Scribd
Upload
162 views1 page

SCC Chemicals V CA

The case involved SCC Chemicals Corporation obtaining a loan from State Investment House Inc. that was secured by a surety agreement signed by Danilo Arrieta and Leopoldo Halili. SCC failed to repay the loan and SIHI filed a civil case. The RTC ruled in favor of SIHI, and the CA affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that the witness testimony presented by SIHI was based on personal knowledge, not hearsay, and that SCC had judicially admitted to receiving the loan documents so the best evidence rule did not prevent their consideration. The Court concluded SCC failed to prove any invalidity of the loan or show it had been repaid.

Uploaded by

jodelle11
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
162 views1 page

SCC Chemicals V CA

The case involved SCC Chemicals Corporation obtaining a loan from State Investment House Inc. that was secured by a surety agreement signed by Danilo Arrieta and Leopoldo Halili. SCC failed to repay the loan and SIHI filed a civil case. The RTC ruled in favor of SIHI, and the CA affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that the witness testimony presented by SIHI was based on personal knowledge, not hearsay, and that SCC had judicially admitted to receiving the loan documents so the best evidence rule did not prevent their consideration. The Court concluded SCC failed to prove any invalidity of the loan or show it had been repaid.

Uploaded by

jodelle11
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

6. SCC CHEMICALS CORP V.

CA BRONDIAL
SCC CHEMICALS CORP. V. CA (2001)
SCC Chemicals Corporation (SCC for brevity) through its chairman, private respondent Danilo Arrieta and vice
president, Pablo (Pablito) Bermundo, obtained a loan from State Investment House Inc., (hereinafter SIHI) in the
amount of P129,824.48. To secure the payment of the loan, Danilo Arrieta and private respondent Leopoldo Halili
executed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement binding themselves jointly and severally to pay the obligation on the
maturity date. SCC failed to pay the loan when it matured. SIHI then sent demand letters to SCC, Arrieta and Halili,
but notwithstanding receipt thereof, no payment was made.

On August 2, 1984, SIHI filed Civil Case No. 84-25881 for a sum of money with a prayer for preliminary
attachment against SCC, Arrieta, and Halili with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. In its answer, SCC
asserted SIHIs lack of cause of action. Petitioner contended that the promissory note upon which SIHI
anchored its cause of action was null, void, and of no binding effect for lack or failure of consideration.

RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered SCC to pay, [SIHI only presented 1 witness but SCC was
ultimately declared to have waived its right to cross-examine for repeatedly failing to appear before the
court]

CA affirmed the judgment in toto

Issue/Held: Whether or not the Court of Appeals made an error of law in holding that private respondent
SIHI had proved its cause of action by preponderant evidence (WON the evidence presented was hearsay)

Ratio:Petitioners reliance on Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court is misplaced. As a rule, hearsay evidence is
excluded and carries no probative value.[8] However, the rule does admit of an exception. Where a party failed to
object to hearsay evidence, then the same is admissible.[9] The rationale for this exception is to be found in the
right of a litigant to cross-examine. It is settled that it is the opportunity to cross-examine which negates the claim that
the matters testified to by a witness are hearsay.[10] However, the right to cross-examine may be waived.

Nor was the assailed testimony hearsay. The Court of Appeals correctly found that the witness of SIHI was a
competent witness as he testified to facts, which he knew of his personal knowledge. Thus, the
requirements of Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court as to the admissibility of his testimony were
satisfied.

Nor will petitioners reliance on the best evidence rule[12] advance its cause. Respondent SIHI had no need to
present the original of the documents as there was already a judicial admission by petitioner at pre-trial of
the execution of the promissory note and receipt of the demand letter. It is now too late for petitioner to be
questioning their authenticity. Its admission of the existence of these documents was sufficient to establish its
obligation. Petitioner failed to submit any evidence to the contrary or proof of payment or other forms of
extinguishment of said obligation.

You might also like