Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 115 views

    Nissan North Edsa Vs United Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jr Costelo
    1) Nissan North EDSA terminated its security services contract with United Philippine Scout Veterans Detective and Protective Agency without providing the required 30 days notice. 2) United filed a case against Nissan, claiming payment for 30 days of services. The trial court ruled in favor of United, finding that Nissan did not prove any contract violations by United. 3) On appeal, Nissan argued that the best evidence rule was violated because United did not present the actual service contract in evidence. However, the Supreme Court found that the best evidence rule did not apply because neither party disputed the contents of the contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nissan North Edsa Vs United Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jr Costelo
    115 views1 page
    1) Nissan North EDSA terminated its security services contract with United Philippine Scout Veterans Detective and Protective Agency without providing the required 30 days notice. 2) United filed a case against Nissan, claiming payment for 30 days of services. The trial court ruled in favor of United, finding that Nissan did not prove any contract violations by United. 3) On appeal, Nissan argued that the best evidence rule was violated because United did not present the actual service contract in evidence. However, the Supreme Court found that the best evidence rule did not apply because neither party disputed the contents of the contract.

    Original Description:

    Nissan North Edsa v. United Digest

    Original Title

    Nissan North Edsa vs United Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Nissan North EDSA terminated its security services contract with United Philippine Scout Veterans Detective and Protective Agency without providing the required 30 days notice. 2) United filed a case against Nissan, claiming payment for 30 days of services. The trial court ruled in favor of United, finding that Nissan did not prove any contract violations by United. 3) On appeal, Nissan argued that the best evidence rule was violated because United did not present the actual service contract in evidence. However, the Supreme Court found that the best evidence rule did not apply because neither party disputed the contents of the contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    115 views1 page

    Nissan North Edsa Vs United Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jr Costelo
    1) Nissan North EDSA terminated its security services contract with United Philippine Scout Veterans Detective and Protective Agency without providing the required 30 days notice. 2) United filed a case against Nissan, claiming payment for 30 days of services. The trial court ruled in favor of United, finding that Nissan did not prove any contract violations by United. 3) On appeal, Nissan argued that the best evidence rule was violated because United did not present the actual service contract in evidence. However, the Supreme Court found that the best evidence rule did not apply because neither party disputed the contents of the contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    NISSAN NORTH EDSA VS.

    UNITED PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS DETECTIVE AND


    PROTECTIVE AGENCY
    G.R. No. 179470
    April 20, 2010

    FACTS:

    Respondent United is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of providing security services. In
    1993, it entered into a contract for security services with petitioner Nissan. In the morning of 31 January
    1996, Nissan informed United, through the latter’s General Manager, Mr. Ricarte Galope (Galope), that its
    services were being terminated beginning 5:00 p.m. of that day. On February 27, 1996 United wrote to
    Nissan demanding payment of the amount equivalent to thirty (30) days of service in view of Nissan’s act
    of terminating United’s services without observing the required 30-day prior written notice as stipulated
    under paragraph 17 of their service contract. As a result of Nissan’s continued failure to comply with
    United’s demands, the latter filed a case for Sum of Money with damages before the Metropolitan Trial
    Court of Las Piñas City. In its Answer, Nissan maintained that the service contract expressly confers upon
    either party the power to terminate the contract, without the necessity of a prior written notice, in cases of
    violations of the provisions thereof. Nissan, in its defense alleged that the failure of United’s security
    guards to report for duty on two occasions, without justifiable cause, constitutes a violation of the
    provisions of the service contract, sufficient to entitle Nissan to terminate the same without the necessity
    of a 30-day prior notice. Nissan claims that its premises had been exposed to threats in security, which
    allegedly constitutes a clear violation of the provisions of the service contract. The Metropolitan Trial
    Court ruled in favor of herein respondent United. The trial court pronounced that Nissan has not adduced
    any evidence to substantiate its claim that the terms of their contract were violated by United; and that
    absent any showing that violations were committed, the 30-day prior written notice should have been
    observed. Nissan appealed to the Regional Trial Court, questioning the award of actual and exemplary it
    alleged that there was no evidence to support the award of actual damages, as the service contract, upon
    which the amount of the award was based, was never presented nor offered as evidence in the trial.
    Furthermore, no evidence was adduced to show bad faith on the part of Nissan in unilaterally terminating
    the contract, making the award of exemplary damages improper. RTC and later the CA affirmed the
    decision.

    ISSUE:

    WoN the best evidence rule is applicable in a claim for damages when respondent failed, during the trial
    of the case, to offer in evidence the service contract upon which it based its claim for sum of money and
    damages?

    HELD:

    No. Nissan’s reliance on the best evidence rule is misplaced. The best evidence rule is the rule which
    requires the highest grade of evidence to prove a disputed fact. However, the same applies only when the
    contents of a document are the subject of the inquiry. In this case, the contents of the service contract
    between Nissan and United have not been put in issue. Neither United nor Nissan disputes the contents
    of the service contract; as in fact, both parties quoted and relied on the same provision of the contract
    (paragraph 17) to support their respective claims and defenses. Thus, the best evidence rule finds no
    application here.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy