RULE 132 SECTION 34 - Offer of Evidence

SHERATON PALACE VS. QUIJANO

64 OG 9116

FACTS:

The plaintiff in this case, Sheraton had instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of money amounting to $1,257.34 or its equivalent
in Philippine Currency from defendant Cristina Quijano for the latter’s alleged unpaid hotel charges when the defendant stayed and lodged in
plaintiff’s hotel in San Francisco, California.

Plaintiff relies upon Exhibit E-1, which is a letter of Muellerand McLeod, plaintiff’s lawyer in the US, to plaintiff’s counsel in the Philippines, in an
attemptto show that it was the defendant who asked that her hotel accounts be charged against FredDevine and Company, but the latter
declined to pay the bills claiming that it had not authorizedthe defendant to charge any of her hotel bills to it. Such evidence was presented
together with thetestimony of Atty. Syquia, the plaintiff’s counsel. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing thecomplaint alleging that
defendant’sstay at the hotel was as a guest of a certain Fred Devine whohad assumed to pay all the costs for his account.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Exhibit E-1 constitutes proof of facts related therein independent of thetestimony of Atty. Syquia.

RULING:
A document or writing which is admitted not as an independent evidence but merely as part of the testimony of a witness or merely insofar as
such witness has made reference theretoin the course of his testimony, does not constitute proof of facts related therein. It was correct forthe
trial court not to admit the said documentary evidence as an independent piece of evidence but merely as part of the testimony of Atty. Syquia
or merely insofar as Atty. Syquia has madereference thereto in the course of his testimony so that it cannot constitute proof the facts relatedin
the said exhibit.

Hence, the recitals contained in it about defendant’s request that the bills be charged against Fred Devine, that the plaintiff extended credit to
defendant but Fred Devine refused to pay on the ground that it did not authorize the defendant to charge it with her hotel bills cannot now be
considered as evidence in this case as the appellant had not assigned as an error the ruling of the trial acourt admitting the said exhibit merely
as part of testimony of Atty. Syquia and not as independent evidence.

Besides, the statements in Exh. E-1 to the effect that “when Ms. Quijano came to the hotel, she told them that her bills would be charged to
Fred Devine and Company” and that her request, credit was extended to her and her bills were sent to Fred Devine and Company, which
refused to pay the same are hearsay in nature as they are based on info furnished to plaintiff’s lawyer in America, who wrote the letter, thus
having no probative force.