Scribd
Upload
178 views1 page

Sheraton Palace v. Quijano

Cristina Quijano was awarded a contract by the Philippine government to salvage sunken vessels. She met with Fred Devine, who offered diving services and said he would pay Quijano's hotel bills at the Sheraton Palace. However, Devine later refused to pay the bills, so the hotel sued Quijano. The hotel provided a letter from their US lawyer about what Quijano said, but the court found this was hearsay evidence. The court also refused to consider annexes to the case that were not presented at trial as evidence. The court dismissed the case, finding Quijano stayed at the hotel as a guest of Devine.

Uploaded by

MarkNasolMadela
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
178 views1 page

Sheraton Palace v. Quijano

Cristina Quijano was awarded a contract by the Philippine government to salvage sunken vessels. She met with Fred Devine, who offered diving services and said he would pay Quijano's hotel bills at the Sheraton Palace. However, Devine later refused to pay the bills, so the hotel sued Quijano. The hotel provided a letter from their US lawyer about what Quijano said, but the court found this was hearsay evidence. The court also refused to consider annexes to the case that were not presented at trial as evidence. The court dismissed the case, finding Quijano stayed at the hotel as a guest of Devine.

Uploaded by

MarkNasolMadela
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Rule 132: Offer of Evidence

Sheraton Palace V. Cristina Quijano


64 OG 9118

Facts:
Cristina Quijano, was awarded a contract by the Ph Government to salvage 36
sunken vessel in the Philippines. She met with one Fred Devine who offered the services
of his diving company to undertake the salvaging operations. Devine invited Quijano to
US in connection with transaction. Devine undertakes to pay Quijano’s hotel bills in
Sheraton Palace where he made arrangements. However, Devine subsequently refused
to pay the hotel bills.
Sheraton Palace instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of money amounting to
$1,257.34 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency from Quijano for the latter’s alleged
unpaid hotel charges when the defendant stayed and lodged in plaintiff’s hotel in San
Francisco, California.
Sheraton relied upon Exhibit E-1, which is a letter of Mueller and McLeod, plaintiff’s
lawyer in the US, to plaintiff’s counsel in the Philippines, in an attempt to show that it
was the defendant who asked that her hotel accounts be charged against Fred Devine
and Company, but the latter declined to pay the bills claiming that it had not authorized
the defendant to charge any of her hotel bills to it. Such evidence was presented together
with the testimony of Atty. Syquia, the plaintiff’s counsel.
The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint alleging that
defendant’s stay at the hotel was as a guest of a certain Fred Devine who had assumed
to pay all the costs for his account.

Issue:
Whether or not the Annexes attached to the Memorandum not offered in trial be
considered as evidence.

Ruling:
No. The alleged annexes were never presented in evidence during the course of
the trial and therefore cannot be taken into consideration as part of the evidence upon
which the case should be decided.
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.

You might also like