondent court &as subseEuentl$ denied in a resolution dated =anuar$ (4, 122(. + >e a"ree &ith petitioners and respondent court that the cruF of the dispute in the case at bar is &hether or not the a#ounts in the afore#entioned trade provisional receipts should be credited in favor of herein petitioner spouses. In a so called enc$clopedic sense, ho&ever, our course of action in this case and the denoue#ent of the controvers$ therein ta%es into account the Burisprudential rule that in the present recourse &e &ould nor#all$ have restricted ourselves to Euestions of la& and esche&ed Euestions of fact &ere it not for our perception that the lo&er courts #anifestl$ overloo%ed certain relevant factual considerations resultin" in a #isapprehension thereof. ConseEuentiall$, that position shall necessaril$ affect our anal$sis of the rules on the burden of

REGA"ADO, J.: Private respondent Pepsi Cola !ottlin" Co#pan$ of the Philippines, Inc. is en"a"ed in the business of #anufacturin", #a%in" bottlin" and sellin" soft drin%s and bevera"es to the "eneral public. Petitioner Nora S. Eu"enio &as a dealer of the soft drin% products of private respondent corporation. 'lthou"h she had onl$ one store located at () Dia#ond Street, E#erald Villa"e, Mari%ina, Metro Manila, Eu"enio had a re"ular char"e account in both the *ue+on Cit$ plant ,under the na#e -'bi"ail Mini#art- (. as &ell as in the Muntinlupa plant ,under the na#e -Nora Store-. of respondent corporation. /er husband and co petitioner, 'lfredo 0. Eu"enio, used to be a route #ana"er of private respondent in its *ue+on Cit$ plant. On March 1), 123(, private respondent filed a co#plaint for a su# of #one$ a"ainst petitioners Nora S. Eu"enio and 'lfredo 0. Eu"enio, doc%eted as Civil Case No. * 45)13 of the then Court of 6irst Instance of *ue+on Cit$, !ranch 2 ,no& Re"ional 7rial Court, *ue+on Cit$, !ranch 2).. In its co#plaint, respondent corporation alle"ed that on several occasions in 12)2 and 1238, petitioners purchased and received on credit various products fro# its *ue+on Cit$ plant. 's of Dece#ber 41, 1238, petitioners alle"edl$ had an outstandin" balance of P(8,54).58 therein. 9i%e&ise, on various occasions in 1238, petitioners also purchased and received on credit various products fro# respondent:s Muntinlupa plant and, as of Dece#ber 41, 1232, petitioners supposedl$ had an outstandin" balance of P43,4;).(8 there. In addition, it &as clai#ed that petitioners had an unpaid obli"ation for the loaned -e#pties- fro# the sa#e plant in the a#ount of P4;,3;<.58 as of =ul$ 11, 1238. 'lto"ether, petitioners had an outstandin" account of P25,<;1.88 &hich, so the co#plaint alle"ed, the$ failed to pa$ despite oral and &ritten de#ands. 1 In their defense, petitioners presented four trade provisional receipts ,7PRs. alle"edl$ issued to and received b$ the# fro# private respondent:s Route Mana"er =ovencio Estrada of its

proof and the burden of evidence, and ulti#atel$, &hether the proponent of the correspondin" clai# has preponderated or rested on an eEuipoise or fallen short of preponderance. 6irst, the bac%drop. It appears that on 'u"ust 1, 1231, private respondent throu"h the head of its 9e"al Depart#ent, 'tt$. 'ntonio N. Rosario, sent an inter office correspondence to petitioner 'lfredo Eu"enio invitin" hi# for an intervie&@interro"ation on 'u"ust 4, 1231 re"ardin" alle"ed -non pa$#ent of debts to the co#pan$, inefficienc$, and loss of trust and confidence.- 9 7he intervie& &as reset to 'u"ust 5, 1231 to enable said petitioner to brin" alon" &ith hi# their union president, 9uis Isip. On said date, a state#ent of overdue accounts &ere prepared sho&in" that petitioners o&ed respondent corporation the follo&in" a#ounts?
Muntinlupa Plant Nora:s Store 7rade 'ccount P43,4;).(8 ,as of 1(@4@38. 10 9oaned E#pties P4;,3;<.58 ,as of )@11@31. 11 Quezon City Plant 'bi"ail Mini#art Re"ular 'ccount P(8,54).58 ,as of 1238. 1) AAAAA 7otal P25,<;1.88

assistant personnel #ana"er, to conduct an investi"ation to verif$ this clai# of petitioners. 'ccordin" to '+urin, durin" the investi"ation on Dece#ber 5, 1231, Estrada alle"edl$ denied that he issued and si"ned the aforesaid 7PRs. 19 /e also presented a supposed affidavit &hich Estrada alle"edl$ eFecuted durin" that investi"ation to affir# his verbal state#ents therein. Surprisin"l$, ho&ever, said supposed affidavit is ineFplicabl$ dated 6ebruar$ ;, 123(. )0 't this point, it should be noted that Estrada never testified thereafter in court and &hat he is supposed to have done or said &as #erel$ related b$ '+urin. No&, on this point, respondent court disa"reed &ith herein petitioners that the testi#on$ on the alle"ed denial of =ovencio Estrada re"ardin" his si"natures on the disputed 7PRs, as &ell as his affidavit dated 6ebruar$ ;, 123()1 &herein he affir#ed his denial, are hearsa$ evidence because Estrada &as not presented as a &itness to testif$ and be cross eFa#ined thereon. EFcept for the terse state#ent of respondent court that since petitioner 'lfredo Eu"enio &as supposedl$ present on Dece#ber 5, 1231, -,t.he testi#on$ of =ovencio Estrada at the afore#entioned investi"ation cate"oricall$ den$in" that he issued and si"ned the disputed 7PRs is, therefore, not hearsa$,- )) there &as no further eFplanation on this unusual doctrinal departure. 7he rule is clear and eFplicit. Gnder the hearsa$ evidence rule, a &itness can testif$ onl$ to those facts &hich he %no&s of his personal %no&led"eH that is, &hich are derived fro# his o&n perception, eFcept as other&ise provided in the Rules. )3 In the present case, Estrada failed to appear as a &itness at the trial. It &as onl$ '+urin &ho testified that durin" the investi"ation he conducted, Estrada supposedl$ denied havin" si"ned the 7PRs. It is ele#entar$ that under the #easure on hearsa$ evidence, '+urin:s testi#on$ cannot constitute le"al proof as to the truth of Estrada:s denial. 6or that #atter, it is not ad#issible in evidence, petitioners: counsel havin" seasonabl$ obBected at the trial to such testi#on$ of '+urin as hearsa$. 'nd, even if not obBected to and thereb$ ad#issible, such hearsa$ evidence has no probative value &hatsoever. )4 It is true that the testi#on$ or deposition of a &itness deceased or unable to testif$, "iven in a for#er case or proceedin", Budicial or ad#inistrative, involvin" the sa#e parties and subBect #atter, #a$ be "iven in evidence a"ainst the adverse part$ &ho had the opportunit$ to cross eFa#ine hi#. )5 Private respondent cannot, ho&ever, see% sanctuar$ in this eFception to the hearsa$ evidence rule. 6irstl$, the supposed investi"ation conducted b$ '+urin &as neither a Budicial trial nor an ad#inistrative hearin" under statutor$ re"ulations and safe"uards. It &as #erel$ an inter office intervie& conducted b$ a personnel officer throu"h an ad oc arran"e#ent. Secondl$, a perusal of the alle"ed steno"raphic notes, assu#in" ar!uendo that these notes are ad#issible in evidence, &ould sho& that the -investi"ation- &as #ore of a free flo&in" Euestion and ans&er t$pe of discussion &herein Estrada &as as%ed so#e Euestions, after &hich Eu"enio &as li%e&ise as%ed other Euestions. Indeed, there &as no opportunit$ for Eu"enio to obBect, #uch less to cross eFa#ine Estrada. Even in a for#al prior trial itself, if the opportunit$ for cross eFa#ination did not eFist therein or if the accused &as not afforded opportunit$ to full$ cross eFa#ine the &itness &hen the testi#on$ &as offered, evidence relatin" to the testi#on$ "iven therein is thereafter inad#issible in another proceedin", absent an$ conduct on the part of the accused a#ountin" to a &aiver of his ri"ht to cross eFa#ine. )* 7hirdl$, the steno"rapher &as not even presented to authenticate the steno"raphic notes sub#itted to the trial court. ' cop$ of the steno"raphic report of the entire testi#on$ at the

