National Power Corporation vs Codilla, Jr. 520 SCRA 412. April 3, 2007

Facts:

                M/V Dibena Win, a vessel of foreign registry owned and operated by private respondent Bangpai Shipping, Co., allegedly bumped and damage petitioners Power Barge 209 which was then moored at the Cebu International Port. Petitioner filed before the RTC a complaint for damages against private respondent Bangpai thereafter, petitioner amended the complaint impleading Wallem Shipping Inc as additional defendant.

                Petitioner after adducing evidence during the trial of the case, filed a formal offer of evidence consisting of Xerox and photocopies of the documents it offered (Exhibits A to V together with the sub-marked portions). Private respondents filed their respective objections and motion to strike out.

                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.

                Public respondent judge issued the assailed order denying the admission and excluding from the records petitioners Exhibits.

                Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, the appellate Court issued decision dismissing the petition.

Issue:

                Whether or not the photocopies offered by petitioner are admissible as evidence for being equivalent to the original of the document on the basis of Electronic Evidence.

Ruling:

                No.

                Section 1 of Rule of the Rules on Electronic Evidence provides:

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. For the purpose of these Rules, the term electronic document may be used interchangeably with electronic data message.

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.

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.

The trial court was correct in rejecting there photocopies as they violate the best evidence rule and are therefore of no probative value being incompetent pieces of evidence.

When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. The offeror of secondary evidence is burdened to prove the predicates thereof: (a) the loss or destruction of the original without bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror which can be shown by circumstantial evidence of routine practices of destruction of documents; (b) the proponent must prove by a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the original copy; and (c) it must be shown that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place or places. However, in the case at bar, though petitioner insisted in offering the photocopies as documentary evidence, it failed to establish that such offer was made in accordance with the exceptions as enumerated under the above quoted rule. Accordingly, we find no error in the Order of the court a quo denying admissibility of the photocopies offered by petitioner as documentary evidence.