NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v from their being not properly identified by any
HON. RAMON G. CODILLA, JR., Presiding
Judge, RTC of Cebu, Br. 19, BANGPAI
SHIPPING COMPANY, and WALLEM
SHIPPING, INCORPORATED
FACTS: On 26 April 1996, NPC filed before the
Cebu RTC a complaint for damages against private
respondent Bangpai Shipping Co., for the alleged
damages caused on NPC’s power barges. (kasi) A
vessel owned by Bangpai bumped NPC Power
Barge 209.
After adducing evidence during the trial of the
case, NPC filed a formal offer of evidence before
the lower court on 2 February 2004 consisting of
Exhibits "A" to "V" together with their sub-marked
portions. PR Bangpai Shipping Co. and Wallem
Shipping, Inc. filed their respective objections to
NPC’s formal offer of evidence.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Bangpaiand
Wallem on their motion to strike out. It excluded
several exhibits of NPC AND THEIR SUBMARKINGS.
The record shows that NPC has been given every
opportunity to present the originals of the Xerox or
photocopies of the documents it offered however it
never produced the originals.
NPC: 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).
DEFENDANTS: the Xerox copies do not constitute
the electronic evidence defined in Section 1 of Rule
2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence ( this
provision defines what electronic document is) The
information in those Xerox or photocopies
was not received, recorded, retrieved or
produced electronically. NPC has failed to
authenticate the said electronic evidence. The
required Affidavit to prove the admissibility and
evidentiary weight (Rule 9 of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence) of the alleged electronic
evidence was not executed nor presented as
evidence. Hence, the Xerox or photocopies offered
should, therefore, be stricken off the record. Aside
competent witness, the loss of the principals
thereof was not established by any competent
proof.
RULE 65 BEFORE THE CA; CA dismissed the
petition. As to the exhibits; Section 3 of Rule
130 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines is
very explicit in providing that, when the subject of
inquiry are the contents of documents, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original
documents themselves, except in certain cases
specifically so enumerated therein, and the
petitioner has not shown that the non-presentation
or non-production of its original documentary
pieces of evidence falls under such exceptions. 
ISSUE: WON the photocopies/printouts it offered
as formal evidence before the trial court are the
functional equivalent of their original based on
its inimitable interpretation of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence.
RULING: NO.
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.
The rules use the word information to define an
electronic document received, recorded,
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
produced electronically. 
- 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.
ITC, a perusal of the information contained in the
photocopies submitted by petitioner will reveal that
not all of the contents therein, such as the
signatures of the persons who purportedly signed
the documents, may be recorded or produced
electronically.
Cant signed mannually received, recorded,
retrieved or produced electronically.
(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.
ITC, though NPC 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
foregoing rule.
HENCE, RTC and CA were correct in striking out the
exhibits of NPC.

The argument of NPC that since these paper

printouts were produced through an electronic
process, then these photocopies are electronic
documents as defined in the Rules on Electronic
Evidence is obviously an erroneous, if not
preposterous, interpretation of the law. 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.

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;