' reconciliation of petitioners: account &as then conducted. 7he liabilit$ of petitioners as to the loaned e#pties ,Muntinlupa plant, Nora Store. &as reduced to P(1,<3<.88 after a reevaluation of the value of the loaned e#pties. 13 9i%e&ise, the a#ount of P;,<41.88 under Invoice No. 3;4<<, &hich &as a spurious docu#ent, &as deducted fro# their liabilit$ in their trade account &ith the Muntinlupa plant. 14 7hereafter, Eu"enio and Isip si"ned the reconciliation sheets reflectin" these ite#s?
Muntinlupa Plant Nora Store 7rade 'ccount P4(,)(<.(8 15 9oaned E#pties P(1,<3<.88 1* Quezon City Plant 'bi"ail Mini#art 7rade 'ccount P(8,54).(8 17 AAAAAA 7otal P)5,352.58

'fter the #eetin", private respondent alle"ed that petitioner 'lfredo 0. Eu"enio reEuested that he be allo&ed to retire and the eFistin" accounts be deducted fro# his retire#ent pa$, but that he later &ithdre& his retire#ent plan. Said petitioner disputed that alle"ation and, in fact, he subseEuentl$ filed a co#plaint for ille"al dis#issal. 7he findin" of labor arbiter, later affir#ed b$ the Supre#e Court, sho&ed that this petitioner &as indeed ille"all$ dis#issed, and that he never filed an application for retire#ent. In fact, this Court #ade a findin" that the retire#ent papers alle"edl$ filed in the na#e of this petitioner &ere for"ed. 1+ 7his #a%es t&o falsified docu#ents to be foisted a"ainst petitioners. >ith their aforesaid accounts still unpaid, petitioner 'lfredo 0. Eu"enio sub#itted to 'tt$. Rosario the afore#entioned four 7PRs. 7hereafter, 'tt$. Rosario ordered Daniel '+urin,

