Title
Salas vs. Sta. Mesa Market Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 157766
Decision Date
Jul 12, 2007
Primitivo Domingo appointed Ernesto Salas as estate manager, agreeing to transfer 30% of SMMC shares if revenue targets were met. Salas sued for shares, but the Supreme Court ruled his financial evidence inadmissible due to lack of authentication, dismissing his claim.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 157766)

Contractual Engagement and Compensation Terms

On October 15, 1984, Domingo and Salas entered a letter-agreement vesting management of the estate in Salas. Domingo bound himself to transfer 30% of SMMC’s capital stock to Salas on or before June 30, 1985, provided Salas achieved a monthly market revenue of at least ₱350,000. Failure to meet this target would obligate Salas to return any transferred shares. The parties formalized their arrangement on December 28, 1984 under a notarized property and financial management contract.

Management Actions and Lease Termination

Under Salas’s management, SMMC leased the Sta. Mesa market to Malaca Realty Corporation. Malaca proved financially incapable of improving facilities or paying rent. SMMC terminated the lease, and its board, dissatisfied with Salas’s performance, ended his management contract.

Trial Court Proceedings and Findings

On June 8, 1987, Salas sued SMMC and Domingo (later substituted by Domingo’s heirs) for specific performance and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. He alleged that monthly revenue exceeded ₱350,000 yet respondents withheld the agreed shares. Respondents countered that Salas’s management had generated ₱1,935,995.06 in additional losses. The RTC, relying on audited financial statements, found that gross revenues rose from an average of ₱251,790 in 1984 to ₱409,794 in 1985, thus exceeding the ₱350,000 target. The court ordered respondents to transfer 30% of SMMC’s capital stock to Salas.

Court of Appeals’ Reversal on Authentication Grounds

Respondents appealed. On April 30, 2001, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed. It held that the trial court erred in admitting copies of audited financial statements without proper authentication. Salas failed to present a representative of the external auditor (Bejarin Jimenez & Co.) to testify on their genuineness and execution. Instead, he submitted a management team memorandum attesting to increased revenues. The CA deemed the statements hearsay and self-serving, dismissed Salas’s complaint, and denied reconsideration.

Issue on Document Authentication

Salas contended that Amado Domingo, vice-president of SMMC and heir, admitted the audited statements’ genuineness by testifying that SMMC regularly filed them with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Respondents maintained that such testimony did not dispense with the requirement for formal authentication of the copies offered in evidence.

Classification of Documents and Admissibility Rules

Under Rule 132, Sections 19 and 20 of the Rules of Court, documents are public or private. Public documents (including official records) are admissible without proof of execution or genuineness. Private documents require authentication before admission. Audited financial statements become public only when certified true copies are filed with the BIR or SEC pursuant to law; ordinary copies remain private.

Authentication Requirements and Proof

Section 20, Rule 132, mandates that private documents be proved genuine either by a witness to their execution or by evidence of signature authenticity. The best available proof in thi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.