FACTS:
On
20 April 1996, M/V Dibena Win, a vessel of foreign registry owned and operated
by private respondent Bangpai Shipping, Co., allegedly bumped and damaged
petitioner’s Power Barge 209 which was then moored at the Cebu International
Port. Thus, on 26 April 1996, petitioner filed before the Cebu RTC a complaint
for damages against private respondent Bangpai Shipping Co., for the alleged
damages caused on petitioner’s power barges.
Thereafter,
petitioner filed an Amended Complaint dated 8 July 1996 impleading herein
private respondent Wallem Shipping, Inc., as additional defendant, contending
that the latter is a ship agent of Bangpai Shipping Co. On 18 September 1996,
Wallem Shipping, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss which was subsequently denied
by public respondent Judge in an Order dated 20 October 1998. Bangpai Shipping
Co. likewise filed a Motion to Dismiss which was also denied by public
respondent Judge in an Order issued on 24 January 2003.
Petitioner,
after adducing evidence during the trial of the case, filed a formal offer of
evidence before the lower court on 2 February 2004 consisting of Exhibits
"A" to "V" together with the sub-marked portions thereof.
Consequently, private respondents Bangpai Shipping Co. and Wallem Shipping,
Inc. filed their respective objections to petitioner’s formal offer of
evidence.
On
16 November 2004, public respondent judge issued the assailed order denying the
admission and excluding from the records petitioner’s Exhibits "A",
"C", "D", "E", "H" and its
sub-markings, "I", "J" and its sub-markings, "K",
"L", "M" and its sub-markings, "N" and its
sub-markings, "O", "P" and its sub-markings, "Q"
and its sub-markings, "R" and "S" and its sub-markings.
According to the court a quo:
The
Court finds merit in the objections raised and the motion to strike out filed
respectively by the defendants. The record shows that the plaintiff has been
given every opportunity to present the originals of the Xerox or photocopies of
the documents it offered. It never produced the originals. The plaintiff
attempted to justify the admission of the photocopies by contending that
"the photocopies offered are equivalent to the original of the
document" on the basis of the Electronic Evidence (Comment to Defendant
Wallem Philippines’ Objections and Motion to Strike).
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the photocopies offered by the petitioner as formal evidence before the
trial court are the functional equivalent of their original based on petitioner’s
interpretation of the Rules on Electronic Evidence that these photocopies are
electronic evidence?
DECISION:
In
order to shed light to the issue of whether or not the photocopies are indeed
electronic documents as contemplated in Republic Act No. 8792 or the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Electronic Commerce Act, as well as
the Rules on Electronic Evidence, we shall enumerate the following documents
offered as evidence by the petitioner, to wit:
1. Exhibit "A" is a photocopy of a letter manually
signed by a certain Jose C. Troyo, with "RECEIVED" stamped thereon,
together with a handwritten date;
2. Exhibit "C" is a photocopy of a list of
estimated cost of damages of petitioner’s power barges 207 and 209 prepared by
Hopewell Mobile Power Systems Corporation and manually signed by Messrs. Rex
Malaluan and Virgilio Asprer;
3. Exhibit "D" is a photocopy of a letter manually
signed by a certain Nestor G. Enriquez, Jr., with "RECEIVED" stamped
thereon, together with a handwritten notation of the date it was received;
4. Exhibit "E" is a photocopy of a Standard Marine
Protest Form which was filled up and accomplished by Rex Joel C. Malaluan in
his own handwriting and signed by him. Portions of the Jurat were handwritten,
and manually signed by the Notary Public;
5. Exhibit "H" is a photocopy of a letter manually
signed by Mr. Nestor G. Enriquez, Jr. with "RECEIVED" stamped
thereon, together with a handwritten notation of the date it was received;
6. Exhibit "I" is a photocopy of a computation of
the estimated energy loss allegedly suffered by petitioner which was manually
signed by Mr. Nestor G. Enriquez, Jr.;
7. Exhibit "J" is a photocopy of a letter
containing the breakdown of the cost estimate, manually signed by Mr. Nestor G.
Enriquez, Jr., with "RECEIVED" stamped thereon, together with a
handwritten notation of the date it was received, and other handwritten
notations;
8. Exhibit "K" is a photocopy of the Subpoena
Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum written using a manual typewriter, signed manually
by Atty. Ofelia Polo-De Los Reyes, with a handwritten notation when it was
received by the party;
9. Exhibit "L" is a photocopy of a portion of the
electricity supply and operation and maintenance agreement between petitioner
and Hopewell, containing handwritten notations and every page containing three
unidentified manually placed signatures;
10. Exhibit "M" is a photocopy of the Notice of
Termination with attachments addressed to Rex Joel C. Malaluan, manually signed
by Jaime S. Patinio, with a handwritten notation of the date it was received.
The sub-markings also contain manual signatures and/or handwritten notations;
11. Exhibit "N" is a photocopy of a letter of
termination with attachments addressed to VIrgilio Asprer and manually signed
by Jaime S. Patino. The sub-markings contain manual signatures and/or
handwritten notations;
12. Exhibit "O" is the same photocopied document
marked as Annex C;
13. Exhibit "P" is a photocopy of an incident
report manually signed by Messrs. Malaluan and Bautista and by the Notary
Public, with other handwritten notations;
14. Exhibit "Q" is a photocopy of a letter manually
signed by Virgilio Asprer and by a Notary Public, together with other
handwritten notations.
On
the other hand, an "electronic
document" refers to information or the representation of information,
data, figures, symbols or other models of written expression, described or
however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation
extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally
signed documents and any printout, readable by sight or other means which
accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document.
The
rules use the word "information" to define an electronic document
received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically. This would suggest that an electronic document is relevant only
in terms of the information contained therein, similar to any other document
which is presented in evidence as proof of its contents. However, what
differentiates an electronic document from a paper-based document is the manner
by which the information is processed; clearly, the information contained in an
electronic document is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed,
retrieved or produced electronically.
A
perusal of the information contained in the photocopies submitted by petitioner
will reveal that not all of the contents
therein, such as the signatures of the persons who purportedly signed the
documents, may be recorded or produced electronically. By no stretch of the
imagination can a person’s signature affixed manually be considered as
information electronically received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed,
retrieved or produced. Hence, the argument of petitioner that since these paper
printouts were produced through an electronic process, then these photocopies
are electronic documents as defined in the Rules on Electronic Evidence is
obviously an erroneous, if not preposterous, interpretation of the law. Having
thus declared that the offered photocopies are not tantamount to electronic
documents, it is consequential that the same may not be considered as the
functional equivalent of their original as decreed in the law.
Furthermore,
no error can be ascribed to the court a quo in denying admission and excluding
from the records petitioner’s Exhibits "A", "C",
"D", "E", "H" and its sub-markings,
"I", "J" and its sub-markings, "K",
"L", "M" and its sub-markings, "N" and its
sub-markings, "O", "P" and its sub-markings, "Q"
and its sub-markings, and "R". The trial court was correct in
rejecting these photocopies as they violate the best evidence rule and are
therefore of no probative value being incompetent pieces of evidence. Before
the onset of liberal rules of discovery, and modern technique of electronic
copying, the best evidence rule was designed to guard against incomplete or
fraudulent proof and the introduction of altered copies and the withholding of
the originals. But the modern justification for the rule has expanded from
the prevention of fraud to a recognition that writings occupy a central
position in the law. The importance of the precise terms of writings in
the world of legal relations, the fallibility of the human memory as reliable
evidence of the terms, and the hazards of inaccurate or incomplete duplicate
are the concerns addressed by the best evidence rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment