Compania vs. Allied
Workers, 77 SCRA 24, G.R. No. 107653, February 05, 1996
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
In 1952, the Compañia
Maritima and the Allied Free Workers Union entered into a written contract
whereby the union agreed to perform arrastre and stevedoring work for the
consignees. vessels at Iligan City. The union agreed to the stipulation that
the company would not be liable for the payment of the services of the union
"for the loading, unloading and deliveries of cargoes" and that the
compensation for such services would be paid "by the owners and consignees
of the cargoes" as "has been the practice in the port of Iligan
City" of which the union found out later to be oppressive.
The shippers and
consignees paid the union for the arrastre work only. They claimed that the shipowner
was the one obligated to pay for the stevedoring service because the bill of
lading provided that the unloading of the cargo was at the shipowner's expense.
The union filed in the
Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) a petition praying that it be certified as
the sole collective bargaining unit. Despite the case, the company served a
written notice on the union that in accordance with payment of the 1952
contract, the same would be terminated. Because of that notice, the union later
on filed in the CIR charges of unfair labor practices against the company.
The company entered
into a new stevedoring and arrastre contract with the Iligan Stevedoring
Association. On the following day, the union members picketed the wharf and
prevented the Iligan Stevedoring Association from performing arrastre and
stevedoring work.
The company sued the
union and its officers in the CFI of Lanao for the rescission of the 1952
contract, to enjoin the union from interfering with the loading and unloading
of the cargo, and for the recovery of damages.
After trial, the lower
court rendered a decision in favor of the company and awarded CM 450K as
damages; it held that the officers of the union are solidarily liable for this
amount. Union appealed.
ISSUE
Whether or not the
evidence presented by Compania Maritima warrants the award of damages in its
favor.
RULING
No, it does not
warrant.
In this case, the
company argues that the accountants' reports are admissible in evidence because
of the rule that "when the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the
fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the
whole", the original writings need not be produced (Sec. 2[e], Rule 130,
Rules of Court).
Sc held that the rule
cannot be applied in this case because the voluminous character of the records,
on which the accountants' reports were based, was not duly established. It is
also a requisite for the application of the rule that the records and accounts
should be made accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness of the
summary may be tested on cross-examination. What applies to this case is the
general rule "that an audit made by, or the testimony of, a private
auditor, is inadmissible in evidence as proof of the original records, books of
accounts, reports or the like". That general rule cannot be relaxed in
this case because the company failed to make a preliminary showing as to the
difficulty or impossibility attending the production of the records in court
and their examination and analysis as evidence by the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment