This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-06-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The mere fact that the original of the writing is in the custody or control of the party against whom it is offered does not warrant the admission of secondary evidence. The offeror must prove that he has done all in his power to secure the best evidence by giving notice to the said party to produce the document. The notice may be in the form of a motion for the production of the original or made in open court in the presence of the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party in custody of the original has sufficient time to produce the same. When such party has the original of the writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce it or refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may be admitted.[20] (Emphasis supplied.) On the Restitution of the Garnished Funds | |||||
|
2005-03-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| (3) The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[27] There is no dispute that the subject check was drawn for value received. | |||||