for#er trial #ust be supported b$ the oath of the steno"rapher that it is a correct transcript of his notes of the testi#on$ of the &itness as a sine qua non for its co#petenc$ and ad#issibilit$ in evidence. )7 7he supposed steno"raphic notes on &hich respondent corporation relies is unauthenticated and necessaril$ inad#issible for the purpose intended. 9astl$, althou"h herein private respondent insinuated that Estrada &as not presented as a &itness because he had disappeared, no evidence &hatsoever &as offered to sho& or even inti#ate that this &as due to an$ #achination or insti"ation of petitioners. 7here is no sho&in" that his absence &as procured, or that he &as eloi"ned, throu"h acts i#putable to petitioners. In the case at bar, eFcept for the self servin" state#ent that Estrada had disappeared, no plausible eFplanation &as "iven b$ respondent corporation. Estrada &as an e#plo$ee of private respondent, hence it can be assu#ed that it could easil$ trace or ascertain his &hereabouts. It had the resources to do so, in contradistinction to petitioners &ho even had to see% the help of the Public 'ttorne$:s Office to defend the# here. Private respondent could not have been una&are of the i#portance of Estrada:s testi#on$ and the conseEuent le"al necessit$ for presentin" hi# in the trial court, throu"h coercive process if necessar$. Obviousl$, neither is the affidavit of Estrada ad#issibleH it is li%e&ise barred as evidence b$ the hearsa$ evidence rule. )+ 7his is aside fro# the fact that, b$ their nature, affidavits are "enerall$ not prepared b$ the affiants the#selves but b$ another &ho uses his o&n lan"ua"e in &ritin" the affiant:s state#ents, &hich #a$ thus be either o#itted or #isunderstood b$ the one &ritin" the#. )9 7he dubiet$ of that affidavit, as earlier eFplained, is further underscored b$ the fact that it &as eFecuted #ore than t&o #onths after the investi"ation, presu#abl$ for curative purposes as it &ere. No&, the authenticit$ of a hand&ritin" #a$ be proven, a#on" other #eans, b$ its co#parison #ade b$ the &itness or the court &ith &ritin"s ad#itted or treated as "enuine b$ the part$ a"ainst &ho# the evidence is offered or proved to be "enuine to the satisfaction of the Bud"e. 30 7he alle"ed affidavit of Estrada states-. . . that the co#parison that &as #ade as to the authenticit$ of the si"nature appearin" in the 7PRs and that of #$ si"nature sho&ed that there &as an apparent dissi#ilarit$ bet&een the t&o si"natures, FeroF cop$ of #$ (81 6ile is attached hereto as 'nneF :6: of this affidavit. 31 /o&ever, a search of the 6older of EFhibits in this case does not reveal that private respondent ever sub#itted an$ docu#ent, not even the afore#entioned (81 6ile, containin" a speci#en of the si"nature of Estrada &hich the Court can use as a basis for co#parison. Neither &as an$ docu#ent containin" a speci#en of Estrada:s si"nature presented b$ private respondent in the for#al offer of its eFhibits. 3) Respondent court #ade the further observation that -Estrada &as even as%ed b$ 'tt$. '+urin at said investi"ation to si"n three ti#es to provide speci#ens of his "enuine si"nature.- 33 7here is, ho&ever, no sho&in" that he did, but assu#in" that Estrada si"ned the steno"raphic notes, the Court &ould still be unable to #a%e the necessar$ co#parison because t&o si"natures appear on the ri"ht #ar"in of each and ever$ pa"e of the steno"raphic notes, &ithout an$ indication &hatsoever as to &hich of the si"natures is Estrada:s. 7he &hole docu#ent &as #ar%ed for identification but the si"natures &ere not. In fact, althou"h for#all$ offered, it &as #erel$ introduced b$ the private respondent -in order to sho& that =ovencio Estrada had been investi"ated and cate"oricall$ denied havin" collected fro# 'bi"ail Mini#art and den$in" havin" si"ned the receipts clai#ed b$ 'lfredo Eu"enio to be his pa$#ent,- 34 and not for the purpose of presentin" an$ alle"ed si"nature of Estrada on the docu#ent as a basis for co#parison.

7his is a situation that irresistibl$ arouses Budicial curiosit$, if not suspicion. Respondent corporation &as full$ a&are that its case rested, as it &ere, on the issue of &hether the 7PRs &ere authentic and &hich issue, in turn, turned on the "enuineness of Estrada:s si"natures thereon. 0et, aside fro# cursoril$ dis#issin" the non presentation of Estrada in court b$ the "lib assertion that he could not be found, and necessaril$ a&are that his alle"ed denial of his si"natures on said 7PRs and his affidavit rendered the sa#e vulnerable to the challen"e that the$ are hearsa$ and inad#issible, respondent corporation did nothin" #ore. In fact, Estrada:s disappearance has not been eFplained up to the present. 7he neFt inEuir$ then &ould be as to &hat eFactl$ is the nature of the 7PRs insofar as the$ are used in the da$ to da$ business transactions of the co#pan$. 7hese trade provisional receipts are bound and "iven in boo%lets to the co#pan$ sales representatives, under proper ac%no&led"#ent b$ the# and &ith a record of the distribution thereof. 'fter ever$ transaction, &hen a collection is #ade the custo#er is "iven b$ the sales representative a cop$ of the trade provisional receipt, that is, the triplicate cop$ or custo#er:s cop$, properl$ filled up to reflect the co#pleted transaction. 'll unused 7PRs, as &ell as the collections #ade, are turned over b$ the sales representative to the appropriate co#pan$ officer. 35 'ccordin" to respondent court, -the Euestioned 7PR:s are #erel$ :provisional: and &ere, as printed at the botto# of said receipts, to be officiall$ confir#ed b$ plaintiff &ithin fifteen ,1;. da$s b$ deliverin" the ori"inal cop$ thereof sta#ped paid and si"ned b$ its cashier to the custo#er. . . . Defendants appellants ,herein petitioners. failed to present the ori"inal copies of the 7PRs in Euestion, sho&in" that the$ &ere never confir#ed b$ the plaintiff, nor did the$ de#and fro# plaintiff the confir#ed ori"inal copies thereof.- 3* >e do not a"ree &ith the strained i#plication intended to be adverse to petitioners. 7he 7PRs presented in evidence b$ petitioners are disputabl$ presu#ed as evidentiar$ of pa$#ents #ade on account of petitioners. 7here are presu#ptions "uris tantum in la& that private transactions have been fair and re"ular and that the ordinar$ course of business has been follo&ed. 37 7he role of presu#ptions in the la& on evidence is to relieve the part$ enBo$in" the sa#e of the evidential burden to prove the proposition that he contends for, and to shift the burden of evidence to the adverse part$. Private respondent havin" failed to rebut the aforestated presu#ptions in favor of valid pa$#ent b$ petitioners, these &ould necessaril$ continue to stand in their favor in this case. !esides, even assu#in" ar!uendo that herein private respondent:s cashier never received the a#ounts reflected in the 7PRs, still private respondent failed to prove that Estrada, &ho is its dul$ authori+ed a"ent &ith respect to petitioners, did not receive those a#ounts fro# the latter. 's correctl$ eFplained b$ petitioners, -in so far as the private respondent:s custo#ers are concerned, for as lon" as the$ pa$ their obli"ations to the sales representative of the private respondent usin" the latter:s official receipt, said pa$#ent eFtin"uishes their obli"ations.- 3+ Other&ise, it &ould unreasonabl$ cast the burden of supervision over its e#plo$ees fro# respondent corporation to its custo#ers. 7he substantive la& is that pa$#ent shall be #ade to the person in &hose favor the obli"ation has been constituted, or his successor in interest or an$ person authori+ed to receive it. 39 's far as third persons are concerned, an act is dee#ed to have been perfor#ed &ithin the scope of the a"ent:s authorit$, if such is &ithin the ter#s of the po&er of attorne$, as &ritten, even if the a"ent has in fact eFceeded the li#its of his authorit$ accordin" to an understandin" bet&een

the principal and his a"ent. 40 In fact, 'tt$. Rosario, private respondent:s o&n &itness, ad#itted that -it is the responsibilit$ of the collector to turn over the collection.- 41 Still pursuin" its rulin" in favor of respondent corporation, the Court of 'ppeals #a%es the follo&in" observation?
. . . /avin" alle"edl$ returned <88 6ulls to the plaintiff:s representative on Ma$ <, 18, and 15, 1238, appellant &ife:s 'bi"ail Store #ust have received #ore than 1,388 cases of soft drin%s fro# plaintiff before those dates. 0et the State#ent of Overdue 'ccount pertainin" to 'bi"ail Mini#art ,EFhs. -D-, -D 1- to -D 4-. &hich appellant husband and his representative 9uis Isip si"ned on 'u"ust 4, 1231 does no& sho& #ore than 1,388 cases of soft drin%s &ere delivered to 'bi"ail Mini#art b$ plaintiff:s *ue+on Cit$ Plant ,&hich supposedl$ issued the disputed 7PRs. in Ma$, 1238 or the #onth before.- 4)

