Borromeo v. Sun
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Amancio Sun filed an action to compel the transfer of 23,223 shares of stock of Federico O. Borromeo, Inc. (FOB, Inc.) to his name, alleging these shares belonged to him and were placed in Federico O. Borromeo's name for business standing. Sun presented a Deed of Assignment dated January 16, 1974, purportedly executed by Federico O. Borromeo in his favor. Procedural History: The trial court initially declared the signature on the Deed of Assignment genuine, finding it to be Federico O. Borromeo's signature from 1954-1957, though the document was filled out later. The Court of Appeals reversed this, deeming the signature a forgery. Upon reconsideration, and after admitting a PC Crime Laboratory Report which found the questioned signature genuine and consistent with signatures from 1950-1957, the Court of Appeals reversed itself again, affirming the trial court's decision. The PC Crime Laboratory Report indicated the questioned signature and standard signatures were by the same person and could have been signed between 1950-1957. The Petition: Petitioners sought to set aside the Court of Appeals' resolution, arguing that by agreeing to the PC Crime Laboratory examination, they did not waive their right to question the document examiner's competency, and that the Court of Appeals erred in holding the document was signed in 1954 but dated in 1974, and that the signature was genuine circa 1954-1957.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the questioned signature on the Deed of Assignment was genuine, despite the discrepancy in dates. Whether petitioners waived their right to question the competency of the document examiner by agreeing to the PC Crime Laboratory examination.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated March 13, 1986. The Court held that the findings of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision based on expert testimony and the PC Crime Laboratory Report, were conclusive. The discrepancy in dates was explained by the nature of the Deed of Assignment being signed in blank with authority to fill in later, a practice analogous to Section 14 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the genuineness of the signature and discrepancy in dates: The Court reiterated the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and not reviewable. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, relying on expert testimony (Col. Jose Fernandez) and the PC Crime Laboratory Report, found the signature on the Deed of Assignment to be genuine, belonging to Federico O. Borromeo, albeit from an earlier period (circa 1954-1957) than the date of the document (January 16, 1974). The Court found no error in this conclusion, noting that the expert witness for the petitioners, Mr. Tabayoyong, failed to compare the questioned signature with the earlier standard signatures. The Court explained that the discrepancy in dates was not indicative of forgery, as the Deed of Assignment was a blank form intended to be signed in blank, with the authority to fill in the details later. This practice is permissible and serves to provide counter-evidence of ownership, especially when shares were held by another for convenience. The Court emphasized that the intrinsic and natural characteristics of the handwriting were present, as confirmed by stereomicroscopic examination. On waiver of the right to question competency: While acknowledging that petitioners did not explicitly waive their right to cross-examine on the PC Crime Laboratory Report, the Court found no proper basis to deviate from the Court of Appeals' findings. The Court stressed that courts have discretion in giving weight to expert testimony and reports. The Court of Appeals, in giving credence to the PC Crime Laboratory Report which corroborated the trial court's findings, merely exercised its discretion. Since there was no grave abuse of discretion, the findings of the Court of Appeals were upheld.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that a Deed of Assignment, though dated later than the signature affixed thereto, can be considered genuine if expert testimony and other evidence establish that the signature is that of the assignor and the discrepancy in dates is explained by the nature of the document (e.g., signed in blank with authority to fill in later).