PNOC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT MEFC presented of the testimony of its general
CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS AND MARIA EFIGENIA
FISHING CORPORATION, GR 107518, 1998
Principle
Price quotations are not commercial lists if they are
not published in any list, register, periodical or other
compilation on the relevant subject matter. Neither
are they market reports or quotations within the
purview of commercial lists as they are not standard
handbooks or periodicals, containing data of
everyday professional need and relied upon in the
work of the occupation.
Facts
M/V Maria Efigenia XV, owned by Maria Efigenia
Fishing Corporation (MEFC), navigated the waters
near Fortune Island in Nasugbu, Batangas on its
way to Navotas, Metro Manila when it collided with
the vessel Petroparcel. Luzon Stevedoring
Corporation (LSC) owned Petroparcel. After
investigation, Philippine Coast Guard Commandant
Simeon N. Alejandro found the Petroparcel at fault.
MEFC sued LSC and the Petroparcel captain,
Edgardo Doruelo. MEFC prayed for an award
of P692,680.00, allegedly representing the value of
the fishing nets, boat equipment and cargoes of M/V
Maria Efigenia XV, with interest at the legal rate
plus 25% thereof as attorney’s fees.
Meanwhile, during the pendency of the case,
petitioner PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation sought to be substituted in place of
LSC as it had already acquired ownership of
the Petroparcel.
MEFC later sought to amend its complaint because
the original complaint failed to plead for the
recovery of the lost value of the hull of M/V Maria
Efigenia XV. MEFC averred that M/V Maria
Efigenia XV had an actual value of P800,000.00 and
that, after deducting the insurance payment
of P200,000.00, the amount of P600,000.00 should
be claimed. MEFC also alleged that inflation
resulting from the devaluation of the Philippine
peso had affected the replacement value of the hull
of the vessel, its equipment and its lost cargoes.
MEFC also incurred unrealized profits and lost
business opportunities.
manager and sole witness, Edilberto del Rosario. In
addition, MEFC offered the following pieces of
documentary evidence:
Exhibits A: A certified xerox copy of the certificate
of ownership of M/V Maria Efigenia XV;
B: a document stating that as a result of the
collision, the M/V Maria Efigenia XV sustained a
hole at its left side that caused it to sink with its
cargo of 1,050 baeras valued at P170,000.00;
C: a quotation for the construction of a 95-footer
trawler;
D: pro forma invoice showing 2 units of
CUMMINS Marine Engine model N855-M, 195
bhp. at 1800 rpm. would cost P1,160,000.00;
E: quotation of prices showing that a unit of radar,
would cost P100,000.00, a unit of video sounder
would cost P45,000.00;
F: quotation of prices showing how much 2 rolls of
nylon rope would cost xxx;
G: retainer agreement between Del Rosario and F.
Sumulong Associates Law Offices;
H: price quotation showing the cost of poly nettings
xxx.
Question
Are the abovementioned exhibits admissible in
evidence?
Answer
No. The price quotations presented as exhibits
partake of the nature of hearsay evidence
considering that the persons who issued them were
not presented as witnesses. Any evidence, whether
oral or documentary, is hearsay if its probative value
is not based on the personal knowledge of the
witness but on the knowledge of another person
who is not on the witness stand. Hearsay evidence,
whether objected to or not, has no probative value
unless the proponent can show that the evidence
falls within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence
rule. On this point, the exhibits do not fall under any
of the exceptions provided under Sections 37 to 47
of Rule 130.
Nor are B, C, D, E, F, and H commercial lists for
they do not belong to the category of other
published compilations under Section 45. Under
the principle of ejusdem generis, where general
words follow an enumeration of persons or things,
by words of a particular and specific meaning, such
general words are not to be construed in their widest
extent, but are to be held as applying only to
persons or things of the same kind or class as those
specifically mentioned. The exhibits mentioned are
mere price quotations issued personally to Del
Rosario who requested for them from dealers of
equipment similar to the ones lost at the collision of
the two vessels. These are not published in any
list, register, periodical or other compilation on
the relevant subject matter. Neither are these
market reports or quotations within the purview of
commercial lists as these are not standard
handbooks or periodicals, containing data of
everyday professional need and relied upon in the
work of the occupation. These are simply letters
responding to the queries of Del Rosario.
Under Section 45, a document is a commercial list
if:
1. it is a statement of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation;
2. such statement is contained in a list, register,
periodical or other published compilation;
3. said compilation is published for the use of
persons engaged in that occupation, and
4. it is generally used and relied upon by
persons in the same occupation.
Question
Is MEFC entitled to award of damages?
Answer
Yes. But MEFC is not entitled to actual damages.
To enable an injured party to recover actual or
compensatory damages, he is required to prove the
actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of
certainty premised upon competent proof and on the
best evidence available. The burden of proof is on
the party who would be defeated if no evidence
would be presented on either side. He must establish
his case by a preponderance of evidence which
means that the evidence, as a whole, adduced by
one side is superior to that of the other. In other
words, damages cannot be presumed and courts, in
making an award must point out specific facts that
could afford a basis for measuring whatever
compensatory or actual damages are borne.
MEFC is entitled to nominal damages. In the
absence of competent proof on the actual damage
suffered, private respondent is entitled to nominal
damages which, as the law says, is adjudicated in
order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
violated or invaded by defendant, may be vindicated
and recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered.
Since Petroparcel was at fault, petitioner is liable
for nominal damages to respondent.
MAYOR EMMANUEL L. MALIKSI V.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HOMER T.
SAQUILAVAN, GR 203302, 2013
Principle
The picture images of the ballots are electronic
documents that are regarded as the functional
equivalents of the original official ballots
themselves. As such, they have the same evidentiary
weight.
Facts
During the 2010 Elections, the Municipal Board of
Canvassers proclaimed Saquilayan the winner for
the position of Mayor of Imus, Cavite. Maliksi, the
candidate who garnered the second highest number
of votes, brought an election protest in the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite alleging that
there were irregularities in the counting of votes in
209 clustered precincts. Subsequently, the RTC held
a revision of the votes, and, based on the results of
the revision, declared Maliksi as the duly elected
Mayor of Imus commanding Saquilayan to cease
and desist from performing the functions of said
office. Saquilayan appealed to the COMELEC. In
the meanwhile, the RTC granted Maliksi’s motion
for execution pending appeal, and Maliksi was then
installed as Mayor.
In resolving the appeal, the COMELEC First
Division, without giving notice to the parties,
decided to recount the ballots through the use of the
printouts of the ballot images from the CF cards.
Thus, it issued an order dated March 28, 2012
requiring Saquilayan to deposit the amount
necessary to defray the expenses for the decryption
and printing of the ballot images. Later, it issued
another order dated April 17, 2012 for Saquilayan to
augment his cash deposit.
On August 15, 2012, the First Division issued a
resolution nullifying the RTC’s decision and
declaring Saquilayan as the duly elected Mayor.
Maliksi filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging
that he had been denied his right to due process
because he had not been notified of the decryption
proceedings. He argued that the resort to the
printouts of the ballot images, which were
secondary evidence, had been unwarranted because
there was no proof that the integrity of the paper
ballots had not been preserved.
Question
Do printouts of the ballot images have the same
evidentiary value as the official ballots?
Answer
Yes. The picture images of the ballots are electronic
documents that are regarded as the equivalents of
the original official ballots themselves. In Vinzons-
Chato v. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, the Court held that the picture images of
the ballots, as scanned and recorded by the PCOS,
are likewise ‘official ballots’ that faithfully capture
in electronic form the votes cast by the voter, as
defined by Section 2(3) of R.A. No. 9369. As such,
the printouts are the functional equivalent of the
paper ballots filled out by the voters and, thus, may
be used for purposes of revision of votes in an
electoral protest.
decrypted images take place during the revision or
recount proceedings. There is a good reason for thus
fixing where and by whom the decryption and the
printing should be conducted. It is during the
revision or recount conducted by the
Revision/Recount Committee when the parties are
allowed to be represented, with their
representatives witnessing the proceedings and
timely raising their objections in the course of the
proceedings. Moreover, whenever the
Revision/Recount Committee makes any
determination that the ballots have been tampered
and have become unreliable, the parties are
immediately made aware of such determination.
When, as in the present case, it was not the
Revision/Recount Committee or the RTC exercising
original jurisdiction over the protest that made the
finding that the ballots had been tampered, but the
First Division in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction, the parties should have been given a
formal notice thereof.
Thus, since Comelec First Division did not notify
Maliksi, the Commission on Elections En Banc
should conduct proceedings for the decryption of
the picture images of the ballots involved in the
protest after due authentication, and for the recount
of ballots by using the printouts of the ballot
images, with notice to and in the presence of the
parties or their representatives.

That the two documents—the official ballot and its

picture image—are considered "original
documents" simply means that both of them are
given equal probative weight. In short, when either
is presented as evidence, one is not considered as
weightier than the other.
Did Comelec First Division deprive Maliksi of his
right to due process?
Yes. Section 6, Rule 15 of COMELEC Resolution
No. 8804 as amended by COMELEC Resolution
No. 9164; Section 6, Rule 10 (Conduct of Revision)
of the 2010 Rules of Procedure for Municipal
Election Contests; and 2010 Rules of the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal stipulate that the
printing of the picture images of the ballots may be
resorted to only after the proper Revision/Recount
Committee has first determined that the integrity of
the ballots and the ballot boxes was not preserved.
They further require that the decryption of the
images stored in the CF cards and the printing of the