National Pow er Corporation

---vs--Hon. Judge Ramon G. Codilla, RTC Cebu, BANGPAI Shipping Company, and Wallem
Shipping
Rule 130 Section 3 Best Evidence Rule
FACTS:
1. Petitioners filed a complaint for damages against Bangpai when its foreign vessel M/V
Dibena Win bumped and damaged its power barged. The complaint was eventually
amended to include Wallem shipping as Bangpais ship agent.
2. Private respondents both filed motions to dismiss which were denied. Evidence was later
adduced by Petitioner and subsequently filed a formal offer of evidence, which both
private respondents filed their objections to
3. Respondent Judge denied the admission of several evidences presented by the Petitioner.
It held:
a. There is merit ion private respondents objections, the evidences presented were
merely Xerox copies.
4. Petitioner appealed to CA by R65, but was denied
5. Hence, this petition
ISSUE: W/N the evidences presented were admissible as evidence.
HELD: NO.
Petitioner argues that the photocopies it presented were actually electronic evidence based on its
own premise that an electronic document as defined in Rule 2 Sec1(h) of the rules on electronic
evidence is not limited to information that is received, recorded, or produced electronically.
Petitioner argues that an electronic document can refer to other modes of written expression that
is produced electronically, such as photocopies.
Court disagrees. An electronic document refers to information that is received, recorded,
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved, or produced electronically. What differentiates an electronic
document from a regular document is the manner by which such inform ation is processed. A
letter may be written manually by hand and is considered a regular document, but a letter written
and sent by email or other electronic means is an electronic document.
A perusal of the evidences presented would show that the photocopies were not an electronic
document as contemplated by the law: (there were 14, but Ill only include 4):
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 petitioners power
barges 207 and 209 prepared by Hopew ell 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 ow n handwriting and signed by him.
Portions of the Jurat were handwritten, and manually signed by the Notary Public;
Not all of the contents of the information therein may be recorded or produced electronically. In
no way can a signature affixed manually be recorded electronically, unless it was scanned (but in
that case, the scanned copy is no longer the original best evidence document). The trial court
was therefore correct in rejecting these photocopies.
Before the onset of modern techniques of electronic copying, the Best Evidence Rule was designed
to safeguard against incomplete or fraudulent proof and introduction of altered copies and
withholding the originals. The modern justification for the rule expanded it from the prevention
of fraud to a recognition that writings occupy a central position in the law.
The exceptions for the best evidence rule are provided in R130 S2, wherein an offeror may
introduce secondary evidence. But before secondary evidence can be offered, the offeror has the
burden to prove the requisites:
1. The loss/destruction of original was without bad faith on part of the offeror, shown by
circumstantial evidence
2. Offeror must prove by preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the
loss/destruction of the original
3. Must show that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search was conducted for the
document.
In this case, the Petitioner failed to prove that it qualifies for this exception.
WHEREFORE, decisions of the lower courts are AFFIRMED.