The Importance of Original Documents: Proving Payment Requires the Best Evidence

Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals and Loreto Tan, G.R. No. 108630, April 02, 1996

Imagine you’ve been waiting for funds owed to you from a government expropriation, only to discover the bank released the money to someone else claiming to have your authorization. This is the situation Loreto Tan faced, highlighting a critical principle in Philippine law: the best evidence rule. This case underscores that when proving a transaction, especially regarding payment and authorization, the original document reigns supreme. Failure to produce it can be a costly mistake.

Understanding the Best Evidence Rule

The best evidence rule, enshrined in Section 2, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, dictates that the original document must be presented as evidence when its contents are the subject of inquiry. This rule aims to prevent fraud and ensure accuracy by relying on the most reliable form of evidence. The rule also accounts for when the original is unavailable. Section 4, Rule 130 states:

“SEC. 4. Secondary evidence when original is lost or destroyed. – When the original writing has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its execution and loss or destruction, or unavailability, its contents may be proved by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the recollection of witnesses.”

For example, if you’re claiming someone signed a contract, you must present the original contract in court. If the original is unavailable due to loss or destruction, you can present secondary evidence like a copy or witness testimony, but only after proving the original’s unavailability.

In everyday scenarios, this rule affects everything from proving debt repayment (requiring the original receipt) to demonstrating ownership of property (requiring the original title). It ensures fairness and prevents parties from making false claims based on incomplete or altered information.

The Case of Loreto Tan and the Missing SPA

Loreto Tan was entitled to P32,480.00 as payment for land expropriated by the government. The Philippine National Bank (PNB) was tasked with releasing this amount. However, PNB released the funds to Sonia Gonzaga, who claimed to have a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from Tan. When Tan denied authorizing Gonzaga, the legal battle began.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• Tan requested the court to release the expropriation payment to him.
• The court ordered PNB to release the funds.
• PNB issued a manager’s check to Sonia Gonzaga, who deposited and withdrew the amount.
• Tan denied giving Gonzaga authority and demanded payment from PNB.
• PNB claimed Gonzaga had a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) but failed to produce it in court.

The central issue was whether Tan had indeed authorized Gonzaga to receive the payment. PNB argued that the SPA existed and justified their action. However, they failed to present the original SPA or a valid explanation for its absence. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the best evidence rule in this situation. The Court stated:

“Considering that the contents of the SPA are also in issue here, the best evidence rule applies. Hence, only the original document (which has not been presented at all) is the best evidence of the fact as to whether or not private respondent indeed authorized Sonia Gonzaga to receive the check from petitioner. In the absence of such document, petitioner’s arguments regarding due payment must fail.”

The Court also noted conflicting testimonies from PNB’s own witnesses, further weakening their case. The Court stated:

“The testimonies of petitioner’s own witnesses regarding the check were conflicting. Tagamolila testified that the check was issued to the order of ‘Sonia Gonzaga as attorney-in-fact of Loreto Tan,’ while Elvira Tibon, assistant cashier of PNB (Bacolod Branch), stated that the check was issued to the order of ‘Loreto Tan.’”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding PNB liable for the payment to Tan, but reinstated the attorney’s fees awarded by the trial court.

Practical Implications of the PNB v. CA Decision

This case serves as a potent reminder for businesses and individuals alike to maintain meticulous records and understand the importance of original documents. It highlights that simply claiming a document exists is insufficient; you must be prepared to produce it in court.

For banks and other financial institutions, this case underscores the need for stringent verification procedures when releasing funds to third parties. Relying on copies or unverified authorizations can lead to significant liability.

Key Lessons

• Preserve Original Documents: Always keep original documents, especially those related to financial transactions, contracts, and authorizations.
• Verify Authority: Banks and institutions must thoroughly verify the authority of individuals claiming to act on behalf of others.
• Understand the Best Evidence Rule: Be aware of the best evidence rule and its implications for proving your case in court.
• Conflicting Testimony Hurts: Ensure your witnesses provide consistent and reliable testimony.

Imagine a scenario where a company claims a supplier delivered goods based on a faxed copy of the delivery receipt. If the supplier denies the delivery, the company will likely lose in court if it cannot produce the original signed receipt.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best evidence rule?

The best evidence rule states that the original document is the primary evidence to prove its contents. Copies or other forms of secondary evidence are only admissible if the original is unavailable and its absence is adequately explained.

What happens if I lose the original document?

If the original document is lost or destroyed, you can present secondary evidence, such as a copy or witness testimony, but you must first prove the loss or destruction of the original.

Does the best evidence rule apply to all types of documents?

The rule applies when the content of the document is the fact to be proved. If the document is only used as proof of a collateral fact, then the rule does not apply.

What is a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)?

A Special Power of Attorney is a legal document authorizing someone (the attorney-in-fact) to act on your behalf in specific matters, such as receiving payments or signing contracts.

What should I do if someone claims to have an SPA to act on my behalf?

Immediately verify the authenticity and scope of the SPA. If you did not authorize the person, report it to the relevant authorities and take legal action to protect your interests.

Can a bank be held liable for releasing funds to an unauthorized person?

Yes, if the bank fails to exercise due diligence in verifying the authority of the person receiving the funds and releases the funds to an unauthorized individual, the bank can be held liable.

ASG Law specializes in banking litigation and contract law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.