'tt$. Rosario assured hi# that an$ receipt he #a$ sub#it later &ill be credited in his favor, hence he si"ned the reconciliation docu#ents. 'ccordin"l$, &hen he presented the 7PRs to private respondent, 'tt$. Rosario directed Mr. '+urin to verif$ the 7PRs. 7hus, the a#ount stated in the reconciliation sheet &as not final, as it &as still subBect to such receipts as #a$ thereafter be presented b$ petitioners. On the other hand, petitioners clai#ed that the si"nature of petitioner Nora S. Eu"enio in Sales Invoice No. 3;4<<, in the a#ount of P;,<41.88 is spurious and should accordin"l$ be deducted fro# the disputed a#ount of P)5,352.58. ' scrutin$ of the reconciliation sheet sho&s that said a#ount had alread$ been deducted upon the instruction of one Mr. Colo#a, Plant Controller of Pepsi Cola , Muntinlupa Plant. 4* 7hat a#ount is not disputed b$ respondent corporation and should no lon"er be deducted fro# the total liabilit$ of petitioner in the su# of P)5,352.58. Since petitioners had #ade a pa$#ent of P38,;<8.88, there &as conseEuentl$ an overpa$#ent of P;,)18.<8. 'll told, &e are constrained to hold that respondent corporation has dis#all$ failed to co#pl$ &ith the pertinent rules for the ad#ission of the evidence b$ &hich it sou"ht to prove its contentions. 6urther#ore, there are Euestions left unans&ered and be""in" for co"ent eFplanations &h$ said respondent did not or could not co#pl$ &ith the evidentiar$ rules. Its default inevitabl$ depletes the &ei"ht of its evidence &hich cannot Bust be ta%en in vacuo# &ith the result that for lac% of the reEuisite Euantu# of evidence, it has not dischar"ed the burden of preponderant proof necessar$ to prevail in this case. >/ERE6ORE, the Bud"#ent of respondent Court of 'ppeals in C.'. D.R. CV No. (<281, affir#in" that of the trial court in Civil Case No. * 45)13, is 'NNG99ED and SE7 'SIDE. Private respondent Pepsi Cola !ottlin" Co#pan$ of the Philippines, Inc. is hereb$ ORDERED to pa$ petitioners Nora and 'lfredo Eu"enio the a#ount of P;,)18.<8 representin" overpa$#ent #ade to the for#er. SO ORDERED. $arvasa# C.J. and Puno# J.# concur.

>e re"ret the inaccurac$ in said theor$ of respondent court &hich &as i#pelled b$ its sole and li#ited reliance on a #ere state#ent of overdue a#ounts. Gnli%e a state#ent of account &hich trul$ reflects the da$ to da$ #ove#ent of an account, a state#ent of an overdue a#ount is onl$ a su##ar$ of the account, si#pl$ reflectin" the balance due thereon. ' state#ent of account, bein" #ore specific and detailed in nature, allo&s one to readil$ see and verif$ if indeed deliveries &ere #ade durin" a specific period of ti#e, unli%e a bare state#ent of overdue pa$#ents. Respondent court cannot #a%e its aforeEuoted cate"orical deduction unless supportin" docu#ents acco#pan$in" the state#ent of overdue a#ounts &ere sub#itted to enable eas$ and accurate verification of the facts. ' perusal of the state#ent of overdue accounts sho&s that, eFcept for a reference nu#ber "iven for each entr$, no further details &ere volunteered nor offered. It is entirel$ possible that the state#ent of overdue account #erel$ reflects the outstandin" debt of a particular client, and not the specific particulars, such as deliveries #ade, particularl$ since the entries therein &ere surprisin"l$ entered irrespective of their chronolo"ical order. Obviousl$, therefore, one can not use the state#ent of overdue a#ounts as conclusive proof of deliveries done &ithin a particular ti#e fra#e. EFcept for its speculation that petitioner 'lfredo 0. Eu"enio could have had eas$ access to blan% for#s of the 7PRs because he &as a for#er route #ana"er no evidence &hatsoever &as presented b$ private respondent in support of that theor$. >e are accordin"l$ intri"ued b$ such an un%ind assertion of respondent corporation since '+urin hi#self ad#itted that their accountin" depart#ent could not even infor# the# re"ardin" the persons to &ho# the 7PRs &ere issued. 43 In addition, it is si"nificant that respondent corporation did not ta%e proper action if indeed so#e receipts &ere actuall$ lost, such as the publication of the fact of loss of the receipts, &ith the correspondin" investi"ation into the #atter. >e, therefore, reBect as attenuated the co##ent of the trial court that the 7PRs, &hich Eu"enio sub#itted after the reconciliation #eetin", -s#ac%s too #uch of an afterthou"ht.- 44 7he reconciliation #eetin" &as held on 'u"ust 5, 1231. 7hree #onths later, on Nove#ber, 1231, petitioner 'lfredo 0. Eu"enio sub#itted the four 7PRs. /e eFplained, and this &as not disputed, that at the ti#e the reconciliation #eetin" &as held, his dau"hter Nanette, &ho &as helpin" his &ife #ana"e the store, had eloped and she had possession of the 7PRs. 45 It &as onl$ in Nove#ber, 1231 &hen petitioners &ere able to tal% to Nanette that the$ &ere able to find and retrieve said 7PRs. /e added that durin" the reconciliation #eetin",

Mendoza# J.# too% no part.

