Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Mendoza et al.

G.R. No. 198799. March 20, 2017

First Division, Perlas-Bernabe

Mendoza opened a US savings account with BPI. BPI received a

notice from Bankers Trust that the subject check was dishonored. BPI
claimed that Menodza allowed BPI to apply the proceeds of their time
deposit account to their outstanding obligation and that Mendoza gave
BPI a promissory note. Menoza failed to fulfil the obligation, prompting
BPI to file a complaint for sum of money.

CA ruled that BPI failed to prove the dishonor of the subject

check by presenting a photocopy thereof and print-out of the email
advice from Bankers Trust.

Was the Best Evidence Rule applied by BPI?

Yes.

Generally, the original copy of the document must be presented

whenever the content of the document is under inquiry, the rule
admits of certain exceptions. In order to fall under the exception one
must prove: (a) the existence or due execution of the original; (b) the
loss and destruction of the original, or the reason for its non-
production in court; and (c) the absence of bad faith on the part of the
offeror.
 BPI sufficiently complied with the foregoing requisites. First, the
existence or due execution of the subject check was admitted by both
parties. Second, the reason for the non-presentation of the original
copy of the subject check was justifiable as it was confiscated by the
US government for being an altered check. Lastly, absent any proof to
the contrary and for the reasons already stated, no bad faith can be
attributed to BPI for its failure to present the original of the subject
check. Thus, applying the exception to the Best Evidence Rule, the
presentation of the photocopy of the subject check as secondary
evidence was permissible.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/62742?s_params=d3CQfsErn
auqtPMYe1PT