This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Rosella D.

Canque seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of

Appeals affirming the judgment of the Regional Trial Court. This
case stemmed over an unpaid debt bore by Petitioner Canque,
owner of the RDC Construction initiated by Socor Construction
Corporation, the private respondent in the case.

The facts of the case are as follows:

1. Petitioner had contracts with the government for 3 construction
projects in Cebu. She entered into two contracts with SoCor for the
supply of materials
2. Private respondent claimed petitioner owed them a balance of
P299,717.75, plus interest, for materials delivered and services
rendered under the contracts
3. Petitioner refused to pay, arguing that private respondent failed to
submit delivery receipts as proof of the actual weight in metric tons of
the items delivered and the acceptance thereof by the government.
4. This made private respondent file the case in the Regional Trial Court
of Cebu to recover from petitioner the sum of P299,717.75, plus
interest at the rate of 3% a month.
5. In her answer, petitioner admitted the existence of the contracts with
private respondent as well as receipt of the billing but she disputed
the correctness of the bill, among others include:
a. Deliveries of private respondent were not signed and
acknowledged by the checkers of petitioner,
b. The bituminous tack coat it delivered to petitioner consisted of
60% water,
c. Petitioner has already paid private respondent about
P1,400,000.00 but private respondent has not issued any
receipt to petitioner for said payments
d. There is no agreement that private respondent will charge 3%
per month interest.
6. Petitioner subsequently amended her answer denying she had
entered into sub-contracts with private respondent.
7. During the trial, private respondent, as plaintiff, presented its vice-
president, Sofia O. Sanchez, and Dolores Aday, its bookkeeper.
Petitioner's evidence consisted of her lone testimony.
8. The RTC of Cebu City ruled in favor of the private respondent and
ordered petitioner to pay the amount claimed, plus interest and
attorney's fees. The RTC made use of private respondent's Book of
Collectible Accounts as evidence. It ruled that it cannot disregard the
entries recorded because the fact of their having been made in the
course of business carries with it some degree of trustworthiness,
and there was no proof was ever offered to demonstrate the
irregularity of the said entries thus.
9. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It upheld the trial court's
reliance on private respondent's Book of Collectible Accounts on the
basis of Rule 130, 37 (now Rule 130 Sect 45) of the Rules of Court.

Issue. The petitioner raised 2 issues. WON the book of collectible accounts
may be used as evidence considering that the person who made said
entries actually testified in this case but unfortunately had no personal
knowledge of said entries, and assuming arguendo that this may be true, if
it may be used as memoranda to refresh one’s memory und rule 132.

Ruling of the Court

1. Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of
Appeals' decision. The court acknowledged that the Book of
Collectible Accounts was not competent evidence to prove deliveries.
It noted that Dolores Aday who made the entries and testified for the
private respondent had no personal knowledge of the facts of the
entries, and that the deliveries of the materials stated in the bills were
supervised by "an engineer.
 When the witness had no personal knowledge of the facts
entered by him, and the person who gave him the information is
individually known and may testify as to the facts stated in the
entry which is not part of a system of entries where scores of
employees have intervened, such entry is not admissible
without the testimony of the informer.
2. Another note made by the court is when private respondent entries in
the book of collectible accounts cannot be considered an exception to
the hearsay rule, they may be admitted under Rule 132, 10 (now rule
132 sect 16) of the Rules of Court under witness referring to
memorandum to refresh ones memory respecting a fact, by anything
written by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact
was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly
stated in the writing.
a. The petitioner contends that evidence which is inadmissible for
the purpose for which it was offered cannot be admitted for
another purpose.
b. It is noted, however by the court that Exh. K is not really being
presented for another purpose. Private respondent's counsel
offered it for the purpose of showing the amount of petitioner's
indebtedness.
c. This is also the purpose for which its admission is sought as a
memorandum to refresh the memory of Dolores Aday as a
witness. In other words, it is the nature of the evidence that is
changed, not the purpose for which it is offered.
3. However, it noted that private respondent presented other competent
evidence, such as contract agreements, billings, and certifications
from government offices, to support their claim. It highlighted that
petitioner had already collected the full amount of the project costs
from the government.
 The entries recorded under Exhibit "K" were supported by
Exhibits "L", "M", "N", "O" which are all Socor Billings under the
account of RDC Construction. These billings were presented
and duly received by the authorized representatives of
defendant. The circumstances obtaining in the case at bar
clearly show that for a long period of time after receipt thereof,
RDC never manifested its dissatisfaction or objection to the
aforestated billings submitted by plaintiff. Neither did defendant
 immediately protest to plaintiff's alleged incomplete or irregular
performance
4. Considered it unjust for petitioner to not fulfill her obligation to the
private respondent
5. Affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals
6. Ordered petitioner to pay the principal sum claimed by the private
respondent, plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs of suit
----

Entries in the course of business. Entries made at, or near the time of the
transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, outside of the
Philippines or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts
therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person
made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty
and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.

The admission in evidence of entries in corporate books requires the

satisfaction of the following conditions:
1. The person who made the entry must be dead, outside the country or
unable to testify;
2. The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to
which they refer;
3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
4. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the
performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious;
and
5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business
or duty.

A memorandum, report, record or data

compilation of acts, events, conditions,
opinions, or diagnoses, made by writing, typing,
electronic, optical or other similar means at or
near the time of or from transmission or supply
of information by a person with knowledge
thereof, and kept in the regular course or
conduct of a business activity, and such was the
regular practice to make the memorandum,
report, record, or data compilation by
electronic, optical or similar means, all of which
are shown by the testimony of the custodian or
other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the
rule on hearsay evidence.
SEC. 10. When witness may refer to memorandum. A witness may be
allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written by
himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or
immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his
memory and he knew that the same was correctly stated in the writing; but
in such case the writing must be produced and may be inspected by the
adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it,
and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such a
writing, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able
to swear that the writing correctly stated the transaction when made; but
such evidence must be received with caution.

1. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;

2. That an unlawful act was done with an

unlawful intent;

3. That a person intends the ordinary

consequences of his or her voluntary act;

4. That a person takes ordinary care of his or

her concerns;

5. That evidence willfully suppressed would be

adverse if produced;

6. That money paid by one to another was due

to the latter;

7. That a thing delivered by one to another

belonged to the latter;

8. That an obligation delivered up to the debtor

has been paid;