BENGUET EXPLORATION, INC.

v COURT OF APPEALS, SWITZERLAND

GENERAL INSURANCE, CO., LTD., and SEA WOOD SHIPPING, INC.,
G.R. No. 117434, February 9, 2001 SECOND DIVISION (MENDOZA, J.)

DOCTRINE: The admission of the due execution and genuineness of a document simply means
that: 1) the party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another
for him with his authority; 2) that at the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as
set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; 3) that the document was delivered; 4) and
that any formal requisites required by law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp,
which it lacks, are waived by him.

FACTS:

Benguet Exploration Inc. (BEI) sued Switzerland General Insurance (SGI) and Sea Wood
Shipping (SWS) for damages. SWS chartered the 2, 243. 496 wet metric tons of copper
concentrates to Japan owned by BEI. The 2, 243. 496 wet metric tons was consequently insured
to SGI for the said shipment. When the cargo was unloaded in Japan, the surveyor therein found
that the cargo was 355 metric tons short.

BEI presented as witness one Rogelio Lumibao, the marketing assistant of BEI. He
testified that the bill of lading consisted of 2,243.496 wet metric tons of copper concentrates, and
was loaded on board Sangkulirang No. 3 at Poro Point, San Fernando, and La Union. He
admitted that hat he did not see the actual loading of the cargo at Poro Point and that his
knowledge was limited to what was contained in the bill of lading which he received about two
days after the loading. He had also not seen the actual weighing and loading of the copper
concentrates because he was not the one in charge of the operation. Ernesto Cayabyab was also
presented as witness; he testified that he was present during the signing of the Certificate of
Loading, Certificate of Weight, and the Mate's Receipt. However, he admitted that during the
loading, he moved from place to place, and his attention was sometimes distracted. Thus, he
could not tell with certainty that no spillage took place during the loading. BEI argues that the
genuineness and due execution of the aforesaid documents were established by the testimonies of
its employees, hence, there is a prima facie presumption that their contents were true.

In its defense, Switzerland Insurance presented Export Declaration No. 1131/85, prepared
by Lumibao, in which it was stated that the copper concentrates to be transported to Japan had a
gross weight of only 2,050 wet metric tons or 1,845 dry metric tons, 10 percent more or less. The
report of Certified Adjusters, Inc., which showed that a total of 2,451.630 wet metric tons of
copper concentrates were delivered at Poro Point.

ISSUE:

Is the establishment of the genuineness and due execution of the documents sufficient to
prove that their contents are true?
RULING:

No. The admission of the due execution and genuineness of a document simply means
that: 1) the party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another
for him with his authority; 2) that at the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as
set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; 3) that the document was delivered; 4) and
that any formal requisites required by law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp,
which it lacks, are waived by him. It simply proves nothing more than that the instrument is not
spurious, counterfeit, or of different import on its face from the one executed.

It only makes out a prima facie, not a conclusive case, and it cannot preclude a defendant
from introducing any defense on the merits which does not contradict the execution of the
instrument introduced in evidence.

Considering the discrepancies in the various documents showing the actual amount of
copper concentrates transported, there is no evidence of the exact amount of copper concentrates
shipped. Thus, whatever presumption of regularity in the transactions might have risen from the
genuineness and due execution of the presented documents was successfully rebutted by the
evidence presented by respondent Switzerland Insurance which showed disparities in the actual
weight of the cargo transported to Poro Point and loaded on the vessel. This fact is compounded
by the admissions made by Lumibao and Cayabyab that they had no personal knowledge of the
actual amount of copper concentrates loaded on the vessel.

In effect the following discrepancies, effectively rebuts the presumption in favor of the
figure indicated in the bill of lading.
 SECURITY BANK & TRUST COMPANY v TRIUMPH LUMBER AND
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
G.R. No. 126696, January 21, 1999 FIRST DIVISION (DAVIDE, J.)

DOCTRINE: The genuineness of a standard writing may be established by any of the following:
(1) by the admission of the person sought to be charged with the disputed writing made at or for
the purposes of the trial, or by his testimony; (2) by witnesses who saw the standards written or
to whom or in whose hearing the person sought to be charged acknowledged the writing thereof;
and (3) by evidence showing that the reputed writer of the standard has acquiesced in or
recognized the same, or that it has been adopted and acted upon by him in his business
transactions or other concerns.

FACTS:

Triumph Lumber and Construction Corporation (Triumph Lumber) is a depositor in good

standing of Security Bank and Trust Company (Security Bank) in their branch at Sucat,
Parañaque. Triumph Lumber claims that on March 23 and 24, 1987, three (3) checks all payable
to cash and all drawn against Triumph Lumber’s current account were presented for encashment.
The three checks amounted to a total of P 300, 000.

Allegedly, due to the bank's gross negligence and inexcusable negligence in exercising
ordinary diligence in verifying from Triumph Lumber the encashment of its checks and in
determining the forgery of drawer's signatures, the aforesaid three (3) checks were encashed by
unauthorized persons to the damage and prejudice of the corporation. To prove their claim,
Triumph Lumber presented the findings of Crispina Tabo of the PC Crime Laboratory,
manifesting that the signatures of Co Yok Teng and Yu Chun Kit, the authorized signatories of
the corporation were forged in the aforesaid checks.

Security Bank argued that Triumph Lumber failed to prove that there was forgery.
Security Bank questions the procedure made by the expert witness. Allegedly, Tabo did not use
as basis of her analytical study the standard signatures of Chun Yun Kit and Co Yok Teng on the
specimen signature cards. Even if used, these were not originals but merely photocopies.
Nobody was allegedly even presented to prove that the specimen signatures were in fact
signatures affixed by Chun Yun Kit and Yok Teng. Although the Chun Yun Kit took the witness
stand, he was never called to identify or authenticate his signatures on the said photocopy.

ISSUE:

Was the proper procedure in the investigation of a disputed handwriting observed?

RULING:

No. As a rule, the initial step in investigation of disputed handwriting is the introduction
of the genuine handwriting of the party sought to be charged with the disputed writing, which is
to serve as a standard of comparison. Furthermore, the genuineness of a standard writing may be
established by any of the following: (1) by the admission of the person sought to be charged with
the disputed writing made at or for the purposes of the trial, or by his testimony; (2) by witnesses
who saw the standards written or to whom or in whose hearing the person sought to be charged
acknowledged the writing thereof; and (3) by evidence showing that the reputed writer of the
standard has acquiesced in or recognized the same, or that it has been adopted and acted upon by
him in his business transactions or other concerns.

The factual milieu of the case is inconsistent with the said rule. First, only photocopies,
not the originals, of the "long bond papers" containing the alleged specimen signatures were
presented. Second, nobody was presented to prove that the specimen signatures were in fact
signatures affixed by Yu Chun Kit and Co Yok Teng. Although the former took the witness
stand, he was never called to identify or authenticate his signatures on the said photocopy. Third,
so-called specimen signatures on the bond paper were not directly turned over to Tabo by those
who purportedly wrote them. Tabo never saw the parties write the specimen signatures. She just
presumed the specimen signatures to be genuine signatures of the parties concerned.

As such, Tabo had no adequate basis for concluding that the alleged specimen signatures
in the long bond paper were indeed the signatures of the parties whose signatures in the checks
were claimed to have been forged. Her testimony does not deserve any evidentiary value.