Rico Rommel Atienza vs.

Board of Medicine and Editha Sioson

GR No. 177407, February 9, 2011
Topic: Best Evidence Rule (Rule 130, Sec. 3)
LANDMARK CASE

FACTS:

Private respondent, Editha Sioson went to Rizal Medical Center (RMC) for a check- up due to her lumbar
pains. Her diagnostic laboratory test results revealed that her right kidney was normal while her left kidney
was non-functioning and non-visualizing. Hence, she underwent kidney operation under the care of the
four physicians namely: Dr. Judd dela Vega, Dr. Pedro Lantin III, Dr. Gerardo Antonio and petitioner Dr.
Rico Rommel Atienza.

The said physicians removed her fully functioning right kidney instead of the left non-functioning and non-
visualizing kidney. Due to their gross negligence and incompetence, private respondent filed a complaint
against the four doctors before the Board of Medicine. Private respondent therein offered four certified
photocopies as her documentary evidence to prove that her kidneys were both in their proper anatomical
locations at the time that she was operated.

The Board of Medicine admitted the formal offer despite the objection of herein petitioner. Petitioner
contends that the documentary evidence offered were inadmissible as it were incompetent. Further, he
alleged that the same documents violate the best evidence rule since only photocopies of the documents,
and not the original, were presented.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the exhibits presented are inadmissible evidence on the ground that it violates the Best
Evidence Rule

HELD:

No. The subject of the inquiry in this case is whether the doctors are liable for gross negligence in
removing the right functioning kidney of Editha instead of the left non-functioning kidney, not the proper
anatomical locations of Editha’s kidneys. The proper anatomical locations of Editha’s kidneys at the time
of her operation at the RMC may be established not only through the exhibits offered in evidence.

Section 3, Rule 130 provides that when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except when the original has been
lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the offeror.

Since the original documents cannot be produced based on the testimony of Dr. Aquino, since the Records
Office of RMC no longer had the originals of the exhibits because it transferred from the previous building.
Hence, the exhibits presented by private respondent did not violated the Best Evidence Rule under Rule
130, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court.
Anita U. Lorenzana vs. Rodolfo Lelina
GR No. 187850, August 17, 2016
Topic: Best Evidence Rule (Rule 130, Sec. 3)
LATEST CASE

FACTS:

Sometime in 1975, Ambrosio and Aquilino Lelina executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over one-half of an
undivided parcel of land in favor of their son, Rodolfo Lelina (respondent).

However in 1996, respondent were informed that the subject property was already owned by petitioner
Anita Lorenzana by virtue of a Deed of Final Conveyance. Petitioner alleged that she has acquired the
property through a foreclosure sale, in a case for a collection of sum of money against Aquilino Lelina.

Both the RTC and CA ruled in favor of the respondent.

Hence, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner
further argues that respondent’s sole basis for his claim of ownership over the subject parcel of land was
the Deed of Absolute Sale, the original of which was not presented in court. Since only the photocopy of
the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented, its contents are inadmissible for violating the Best Evidence
Rule under Rule 130, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale presented by respondent be held inadmissible
as evidence for violating the Best Evidence Rule.

HELD:

No, the Deed of Absolute of Sale presented by respondent may be held as admissible in evidence.

The Best Evidence rule requires that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances mentioned in
Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. As such, mere photocopies of documents are
inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. Nevertheless, evidence not objected to is deemed
admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment. Courts are not precluded
to accept in evidence a mere photocopy of a document when no objection was raised when it was formally
offered.

In this case, the objection to the Deed of Absolute Sale was belatedly raised. Respondent submitted his
Formal Offer of Evidence on February 12, 2003 which included the Deed of Absolute Sale as Exhibit A.
While petitioner filed a Comment and Objection on February 21, 2003, she only objected to the Deed of
Absolute Sale for being self-serving. In the Order dated February 27, 2003, the RTC admitted the Deed of
Absolute Sale, rejecting the objection of petitioner. Having failed to object on the ground of
inadmissibility under the best evidence rule, petitioner is now deemed to have waived her objection on
this ground and cannot raise it for the first time on appeal.