national power

corporation VS.
HON. RAMON G.
CODILLA, et al.
G.R. NO. 170491 APRIL 4, 2007
 facts
• M/V Dibena Win is a vessel owned and operated by respondent Bangpai Shipping Co., a foreign corporation. The same
vessel has bumped into the Power Barge of petitioner NAPOCOR.

• The wreckage was moored to the Cebu International Port and a complaint for damages ensued before the RTC of Cebu.
Originally, the defendants were Bangpai Shipping Co. however, after an amendment of the complaint, Wallem
Shipping Inc. was impleaded upon the contention that it is the shipping agent of respondent Bangpai. A motion to
dismiss was both filed by respondents and both motions were denied.

• In the course of the trial, evidence was adduced by petitioner and subsequently filed a formal offer of evidence marked
Exhibits "A" to "V" with its corresponding submarks
 facts
• Respondents both objected to the formal offer contending that the evidence being offered are a series
of photocopies; to which said objections were sustained through an Order issued by the public
respondent Judge Codilla, to strike out the offered photocopies.
• Petitioner, however, interposed that the photocopies offered are equivalent to the original of the
document" on the basis of the Electronic Evidence.
• The petitioner failed as the documents were not those which were defined under Section 1 of Rule 2
of the Rules on Electronic Evidence as follows:
• "(h) "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.
 facts
• It includes digitally signed documents and any printout, readable by sight or other means which
accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For the purpose of these
Rules, the term "electronic document" may be used interchangeably with "electronic data message".

• The photocopies were not received, recorded, retrieved or produced electronically, neither were these
copies be authenticated as set forth by the rules.
• A subsequent MR were presented but was denied. Hence, petitioner filed for Certiorari for grave
abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction by the trail judge in finding the offered
pieces of evidence as inadmissible.
• The Certiorari failed on account that the offered documents were not properly identified having that
the witness does not have personal knowledge in the preparation or execution of the offered pieces of
evidence.
 facts
• Exhibits A, C, D, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S were also denied admission as these are
mere photocopies which under Sec. 1 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court of when the subject of
inquiry are the contents of documents, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
documents themselves.
• Petitioner was not able to prove that the pieces of evidence being presented fall within the exceptions
⚬ (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;
⚬ (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
 facts
⚬ (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole; and
⚬ (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office.
• Petitioners elevated the case to the SC. It is in the contention of petitioners that the evidence being
offered were within the contemplation of RA 8792 (IRR of the ELectronic Commerce Act) and the
Rules on Electronic Evidence.
 issue
WHETHER OR NOT THE PHOTOCOPIES OFFERED ARE CONSIDERED
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE?
WHETHER OR NOT THE PHOTOCOPIES OFFERED ARE ADMISSIBLE?
 RULING
• The Court cites that "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
 RULING
• The controlling definition is on how information was created, written or stored which would
qualify such information as an electronic document, the court cites that 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.
• In the evidence presented, it is noted that not all of the contents such as the signatures of the
persons who signed the documents, may be recorded or produced electronically. The court also
impeached the probative value of the photocopies as it runs against the best evidence rule
 RULING
• The court further cited that the best evidence rule was designed to guard against incomplete or
fraudulent proof and the introduction of altered copies and the withholding of the originals.
• The importance of the precise terms of writings in the world of legal relations, the fallibility of the
human memory as reliable evidence of the terms, and the hazards of inaccurate or incomplete
duplicate are the concerns addressed by the best evidence rule."
• FALLO: Petition is DENIED.
mayor emmanuel l.
maliksi VS.
COMELEC
G.R. NO. 203302 APRIL 11, 2013
 FACTS
In the 2010 Mayoral Elections, Respondent Homer T. Saquilayan was declared Mayor of Imus, Cavite.
Herein petitioner, the next candidate with the highest votes filed for election protest before the RTC of
Imus, Cavite alleging irregularities in the canvass of votes in the 209 precincts.
The trial court conducted revision and subsequently found for petitioner. The Court issued a Cease and
Desist Order against respondent and declared petitioner as winner.
Aggrieved, respondent appealed before the COMELEC. Pending appeal, a motion for execution for
judgement was filed and was granted to petitioner which installed the petitioner to office.
 FACTS
On appeal, COMELEC First Division, motu proprio conducted a recount by way of printing the
images of the ballots from the CF cards without notice to petitioner nor respondent. Thereafter,
COMELEC found for respondent and nullified the decision of the trial court.
Petitioner interposed MR alleging that there was a violation of due process as he was not notified of
the recount and that the recount conducted was improper having that the counting of the printed
images of the ballots was secondary evidence and not the best evidence as sanctioned by the rules,
thus there lies a question of the integrity of the images counted.
The MR was denied. Hence, petitioner filed for Certiorari.
 FACTS
On Certiorari, petitioner alleged the irregularity of proceedings by the First Division. The Supreme
Court dismissed the same. It pronounced that the First Division did not abuse its discretion in deciding
to use the ballot images instead of the paper ballots, explaining that the printouts of the ballot images
were not secondary images, but considered original documents with the same evidentiary value as the
official ballots under the Rule on Electronic Evidence
 issue
• WHETHER OR NOT THE PRINTED IMAGES OF THE BALLOTS IS AN ELECTRONIC
DOCUMENT?
• WHETHER OR NOT THE PRINTED PICTURE IMAGES OF THE BALLOTS ARE THE BEST
EVIDENCE IN THE RECOUNT?
 • YES RULING
The court enunciated in the case of Vinzons-Chato vs. HRET, that the picture images of the ballots are electronic
documents that are regarded as the equivalents of the original official ballots themselves. The picture images of the
ballots, as scanned and recorded by the automated voting machines (PCOS), are official ballots that faithfully capture in
electronic form the votes cast by the voter, as defined by Section 2(3) of R.A. No. 9369

