View full case

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. RAMON G. CODILLA

FACTS:

The National Power Corporation filed a complaint for damages against Bangpai Shipping Co. after the M/V Dibena Win, owned and operated by Bangpai Shipping Co., allegedly bumped and damaged the petitioner's Power Barge 209. The petitioner subsequently filed an amended complaint impleading Wallem Shipping, Inc. as an additional defendant, claiming that the latter is a ship agent of Bangpai Shipping Co. The motions to dismiss filed by both Bangpai Shipping Co. and Wallem Shipping, Inc. were denied by the court. During the trial, the petitioner filed a formal offer of evidence consisting of various exhibits. However, the court issued an order denying the admission and excluding from the records certain exhibits of the petitioner. The court held that the exhibits were not properly identified, were not received, recorded, retrieved or produced electronically, and lacked authentication. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Consequently, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

The case revolves around a petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner, who alleged that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing certain orders in Civil Case No. CEB-18662. The appellate court dismissed the petition, finding that there was no sufficient showing by the petitioner that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. The court stated that the respondent judge acted correctly and within his sound discretion in issuing the assailed orders. It was revealed that the pieces of documentary evidence presented by the petitioner were denied admission by the respondent judge due to lack of proper identification and because they were merely photocopies. The respondent judge's denial of admission was deemed to be within the discretion granted by Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which requires the presentation of original documents unless certain exceptions apply. The petitioner was given opportunities to present the original documents but failed to do so. The petitioner argued that the photocopies were equivalent to the original documents based on the Rules on Electronic Evidence, but the court found this contention to be without merit as the documentary evidence did not meet the definition of electronic evidence and were not properly authenticated.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the photocopies of documents offered by the petitioner constitute electronic evidence as defined in the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

  2. Whether the petitioner has properly authenticated the documentary evidence as electronic documents.

  3. Whether the petitioner has properly established the admissibility and evidentiary weight of the documentary evidence.

  4. Whether the photocopies submitted by the petitioner can be considered as electronic documents.

  5. Whether the trial court erred in excluding the photocopies as evidence.

  6. Whether or not the photocopies offered by the petitioner as documentary evidence should have been admitted by the trial court.

  7. Whether or not the petitioner should be allowed to present the originals of the exhibits that were denied admission or, in case they are lost, to present secondary evidence.

RULING:

  1. The pieces of documentary evidence offered by the petitioner do not actually constitute electronic evidence as defined in the Rules on Electronic Evidence. The informations therein were not received, retrieved or produced electronically.

  2. The petitioner has not properly authenticated the evidence as electronic documents, assuming arguendo that they are.

  3. The petitioner has not properly established by affidavit pursuant to Rule 9 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence the admissibility and evidentiary weight of said documentary evidence.

  4. The photocopies submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered as electronic documents. While the information contained in an electronic document is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically, a person's manually affixed signature cannot be considered as information electronically received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced. Thus, the photocopies cannot be considered as the functional equivalent of their original as decreed in the law.

  5. The trial court did not err in excluding the photocopies as evidence. The photocopies violate the best evidence rule and are therefore of no probative value. The best evidence rule requires the production of the original writing, except in certain specified cases. The petitioner failed to establish that their offer of the photocopies was made in accordance with the exceptions provided under the Rules of Court. Thus, the court a quo was correct in denying admissibility of the photocopies.

  6. The photocopies offered by the petitioner should not have been admitted as documentary evidence by the trial court. The petitioner failed to present the originals of the documents or lay the predicate for the admission of the photocopies.

  7. The petitioner is not allowed to present the originals of the documents that were denied admission nor lay the predicate for the admission of secondary evidence. The petitioner's intransigence and failure to comply with the trial court's directives caused the denial of its request.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Petitioner's contention that the photocopies are considered electronic documents is without merit.

  • In order for evidence to be considered electronic evidence, it must be received, retrieved or produced electronically.

  • The petitioner has the burden of properly authenticating and establishing the admissibility and evidentiary weight of documentary evidence.

  • An electronic document is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically, and it is the manner by which the information is processed that differentiates it from a paper-based document.

  • A person's manually affixed signature cannot be considered as information electronically received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced.

  • The best evidence rule requires the production of the original writing, except in certain specified cases.

  • The offeror of secondary evidence is burdened to prove the loss or destruction of the original document without bad faith, that a fair preponderance of evidence shows a reasonable inference of the loss or destruction, and that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place or places.

  • Documentary evidence should be presented in its original form or secondary evidence may be presented with the proper predicate.

  • The failure to present the originals of documents or lay the predicate for the admission of secondary evidence may result in the denial of the request for admission.