Citibank, N.A. Mastercard v. Teodoro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Citibank, N.A. Mastercard issued a credit card to respondent Efren S. Teodoro. Under the terms, cardholders agree to pay for purchases within a specified period, with interest and penalties for delayed payments. Petitioner claimed that as of January 20, 1995, respondent's outstanding obligation was P191,693.25. Respondent disputed this amount, claiming it did not correspond to his actual obligations. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a collection case before the RTC, which dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The case was transferred to the MTC. Petitioner presented photocopies of sales invoices/charge slips (Exhibits "F" to "F-4"), which totaled P24,388.36 and appeared to bear respondent's signatures. The MTC ordered respondent to pay P24,388.36 plus interest and penalties. The RTC affirmed the MTC decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts, ruling that the photocopies were insufficient proof of liability. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that the CA erred in reversing the trial courts' decisions due to alleged insufficiency of evidence and in holding that petitioner failed to prove the due execution and unavailability of the charge slips.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing and setting aside the decision of the trial courts for insufficiency of evidence to support its findings, considering the admissibility of photocopies as secondary evidence and the burden of proof. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner failed to prove the due execution and the cause of the unavailability and non-production of the charge slips marked in evidence as Exhibits "F" to "F-4", particularly considering the existence of multiple original copies. Whether the photocopies of the sales invoices or charge slips marked as Exhibits "F" to "F-4" are admissible in evidence, and the impact of their admissibility (or lack thereof) on the jurisdiction issue.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not err in reversing the decisions of the trial courts. The photocopies of the sales invoices or charge slips were inadmissible in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of photocopies as secondary evidence, the burden of proof, and the insufficiency of evidence: The Court reiterated that under Sections 3 and 5 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the original document must be produced when its content is the subject of inquiry. Secondary evidence, such as photocopies, is admissible only if the offeror proves the exceptions enumerated in Section 3 and the conditions in Section 5. These conditions include proving the due execution of the original, the loss, destruction, or unavailability of the original without bad faith on the part of the offeror, and the exercise of reasonable diligence and good faith in searching for or attempting to produce the original. The correct order of proof is existence, execution, loss, and contents. The burden of proof rests upon the petitioner as the plaintiff to establish its case by a preponderance of evidence. Since the photocopies were inadmissible, petitioner failed to prove that respondent had an obligation in the principal amount of P24,388.36. Even if admissible, photocopies would have had little probative value without the originals. On the failure to prove due execution and unavailability, and the existence of multiple original copies: The Court found that petitioner failed to prove the due execution of the original sales invoices. The witness, Mark Hernando, was not privy to the execution of these documents and could not competently testify on their due execution or the signatures thereon. Furthermore, petitioner failed to satisfactorily prove the loss or unavailability of the original sales invoices. Hernando's testimony that he requested the originals from Equitable Credit Card Network, Inc., without showing proof of follow-up, was insufficient to establish reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for the originals. The Court emphasized that when multiple original copies of a document exist, all must be shown to be lost, destroyed, or unavailable before secondary evidence can be admitted. In this case, the sales invoices had triplicates: one for the cardholder, one for the merchant, and one for the petitioner. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that all three original copies were unavailable and that due diligence was exercised in searching for them. Therefore, the photocopies were inadmissible. On the admissibility of photocopies and the jurisdiction issue: The photocopies of the sales invoices or charge slips marked as Exhibits "F" to "F-4" are inadmissible in evidence. While the RTC initially dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the amount involved, the subsequent transfer to the MTC and the proceedings therein did not cure the fundamental evidentiary defect concerning the admissibility of the photocopies.
Main Doctrine
For secondary evidence to be admissible to prove the contents of a document, the offeror must prove the due execution of the original, the loss or unavailability of the original without bad faith, and reasonable diligence in the search for or attempt to produce the original. When multiple original copies exist, all must be accounted for as unavailable.