Title
Citibank vs. Teodoro
Case
G.R. No. 150905
Decision Date
Sep 23, 2003
Citibank sued Efren Teodoro for unpaid credit card charges. Courts ruled photocopied invoices inadmissible due to failure to prove original documents' execution, loss, or unavailability, leading to dismissal.
photocopies of sales invoices
inadmissible evidence
burden of proof
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 22511)

Facts of the Transactions and Claim

Respondent applied for and was issued a Citibank Mastercard after his December 14, 1990 application. He made various purchases charged to the card and received billings; he made some payments but allegedly left unpaid balances. Petitioner asserted that, as of January 20, 1995, respondent’s indebtedness (inclusive of interest and service charges) amounted to P191,693.25. Respondent disputed the accuracy of the claimed amount. Repeated demands for payment allegedly went unheeded, prompting petitioner to file a civil complaint for collection.

Procedural History through Trial and Intermediate Appeals

Petitioner filed suit on January 25, 1996. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction; the case was transferred to the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Makati (Civil Case No. 51586, Branch 66). At trial, petitioner offered photocopies of sales invoices/charge slips (Exhibits F to F-4) which, when summed, amounted to P24,388.36. The MTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner for P24,388.36 plus contractual interest and penalties and attorney’s fees. The RTC (on appeal) affirmed the MTC decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial courts’ rulings, finding the evidence insufficient; petitioner sought review by the Supreme Court.

Evidence Offered and Trial Court Findings

At the MTC hearing, petitioner’s principal witness, Mark Hernando (assistant manager), testified and identified photocopies of sales invoices that bore signatures the trial court deemed to be respondent’s. The trial court held that the statement of account alone was insufficient to establish the detailed purchases; the sales invoices were necessary to substantiate the amounts. Because the photocopied invoices presented at trial aggregated only to P24,388.36, the MTC awarded that amount as proven indebtedness.

Central Legal Issue Presented

Whether the photocopies of the sales invoices/charge slips (Exhibits F to F-4) constituted admissible and sufficient proof of respondent’s liability under the best-evidence doctrine (Rule 130), i.e., whether petitioner established the requisite preliminary facts to introduce secondary evidence of the contents of the original documents.

Relevant Rules of Evidence (Rule 130)

  • Section 3: When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, the original must be produced unless exceptions apply (e.g., original lost or destroyed without bad faith, original in custody of adverse party who fails to produce it after notice, voluminous documents, public records).
  • Section 4(b): When a document exists in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, all such copies are regarded as originals.
  • Section 5: If the original is unavailable (lost, destroyed, cannot be produced), the offeror may prove its contents by copy or testimony upon proof of (a) execution or existence of the original; (b) the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on the offeror’s part; and (c) reasonable diligence and good faith in attempting to produce it.
    The order of proof generally is existence, execution, loss, and then contents; the court may vary this order in its discretion.

Court of Appeals’ Reasoning

The CA held the photocopies inadmissible because petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions for secondary evidence under Rule 130. Although the existence of originals was established in the sense that invoices had been issued, petitioner did not prove the due execution of the originals nor adequately account for their loss or unavailability. The CA emphasized petitioner’s obligation to prove the unavailability of all originals where multiple originals or triplicate copies exist, and found that petitioner did not show that it had exercised reasonable diligence (e.g., adequate follow-up on requests for originals from the intermediary, Equitable Credit Card Network, Inc.). Consequently, secondary evidence (photocopies) could not be admitted to prove the contents.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s reversal of the trial courts. It reiterated the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish its claim by a preponderance of evidence and to comply strictly with Rule 130 before secondary evidence may be admitted. The Court noted that while the existence of the original invoices had been established through testimony and copies, petitioner failed to prove (1) the due execution of the originals as required, and (2) the loss or nonproduction of all originals despite reasonable diligence and absence of bad faith. The Court emphasized that when multiple originals exist (here, triplicate copies—one for the cardholder, one for the merchant, one for the card issuer), the offeror must account for the unavailability of all originals before resorting to secondary evidence. The testimony of the bank employee, who was not present at the execution of the documents and who did not adequately demonstrate follow-up efforts to retrieve originals, was insufficient to satisfy Rule 130’s prerequisites. The Court also observed that, even if admissible, the photocopies would possess little probative weight absent proper foundation.

Precedents and Authorities Relied Upon

The Court applied Rule 130 and cited prior rulings and authorities reinforcing that (a) the original is the

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms