Cases (entries In The Course Of Business) Flashcards
FACTS: Respondents filed an action for damages against petitioner alleging the following: (1) they are passengers of PAL Flight No. 264 on September 24, 1985; (2) they check-in at least one (1) hour before the published departure time; (3) no one was at the check-in counter until 30 minutes before departure; (4) upon checking-in, they were informed that their tickets were cancelled and the seats awarded to chance passengers; (5) they have to take the bus instead; and (6) they suffered damages due to the cancellation. Petitioner disclaims any liability, claiming that the non-accommodation of Respondent on said flight was due to their having check-in late for their flight. During the trial, defendant presented the check-in counter clerk at their Naga Branch on the date of respondent’s scheduled flight. The clerk testified that: (1) the respondents were late and that he noted the time of check-in on their tickets; and (2) there were other passengers who came late before the respondents. In relation to the testimony, two documentary evidence were offered, namely: (1) the ticket bearing the notation “late 4:02” of the clerk; and (2) the passenger manifest showing the other names of other passengers who were also late. Respondent objected to the documentary evidence submitted and argued that those are self-serving.
ISSUE: Whether or not the entries made on a ticket by employees of a party in the course of their business may not be given weight on the ground that the same is self-serving.
No. The plane tickets of the private respondents with the notation “late 4:02” stamped on the flight coupon by the check-in clerk immediately upon the check-in of private respondents and the passenger Manifest of Flight PR 264 which showed the non-accommodation of Capati and Go and the private respondents are entries made in the regular course of business which the, private respondents failed to overcome with substantial and convincing evidence other than their testimonies. Consequently, they carry more weight and credence. A writing or document made contemporaneously with a transaction in which are evidenced facts pertinent to an issue, when admitted as proof of those facts, is ordinarily regarded as more reliable proof and of greater probative force than the oral testimony of a witness as to such facts based upon memory and recollection Spoken words could be notoriously unreliable as against a written document that speaks a uniform language Private respondents’ only objection to these documents is that they are self- serving cannot be sustained. The hearsay rule will not apply in this case as statements, acts or conduct accompanying or so nearly connected with the main transaction as to form a part of it, and which illustrate, elucidate, qualify or characterize the act, are admissible as part of the res gestae