#oo- o-e. (( 'lso spelled -'be"ail- or 'bi"ael- in so#e parts of the records of the case. 1 Ori"inal Record, 1 4. ( EFhs. 9, 9 1, 9 (, and 9 4 for private respondentH EFhs. 1 5 for petitionersH 6older of EFhibits, (; ().

4 EFh. E <H &bid., 11 5 Ori"inal Record, (;1.

(5 People vs. Valero, 9 5;(34 35, March 12, 123(, 11( SCR' <<1H 4 =ones on Evidence, (nd Ed., )5;. (; Sec. 5), Rule 148, Rules of Court.

; Rollo, 42H =ustice Celso 9. Ma"sino, ponente' =ustices Nathanael P. de PaIo, =r. and 'belardo Da$rit, concurrin". < Ori"inal Record, (<2H per =ud"e Oscar 9. 9eviste.

(< (8 '#. =ur., Evidence ;3<H see also People vs. Ola, 9 5)15), =ul$ 4, 123), 1;( SCR' 1. () (8 '#. =ur., Evidence ;2; ;2).

) Rollo, 182H penned b$ =ustice 'licia V. Se#pio Di$, &ith the concurrence of =ustices Vicente V. Mendo+a and Re"ina D. OrdoIe+ !enite+. 3 Rollo, 11<. 2 EFh. ', 6older of EFhibits, 1. 18 EFhs. !, ! 1H ibid., 4 5.

(3 Paa vs. Chan, 9 (;25;, October 41, 12<), (1 SCR' );4H see also People vs. 'lacar, et. al., (11 SCR' ;38. (2 People vs. !rioso, et. al., 9 (353(, =anuar$ 48, 12)1, 4) SCR' 44<. 48 Sec. ((, Rule 14(, Rules of CourtH see also Gnderhill:s Cri#inal Evidence, ;th Ed., Vol. 11, 38; 383. 41 EFhibit =, 6n (1.

11 EFhs. C, C 1H ibid., ; <. 4( Ori"inal Record, 1<< 1<3. 1( EFhs. D, D 1 to D 4H ibid., ) 18. 44 Rollo, 2<. 14 EFh. 6 1H ibid., 1 1(. 45 6or#al Offer of EFhibits, 4H Ori"inal Record, 1<3. 15 EFh. E <H ibid., 11. 4; 7SN, =anuar$ 1), 123;, ) 3H 7SN, Ma$ 18, 1235, 1< 13. 1; EFh. E (H ibid., 11. 4< Rollo, 2). 1< EFh. 6 1H ibid., 1(. 4) Sec. 4 ,p. and ,E., Rule 141, Rules of Court. 1) EFh. E 1H ibid., 11. 43 Rollo, p. 15. 13 7SN, Ma$ <, 1235, 1<. 42 'rt. 1(58, Civil Code. 12 &bid., 'pril ;, 1235, <H 7SN, =ul$ 1(, 1235, ; <, 3 2. 58 'rt. 1288, id. (8 &bid., =ul$ 1(, 1235. 51 7SN, Ma$ 18, 1235, 1;. (1 EFh. =, 6older of EFhibits, 12. 5( Rollo, 2). (( Rollo, 2<. 54 7SN, =anuar$ 1), 123;, 2. (4 Sec. 4<, Rule 148, Rules of Court. 55 Ori"inal Record, (<3.

5; 7SN, October 41, 123;, 11. 5< EFhibit E <, 6older of EFhibits, 11H 7SN, Ma$ 18, 1235, 14 15.