Facts:
Emmanuel
B. Aznar (Aznar), is a holder of a Preferred Master Credit Card (Mastercard) issued
by Citibank with a credit limit of P150,000.00. As he and his wife,
Zoraida, planned to take their two grandchildren, Melissa and Richard Beane, on
an Asian tour, Aznar made a total advance deposit of P485,000.00 with
Citibank with the intention of increasing his credit limit to P635,000.00.
Aznar
claims that when he presented his Mastercard in some establishments in
Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, Ingtan Tour and Travel Agency in Indonesia
(to purchase tickets to Bali) but the was not honoured for the reason that his
card was blacklisted by Citibank. Such dishonor forced him to buy the tickets
in cash. He further claims that his humiliation caused by the denial of his
card was aggravated when Ingtan Agency spoke of swindlers trying to use
blacklisted cards.
On
August 26, 1994, Aznar filed a complaint for damages against Citibank, docketed
as Civil Case No. CEB-16474 and raffled to RTC Branch 20, Cebu City, claiming
that Citibank fraudulently or with gross negligence blacklisted his Mastercard
which forced him, his wife and grandchildren to abort important tour destinations
and prevented them from buying certain items in their tour. To prove that
Citibank blacklisted his Mastercard, Aznar presented a computer print-out,
denominated as ON-LINE AUTHORIZATIONS FOREIGN ACCOUNT ACTIVITY REPORT, issued
to him by Ingtan Agency (Exh. "G") with the signature of one Victrina
Elnado Nubi (Nubi) which shows that his card in question was "DECL
OVERLIMIT" or declared over the limit.
As
a defence, Citibank’s Credit Card Department Head, Dennis Flores, presented
Warning Cancellation Bulletins which contained the list of its cancelled cards
covering the period of Aznar’s trip.
On
May 29, 1998, RTC Branch 20, Cebu City, through Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos,
rendered its decision dismissing Aznar’s complaint for lack of merit. The trial
court held that as between the computer print-out presented by Aznar and the
Warning Cancellation Bulletins presented by Citibank, the latter had more
weight as their due execution and authenticity were duly established by
Citibank. Aznar filed a motion for reconsideration this time through Judge
Jesus S. De la Peña of Branch 10 of Cebu City, the court issued an Order
granting Aznar’s motion. Thus, Citibank filed an appeal with the CA and its
counsel filed an administrative case against Judge De la Peña for grave
misconduct, gross ignorance of the law and incompetence, claiming among others
that said judge rendered his decision without having read the transcripts. On
January 30, 2004, the CA rendered its Decision granting Citibank’s appeal. Aznar
filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA dismissed in its Resolution
dated May 26, 2004. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether
or not Exh. "G" qualifies as electronic evidence following the Rules
on Electronic Evidence which provides that print-outs are also originals for
purposes of the Best Evidence Rule hence, should not be excluded as evidence.
Held:
As
correctly pointed out by the RTC and the CA, however, such exhibit cannot be
considered admissible as its authenticity and due execution were not sufficiently
established by petitioner.
The prevailing rule at
the time of the promulgation of the RTC Decision is Section 20 of Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court. It provides that whenever any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
proved either by (a) anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (b) by
evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Aznar, who testified
on the authenticity of Exh. "G," did not actually see the document
executed or written, neither was he able to provide evidence on the genuineness
of the signature or handwriting of Nubi, who handed to him said computer
print-out.
Even if examined under
the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which took effect on August 1, 2001, and
which is being invoked by Aznar in this case, the authentication of Exh.
"G" would still be found wanting.
Pertinent sections of
Rule 5 read:
Section 1. Burden
of proving authenticity. – The person seeking to introduce an electronic
document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in
the manner provided in this Rule.
Section 2. Manner
of authentication. – Before any private electronic document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of
the following means:
(a)
by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have
signed the same;
(b)
by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be
authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic
documents were applied to the document; or
(c)
by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of
the judge.
Aznar
claims that his testimony complies with par. (c), i.e., it constitutes
the "other evidence showing integrity and reliability of Exh.
"G" to the satisfaction of the judge." The Court is not
convinced. Aznar’s testimony that the person from Ingtan Agency merely handed
him the computer print-out and that he thereafter asked said person to sign the
same cannot be considered as sufficient to show said print-out’s integrity and
reliability. As correctly pointed out by Judge Marcos in his May 29, 1998
Decision, Exh. "G" does not show on its face that it was issued by Ingtan
Agency as Aznar merely mentioned in passing how he was able to secure the
print-out from the agency; Aznar also failed to show the specific business
address of the source of the computer print-out because while the name of
Ingtan Agency was mentioned by Aznar, its business address was not reflected in
the print-out.
Indeed, Aznar failed
to demonstrate how the information reflected on the print-out was generated and
how the said information could be relied upon as true.
No comments:
Post a Comment