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.
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). Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether
or not the photocopies may be admissible as evidence as the same constitutes electronic evidence as
defined in Section 1 of Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
Held:
After a judicious
scrutiny of the record of the case on hand, together with the rules and
jurisprudence which are applicable in the premises, we have come up with a
finding that the petition for certiorari filed in this case is not meritorious.
The
petitioner tries to contend that the photocopies of documents offered by it are
equivalent to the original documents that it sought to offer in evidence, based
on the Rules on Electronic Evidence which were in force and effect since August
1, 2001. However, such a contention is devoid of merit. The pieces of
documentary evidence offered by the petitioner in Civil Case CEB-18662 which
were denied admission by the respondent judge do not actually constitute as
electronic evidence as defined in the Rules on Electronic Evidence. The information
therein were not received, retrieved or produced electronically. The petitioner
has not adequately established that its documentary evidence were electronic
evidence. it has not properly authenticated such evidence as electronic documents,
assuming arguendo that they are. Lastly, 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment