Scribd
Upload
32 views2 pages

Manalo Vs Robles Trans Co

Uploaded by

Dave Froilan Esperila
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
32 views2 pages

Manalo Vs Robles Trans Co

Uploaded by

Dave Froilan Esperila
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/ 2

EMILIO MANALO and CARLA SALVADOR, plaintiffs-appellees,

vs.

ROBLES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

1. Edgardo Hernandez, driver of Robles Transportation Company Inc. (the Company) was found
guilty for homicide through reckless imprudence and sentenced to one year prision correccional,
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P3,000, in the case of insolvency to
suffer subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay costs.

2. Edgardo Hernandez served out his sentence but failed to pay the indemnity. Two writs of
execution were issued against him to satisfy the amount of the indemnity, but both writs
were returned unsatisfied by the sheriff who certified that property, real or personal in
Hernandez" name could be found.

3. The parents of the victim filed the present action against the Company to enforce its subsidiary
liability, pursuant to Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code.

4. The trial court rendered judgment sentencing the defendant Company to pay to plaintiffs
damages in the amount P3,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from November 14,
1952, plus P600 for attorney's fee and expenses for litigation, with cost. As aforesaid, the
Company is appealing from this decision.

5. The Company is questioning the admissibility of evidence the sheriff’s return. The company
claims that in admitting as evidence the sheriff's return of the writs of execution to prove the
insolvency of Hernandez, without requiring said opportunity to cross-examine said sheriff.

ISSUE :

Whether or not the sheriff’s return is admissible as evidence.


SUPREME COURT:

Yes.

1. A sheriff's return is an official statement made by a public official in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by the law and forming part of official records, and is prima facie evidence of
the facts stated therein. (Rule 39, section 11 and Rule 123, section 35, Rules of Court.)

2. The sheriff's making the return need not testify in court as to the facts stated in his entry.

3. The law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumes they will discharge
their several trust with accuracy and fidelity; and therefore, whatever acts they do in discharge
of their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken of their public duty may be
given in evidence and shall be taken to be true under such a degree of caution as the nature and
circumstances of each a case may appear to require.

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