Hence, these printouts are functional equivalents of the paper ballots and may be used in a revision in election protests.
2. YES
The decrypting, copying, and printing of the images of the ballots are original documents in a sense that the official
ballots and the picture images have the same probative value and none is has more weight than the other.
 RULING
2. However, the court held that regardless of the probative value of the ballots and its picture images, in the conduct of
recount, no court, COMELEC, nor any electoral tribunal may abrogate upon itself the conduct of the recount without
following the rules of procedure in exercising due process.
sps. amoncio vs.
benedicto
G.R. NO. 203302 APRIL 11, 2013
 facts
Petitioner Spouses Wilfredo and Angela Amoncio entered into a lease contract between Ernesto Garcia and herein
respondent Aaron Go Benedicto of the following parcels of land, respectively; 120 sq.m. to the former and 240 sq.m. for
the latter from their 600 sq.m property.

In the Lease Contract it contained provisions stipulating the amount and schedule for rentals, issuance of post dated
checks, and purpose for the lease, as well as the automatic acquisition of improvements in the event of a default.

In December 1997, Garcia and Benedicto took possession of the respective leased portions. However, in July 1997,
Garcia pre-terminated the lease while respondent remained until June 8, 2000.
 facts
Respondent defaulted thereafter. Petitioners allege that respondent have introduced improvements over another 120
sq.m. portion different from that leased by Garcia and of respondent, and that respondent has occupied Garcia's portion.

Petitioner demanded payment of the following: arrears, desistance from construction, and rentals for the used portion
previously leased by Garcia. Respondent did not comply. Hence, petitioner asked respondent to vacate property and
rescind the contract.

Petitioners filed before the RTC for recovery of possession of real property against respondent.

Respondent filed and answer with counterclaim. He alleged that it was in fact petitioner who owed him for what was
agreed upon is a buiild-operate-transfer lease. Respondent cited that:
Respondent cited that:
facts
He and petitioner Wilfredo Amoncio agreed to construct five commercial buildings on petitioners’ property. One of the
buildings was to go to Garcia, two to petitioners and the last two to him.
They also agreed that he was to finance the construction and petitioners were to pay him for the two buildings assigned to
them.
Respondent added he was to pay the rentals for five years and surrender the buildings to petitioners after the lapse of said
period.

RTC RULING: The trial court dismissed the case for lack of factual and legal basis.
Upon appeal, petitioners cited that the trial court erred by disregarding the parol evidence rule which disallows the court
from looking into other evidence relating to the written agreement of the parties.
APPEAL: The CA affirmed and decision of the RTC.
facts
• The CA held that petitioners did not adduce evidence to prove that respondent had actually occupied portions of their
property which is not stipulated in the contract.
• The rule on parol evidence could no longer be applied after failure to timely object to respondent's testimony about
their agreement as to the construction of the buildings.
 issue
WHETHER OR NOT PAROL EVIDENCE RULE STILL APPLIES ALBEIT FAILURE OF
PETITIONERS TO TIMELY OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF OTHER EVIDENCE.
 RULING
• YES.
The court held that "a party to a contract may prove the existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter which is not
inconsistent with its terms. This may be done if, from the circumstances of the case, the court believes that the document
does not convey entirely the whole of the parties’ transaction. Section 9 of Rule 130.
In the present case, respondents did construct the aforementioned buildings, there are two units for petitioners and one for
Garcia and for himself, which petitioners did not negate. Presented where the building permits issued by the Building Official
with petitioners signature.

Petitioners are now estopped from assuming the inconsistent position or electing to object the obligation of paying respondent
what is due and one which he already benefited from.
 RULING
• Petitioners further failed to make a timely objection against the contentions of respondent regarding oral agreements.
The failure to object where he is entitled to the benefit of the parol evidence rule shall now allow the introduction of
other evidence relating to the agreement.
• The court emphasized that where a party entitled to the benefit of the parol evidence rule allows such evidence to be
received without objection, he cannot, after trial has closed and been decided against him, invoke the rule in order to
secure a reversal of judgment. Thus, petitioner has deemed to waive his right.
FALLO: THE ASSAILED DECISION OF THE CA IS HEREBY AFFIRMED.