An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediatel- e6ecutor- and shall not be appealable# An- petition for

certiorari initiated therefrom shall not in an- +a- sta- the implementation thereof unless a higher court issues an in4unctive order# $he grant of DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of an- component of the DNA evidence that ma- be obtained as a result thereof# A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC Sec. 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing. , Post;conviction DNA testing ma- be available +ithout need of prior court order (2 October 2007) to the prosecution or an- person convicted b- final and e6ecutor- 4udgment provided that 8a9 a biological sample e6ists 8b9 RULE ON DNA EV DENCE such sample is relevant to the case and 8c9 the testing +ould probabl- result in the reversal or modification of the RESOLUT ON 4udgment of conviction# Acting on the recommendation of the Chairperson and Members of the Subcommittee on Evidence submitting for the Sec. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. , /n assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence Courts consideration and approval the proposed Rule on DNA Evidence the Court Resolved to APPR!"E the same# presented the court shall consider the follo+ing1 $his Resolution shall ta%e effect on !ctober &' ())* follo+ing its publication in a ne+spaper of general circulation# a# $he chair of custod- including ho+ the biological samples +ere collected ho+ the- +ere handled and the !ctober ( ())*# possibilit- of contamination of the samples5 RULE ON DNA EV DENCE b# $he DNA testing methodolog- including the procedure follo+ed in anal-<ing the samples the advantages and SECT ON 1. Scope. , $his Rule shall appl- +henever DNA evidence as defined in Section . hereof is offered used or disadvantages of the procedure and compliance +ith the scientificall- valid standards in conducting the tests5 proposed to be offered or used as evidence in all criminal and civil actions as +ell as special proceedings# c# $he forensic DNA laborator- including accreditation b- an- reputable standards;setting institution and the Sec. 2. Application of other Rules on Evidence. , /n all matters not specificall- covered b- this Rule the Rules of Court 7ualification of the anal-st +ho conducted the tests# /f the laborator- is not accredited the relevant e6perience and other pertinent provisions of la+ on evidence shall appl-# of the laborator- in forensic case+or% and credibilit- shall be properl- established5 and Sec. !. Definition of Terms. , 0or purposes of this Rule the follo+ing terms shall be defined as follo+s1 d# $he reliabilit- of the testing result as hereinafter provided# a# 2Biological sample3 means an- organic material originating from a persons bod- even if found in inanimate $he provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence shall appl- suppletoril-# ob4ects that is susceptible to DNA testing# $his includes blood saliva and other bod- fluids tissues hairs and Sec. #. Reliabilit of DNA Testing !ethodolog . , /n evaluating +hether the DNA testing methodolog- is reliable the bones5 court shall consider the follo+ing1 b# 2DNA3 means deo6-ribonucleic acid +hich is the chain of molecules found in ever- nucleated cell of the bod-# a# $he falsifiabilit- of the principles or methods used that is +hether the theor- or techni7ue can be and has $he totalit- of an individuals DNA is uni7ue for the individual e6cept identical t+ins5 been tested5 c# 2DNA evidence3 constitutes the totalit- of the DNA profiles results and other genetic information directlb# $he sub4ection to peer revie+ and publication of the principles or methods5 generated from DNA testing of biological samples5 c# $he general acceptance of the principles or methods b- the relevant scientific communit-5 d# 2DNA profile3 means genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a d# $he e6istence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the correctness of data generated5 person +hich biological sample is clearl- identifiable as originating from that person5 e# $he e6istence of an appropriate reference population database5 and e# 2DNA testing3 means verified and credible scientific methods +hich include the e6traction of DNA from f# $he general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles and biological samples the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the information obtained from the the significance and limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles# DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining +ith reasonable certaint- +hether or not the Sec. $. of DNA Testing Results. , /n evaluating the results of DNA testing the court shall consider the follo+ing1 DNA obtained from t+o or more distinct biological samples originates from the same person 8direct a# $he evaluation of the +eight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence5 identification9 or if the biological samples originate from related persons 8%inship anal-sis95 and b# $he results of the DNA testing in the light of the totalit- of the other evidence presented in the case5 and that f# 2Probabilit- of Parentage3 means the numerical estimate for the li%elihood of parentage of a putative parent c# DNA results that e6clude the putative parent from paternit- shall be conclusive proof of non;paternit-# /f the compared +ith the probabilit- of a random match of t+o unrelated individuals in a given population# value of the Probabilit- of Paternit- is less than ==#=> the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as Sec. ". Application for DNA Testing Order. , $he appropriate court ma- at an- time either motu proprio or on corroborative evidence# /f the value of the Probabilit- of Paternit- is ==#=> or higher there shall be a application of an- person +ho has a legal interest in the matter in litigation order a DNA testing# Such order shall issue disputable presumption of paternit-# after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a sho+ing of the follo+ing1 Sec. 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing , Remed- if the Results Are 0avorable to the Convict# , $he convict or the a# A biological sample e6ists that is relevant to the case5 prosecution ma- file a petition for a +rit of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the results of the post;conviction DNA b# $he biological sample1 8i9 +as not previousl- sub4ected to the t-pe of DNA testing no+ re7uested5 or 8ii9 +as testing are favorable to the convict# /n the case the court after due hearing finds the petition to be meritorious if shall previousl- sub4ected to DNA testing but the results ma- re7uire confirmation for good reasons5 reverse or modif- the 4udgment of conviction and order the release of the convict unless continued detention is 4ustified for c# $he DNA testing uses a scientificall- valid techni7ue5 a la+ful cause# d# $he DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce ne+ information that is relevant to the proper resolution A similar petition ma- be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court or +ith an- member of said courts of the case5 and +hich ma- conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders# e# $he e6istence of other factors if an- +hich the court ma- consider as potentiall- affecting the accurac- of Sec. 11. "onfidentialit . , DNA profiles and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall be integrit- of the DNA testing# confidential# E6cept upon order of the court a DNA profile and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing $his Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing +ithout need of a prior court order at the behest of an- part- including la+ shall onl- be released to an- of the follo+ing under such terms and conditions as ma- be set forth b- the court1 enforcement agencies before a suit or proceeding is commenced# a# Person from +hom the sample +as ta%en5 Sec. 5. DNA Testing Order. , /f the court finds that the re7uirements in Section : hereof have been complied +ith the b# Person from +hom the sample +as ta%en5 court shall , c# ?a+-ers of private complainants in a criminal action5 a# !rder +here appropriate that biological samples be ta%en from an- person or crime scene evidence5 d# Dul- authori<ed la+ enforcement agencies5 and b# /mpose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect the integrit- of the biological sample the e# !ther persons as determined b- the court# testing process and the reliabilit- of the test results including the condition that the DNA test results shall be @hoever discloses utili<es or publishes in an- form an- information concerning a DNA profile +ithout the proper court simultaneousl- disclosed to parties involved in the case5 and order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court +herein such DNA evidence +as offered presented or sought to be c# /f the biological sample ta%en is of such an amount that prevents the conduct of confirmator- testing b- the offered and presented# other or the adverse part- and +here additional biological samples of the same %ind can no longer be @here the person from +hom the biological sample +as ta%en files a +ritten verified re7uest to the court that allo+ed the obtained issue an order re7uiring all parties to the case or proceedings to +itness the DNA testing to be DNA testing for the disclosure of the DNA profile of the person and all results or other information obtained from the DNA conducted# testing he same ma- be disclosed to the persons named in the +ritten verified re7uest#

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

Sec. 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence. $he trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totalit- including all biological samples DNA profiles and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing# 0or this purpose the court ma- order the appropriate government agenc- to preserve the DNA evidence as follo+s1 a# /n criminal cases1 i# for not less than the period of time that an- person is under trial for an offense5 or ii# in case the accused is serving sentence until such time as the accused has served his sentence5 a# /n all other cases until such time as the decision in the case +here the DNA evidence +as introduced has become final and e6ecutor-# $he court ma- allo+ the ph-sical destruction of a biological sample before the e6piration of the periods set forth above provided that1 a# A court order to that effect has been secured5 or b# $he person from +hom the DNA sample +as obtained has consented in +riting to the disposal of the DNA evidence# Sec. 1!. Applicabilit to Pending "ases. E6cept as provided in Section A and &) hereof this Rule shall appl- to cases pending at the time of its effectivit-# Sec. 1". Effectivit . $his Rule shall ta%e effect on !ctober &' ())* follo+ing publication in a ne+spaper of general circulation# A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC.- RE% RULES ON ELECTRON C EV DENCE EN #AN" RESOLUT ON Acting on the Memorandum dated &B Cune ())& of the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court to Draft the rules on E;Commerce ?a+ DR#A# No# B*=(E submitting the Rules on Electronic Evidence for this Courts consideration and approval the Court Resolved to APPR!"ED the same# $he Rules on Electronic Evidence shall appl- to cases pending after their effectivit-# $hese Rules shall ta%e effect on the first da- of August ())& follo+ing their publication before the ()th of Cul- in t+o ne+spapers of general circulation in the Philippines# &*th Cul- ())&# RULES ON ELECTRON C EV DENCE R$%E & COVERA&E SEC$/!N &# Scope. ; Fnless other+ise provided herein these Rules shall appl- +henever an electronic data message as defined in Rule ( hereof is offered or used in evidence# SEC# (# Cases covered. ; $hese Rules shall appl- to all civil actions and proceedings as +ell as 7uasi;4udicial and administrative cases# SEC# .# Application of the other rules on evidence # ; /n all matters not specificall- covered b- these Rules the Rules of Court and pertinent provisions of statues containing rules on evidence shall appl-# R$%E ' DE' N T ON O' TERMS AND CONSTRUCT ON SEC$/!N &# Definition of Terms. ; 0or purposes of these Rules the follo+ing terms are defined as follo+s1 8a9 Asymmetric or public cryptosystem means a s-stem capable of generating a secure %e- pair consisting of a private %e- for creating a digital signature and a public %e- for verif-ing the digital signature# 8b9 Business records include records of an- business institution association profession occupation and calling of ever- %ind +hether or not conducted for profit or for legitimate purposes# 8c9 Certificate means an electronic document issued to support a digital signature +hich purports to confirm the identit- or other significant characteristics of the person +ho holds a particular %e- pair# 8d9 Computer refers to an- single or interconnected device or apparatus +hich b- electronic electro; mechanical or magnetic impulse or b- other means +ith the same function can receive record transmit store process correlate anal-<e pro4ect retrieve andGor produce information data te6t graphics figures voice video s-mbols or other modes of e6pression or perform an- one or more of these functions# 8e9 Digital Signature refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an as-mmetric or public cr-ptos-stem such that a person

having the initial untransformed electronic document and the signers public %e- can accuratel- determine1 8i9 +hether the transformation +as created using the private %e- that corresponds to the signers public %e-5 and 8ii9 +hether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation +as made# 8f9 Digitally signed refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a digital signature verified b- the public %e- listed in a certificate# 8g9 Electronic data message refers to information generated sent received or stored b- electronic optical or similar means# 8h9 Electronic document refers to information or the representation of information data figures s-mbols or other modes of +ritten e6pression described or ho+ever represented b- +hich a right is established or an obligation e6tinguished or b- +hich a fact ma- be proved and affirmed +hich is received recorded transmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronicall-# /t includes digitall- signed documents and an- print;out or output readable b- sight or other means +hich accuratel- reflects the electronic data message or electronic document# 0or purposes of these Rules the term 2electronic document3 ma- be used interchangeabl- +ith electronic data message3# 8i9 Electronic ey refers to a secret code +hich secures and defends sensitive information that crosses over public channels into a form decipherable onl- +ith a matching electronic %e-# 849 Electronic signature! refers to an- distinctive mar% characteristics andGor sound in electronic form# Representing the identit- of a person and attached to or logicall- associated +ith the electronic data message or electronic document or an- methodolog- or procedure emplo-ed or adopted b- a person and e6ecuted or adopted b- such person +ith the intention of authenticating signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document# 0or purposes of these Rules an electronic signature includes digital signatures# 8%9 Ephemeral electronic communication refers to telephone conversations te6t messages chatroom sessions streaming audio streaming video and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of +hich is not recorded or retained# 8l9 "nformation and Communication System refers to a s-stem for generating sending receiving storing or other+ise processing electronic data messages or electronic documents and includes the computer s-stem or other similar devices b- or in +hich data are recorded or stored and an- procedure related to the recording or storage of electronic data message or electronic document# 8m9 #ey $air in an as-mmetric cr-ptos-stem refers to the private %e- and its mathematicall- related public %e- such that the latter can verif- the digital signature that the former creates# 8n9 $rivate #ey refers to the %e- of a %e- pair used to create a digital signature# 8o9 $ublic #ey refers to the %e- of a %e- pair used to verif- a digital signature# SEC# (# Construction# , $hese Rules shall be liberall- construed to assist the parties in obtaining a 4ust e6peditious and ine6pensive determination of cases# $he /nterpretation of these Rules shall also ta%e into consideration the international origin of Republic Act No# B*=( other+ise %no+n as the Electronic Commerce Act# R$%E ( ELECTRON C DOCUMENTS SEC$/!N &# Electronic documents as functional e%uivalent of paper&based documents. , @henever a rule of evidence refers to the term of +riting document record instrument memorandum or an- other form of +riting such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these Rules# SEC# (# Admissibility# , An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies +ith the rules on admissibilitprescribed b- the Rules of Court and related la+s and is authenticated in the manner prescribed b- these Rules# SEC# .# $rivileged communication. , $he confidential character of a privileged communications is not solel- on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document# R$%E ) (EST EV DENCE RULE SEC$/!N &# 'riginal of an electronic document. , An electronic document shall be regarded as the e7uivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable b- sight or other means sho+n to reflect the data accuratel-# SEC# (# Copies as e%uivalent of the originals # , @hen a document is in t+o or more copies e6ecuted at or about the same time +ith identical contents or is a counterpart produced b- the same impression as the original or from the same matri6

or b- mechanical or electronic re;recording or b- chemical reproduction or b- other e7uivalent techni7ues +hich is accuratel- reproduces the original such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the e7uivalent of the original# Not+ithstanding the foregoing copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same e6tent as the original if1 8a9 a genuine 7uestion is raised as to the authenticit- of the original5 or 8b9 in the circumstances it +ould be un4ust or ine7uitable to admit a cop- in lieu of the original# R$%E * AUT)ENT CAT ON O' ELECTRON C DOCUMENTS

8f9 !ther factors +hich the court ma- consider as affecting the accurac- or integrit- of the electronic document or electronic data message# SEC# (# "ntegrity of an information and communication system. , /n an- dispute involving the integrit- of the information and communication s-stem in +hich an electronic document or electronic data message is recorded or stored the court ma- consider among others the follo+ing factors1 8a9 @hether the information and communication s-stem or other similar device +as operated in a manner that did not affect the integrit- of the electronic document and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrit- of the information and communication s-stem5 SEC$/!N &# Burden of proving authenticity # , $he person see%ing to introduce an electronic document in an- legal 8b9 @hether the electronic document +as recorded or stored b- a part- to the proceedings +ith interest proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticit- in the manner provided in this Rule# adverse to that of the part- using it5 or SEC# (# (anner of authentication. , Before an- private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence 8c9 @hether the electronic document +as recorded or stored in the usual and ordinar- course of business b- a its authenticit- must be proved b- an- of the follo+ing means1 person +ho is not a part- tot he proceedings and +ho did not act under the control of the part- using it# 8a9 b- evidence that it had been digitall- signed b- the person purported to have signed the same5 R$%E 8b9 b- evidence that other appropriate securit- procedures or devices as ma- be authori<ed b- the Supreme (US NESS RECORDS AS E,CEPT ON TO T)E )EARSA* RULE Court or b- la+ for authentication of electronic documents +ere applied to the document5 or SEC$/!N &# "napplicability of the hearsay rule. , A memorandum report record or data compilation of acts events 8c9 b- other evidence sho+ing its integrit- and reliabilit- to the satisfaction of the 4udge# conditions opinions or diagnoses made b- electronic optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from SEC# .# $roof of electronically notari)ed document. ; A document electronicall- notari<ed in accordance +ith the rules transmission or suppl- of information b- a person +ith %no+ledge thereof and %ept in the regular course or conduct of a promulgated b- the Supreme Court shall be considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document under business activit- and such +as the regular practice ot ma%e the memorandum report record or data compilation bthe Rules of Court# electronic optical or similar means all of +hich are sho+n b- the testimon- of the custodian or other 7ualified +itnesses is e6cepted from the rule or hearsa- evidence# R$%E + SEC# (# 'vercoming the presumption# , $he presumption provided for in Section & of this Rule ma- be overcome bELECTRON C S &NATURES evidence of the untrust+orthiness of the source of information or the method or circumstances of the preparation transmission or storage thereof# SEC$/!N &# Electronic signature. , An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticate din the manner prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as the functional e7uivalent of the signature of a person on a +ritten document# R$%E . SEC# (# Authentication of electronic signatures. , An electronic signature ma- be authenticate in an- of the follo+ing MET)OD O' PROO' manner1 SEC$/!N &# Affidavit of evidence. , All matters relating to the admissibilit- and evidentiar- +eight of an electronic 8a9 B- evidence that a method or process +as utili<ed to establish a digital signature and verit- the same5 document ma- be established b- an affidavit stating facts of direct personal %no+ledge of the affiant or based on authentic 8b9 B- an- other means provided b- la+5 or records# $he affidavit must affirmativel- sho+ the competence of the affiant to testif- on the matters contained therein# 8c9 B- an- other means satisfactor- to the 4udge as establishing the genuineness of the electronic signature# SEC# (# Cross&e,amination of deponent. , $he affiant shall be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit in open court SEC# .# Disputable presumptions relation to electronic signature # , Fpon the authentication of an electronic signature it and mabe cross;e6amined as a matter of right bthe adverse part-# shall be presumed that1 8a9 $he electronic signature is that of the person to +hom it correlates5 R$%E &/ 8b9 $he electronic signature +as affi6ed b- that person +ith the intention of authenticating or approving the E,AM NAT ON O' + TNESSES electronic document to +hich it is related or to indicate such persons consent to the transaction embodied SEC$/!N &# Electronic testimony. , After summaril- hearing the parties pursuant to Rule = of these Rules the court matherein5 and authori<e the presentation of testimonial evidence b- electronic means# Before so authori<ing the court shall determine 8c9 $he methods or processes utili<ed to affi6 or verit- the electronic signature operated +ithout error or fault# the necessit- for such presentation and prescribe terms and conditions as ma- be necessar- under the circumstance SEC# :# Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures # , Fpon the authentication of a digital signature it shall be including the protection of the rights of the parties and +itnesses concerned# presumed in addition to those mentioned in the immediatel- preceding section that1 SEC# (# Transcript of electronic testimony. , @hen e6amination of a +itness is done electronicall- the entire proceedings 8a9 $he information contained in a certificate is correct5 including the 7uestions and ans+ers shall be transcribed b- a stenographer stenot-pes or other recorder authori<ed for 8b9 $he digital signature +as created during the operational period of a certificate5 the purpose +ho shall certif- as correct the transcript done b- him# $he transcript should reflect the fact that the 8c9 $he message associated +ith a digital signature has not been altered from the time it +as signed5 and proceedings either in +hole or in part had been electronicall- recorded# 8d9 A certificate had been issued b- the certification authorit- indicated therein SEC# .# Storage of electronic evidence. , $he electronic evidence and recording thereof as +ell as the stenographic notes R$%E , shall form part of the record of the case# Such transcript and recording shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such EV DENT AR* +E &)T O' ELECTRON C DOCUMENTS proceedings# SEC$/!N &# *actors for assessing evidentiary +eight. ; /n assessing the evidentiar- +eight of an electronic document the follo+ing factors ma- be considered1 R$%E && 8a9 $he reliabilit- of the manner or method in +hich it +as generated stored or communicated including but AUD O- P)OTO&RAP) C. V DEO AND EP)EMERAL EV DENCE not limited to input and output procedures controls tests and chec%s for accurac- and reliabilit- of the SEC$/!N &# Audio- video and similar evidence. , Audio photographic and video evidence of events acts or transactions electronic data message or document in the light of all the circumstances as +ell as an- relevant agreement5 shall be admissible provided is shall be sho+n presented or displa-ed to the court and shall be identified e6plained or 8b9 $he reliabilit- of the manner in +hich its originator +as identified5 authenticated b- the person +ho made the recording or b- some other person competent to testif- on the accurac8c9 $he integrit- of the information and communication s-stem in +hich it is recorded or stored including but thereof# not limited to the hard+are and computer programs or soft+are used as +ell as programming errors5 SEC# (# Ephemeral electronic communication. , Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven b- the testimon8d9 $he familiarit- of the +itness or the person +ho made the entr- +ith the communication and information of a person +ho +as a part- to the same or has personal %no+ledge thereof# /n the absence or unavailabilit- of such s-stem5 +itnesses other competent evidence ma- be admitted# 8e9 $he nature and 7ualit- of the information +hich +ent into the communication and information s-stem upon A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall be covered b- the immediatel+hich the electronic data message or electronic document +as based5 or preceding section#

/f the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic document then the provisions of Rule ' shall discount on the price of the stainless steel ordered# $his +as intimated in Ssang-ongJs Cune .) ())) letter to MCC#(B !n appl-# Cul- A ())) another follo+;up letter(= for the opening of the ?GC +as sent b- Ssang-ong to MCC# Lo+ever despite Ssang-ongJs letters MCC failed to open a letter of credit# .) Conse7uentl- on August &' ())) R$%E &' Ssang-ong through counsel +rote San-o Sei%i that if the ?GCJs +ere not opened Ssang-ong +ould be compelled to E''ECT V T* cancel the contract and hold MCC liable for damages for breach thereof amounting to FSK=A &.(#&B inclusive of +arehouse e6penses related interests and charges# .& SEC$/!N &# Applicability to pending case. , $hese Rules shall appl- to cases pending after their effectivit-# ?ater $ro *orma /nvoice Nos# S$(;P!S$S)B);&.( and S$(;P!S$S)B);(.. dated August &A ())) +ere issued bSEC# (# Effectivity. , $hese Rules shall ta%e effect on the first da- of August ())& follo+ing their publication before the Ssang-ong and sent via fa6 to MCC# $he invoices slightl- varied the terms of the earlier pro forma invoices 8ST2()th da- of Cul- ())& in t+o ne+spapers of general circulation in the Philippines# POSTSO"01 ST2-POSTS0"01-1 and ST2-POSTS0"01-29 in that the 7uantit- +as no+ officiall- 100MT per invoice and the price +as reduced to US21-700.00 per M$# As can be gleaned from the photocopies of the said August &A ())) &.R. No. 1706!! October 17- 2007 invoices submitted to the court the- both bear the conformit- signature of MCC Manager Chan# MCC NDUSTR AL SALES CORPORAT ON- petitioner !n August &* ())) MCC finall- opened an ?GC +ith PC/Ban% for FSK&*) )))#)) covering pa-ment for &))M$ of vs# stainless steel coil under $ro *orma /nvoice No# ST2-POSTS0#0-2#.: $he goods covered b- the said invoice +ere then SSAN&*ON& CORPORAT ON- respondents# shipped to and received b- MCC#.' DEC S ON MCC then fa6ed to Ssang-ong a letter dated August (( ())) signed b- Chan re7uesting for a price ad4ustment of the NAC)URA- 0.% order stated in $ro *orma /nvoice No# S$(;P!S$S)B);& considering that the prevailing price of steel at that time +as & Before the Court is a petition for revie+ on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA;H#R# C" No# B(=B. and FSK& '))#))GM$ and that MCC lost a lot of mone- due to a recent stri%e#.A its Resolution( den-ing the motion for reconsideration thereof# Ssang-ong re4ected the re7uest and on August (. ())) sent a demand letter .* to Chan for the opening of the second Petitioner MCC /ndustrial Sales 8MCC9 a domestic corporation +ith office at Binondo Manila is engaged in the business and last ?GC of FSK&*) )))#)) +ith a +arning that if the said ?GC +as not opened b- MCC on August (A ())) of importing and +holesaling stainless steel products# . !ne of its suppliers is the Ssang-ong Corporation 8Ssang-ong9 : an Ssang-ong +ould be constrained to cancel the contract and hold MCC liable for FSKA: )AA#== 8representing cost international trading compan-' +ith head office in Seoul South Iorea and regional head7uarters in Ma%ati Citdifference +arehousing e6penses interests and charges as of August &' ()))9 and other damages for breach# Chan Philippines#A $he t+o corporations conducted business through telephone calls and facsimile or telecop- transmissions# * failed to repl-# Ssang-ong +ould send the pro forma invoices containing the details of the steel product order to MCC5 if the latter E6asperated Ssang-ong through counsel +rote a letter to MCC on September && ())) canceling the sales contract B conforms thereto its representative affi6es his signature on the fa6ed cop- and sends it bac% to Ssang-ong again b- fa6# under ST2-POSTS0"01-1 GST2-POSTS0"01-2 and demanding pa-ment of FSK=* .&*#.* representing losses !n April &. ())) Ssang-ong Manila !ffice sent b- fa6 a letter = addressed to Hregor- Chan MCC Manager Dalso the +arehousing e6penses interests and charges# .B President&) of San-o Sei%i Stainless Steel CorporationE to confirm MCCJs and San-o Sei%iJs order of 220 .etr/c to01 Ssang-ong then filed on November &A ())& a civil action for damages due to breach of contract against defendants 8M$9 of hot rolled stainless steel under a preferential rate of US21-#60.00 per M$# Chan on behalf of the corporations MCC San-o Sei%i and Hregor- Chan before the Regional $rial Court of Ma%ati Cit-# /n its complaint .= Ssang-ong alleged && assented and affi6ed his signature on the conforme portion of the letter# that defendants breached their contract +hen the- refused to open the ?GC in the amount of FSK&*) )))#)) for the !n April &* ())) Ssang-ong for+arded to MCC $ro *orma /nvoice No# ST2-POSTSO"01&( containing the terms and remaining &))M$ of steel under $ro *orma /nvoice Nos# ST2-POSTS0"01-1 and ST2-POSTS0"01-2# &. conditions of the transaction# MCC sent bac% b- fa6 to Ssang-ong the invoice bearing the conformit- signature of Chan# After Ssang-ong rested its case defendants filed a Demurrer to Evidence:) alleging that Ssang-ong failed to present the As stated in the pro forma invoice pa-ment for the ordered steel products +ould be made through an irrevocable letter of original copies of the pro forma invoices on +hich the civil action +as based# /n an !rder dated April (: ()). the court credit 8?GC9 at sight in favor of Ssang-ong#&: 0ollo+ing their usual practice deliver- of the goods +as to be made after the denied the demurrer ruling that the documentar- evidence presented had alread- been admitted in the December &A ?GC had been opened# ())( !rder:& and their admissibilit- finds support in Republic Act 8R#A#9 No# B*=( other+ise %no+n as the Electronic /n the meantime because of its confirmed transaction +ith MCC Ssang-ong placed the order +ith its steel manufacturer Commerce Act of ()))# Considering that both testimonial and documentar- evidence tended to substantiate the material Pohang /ron and Steel Corporation 8P!SC!9 in South Iorea&' and paid the same in full# allegations in the complaint Ssang-ongJs evidence sufficed for purposes of a prima facie case# :( Because MCC could open onl- a partial letter of credit the order for (()M$ of steel +as split into t+o &A one for 110MT After trial on the merits the R$C rendered its Decision:. on March (: ()): in favor of Ssang-ong# $he trial court ruled covered b- $ro *orma /nvoice No# ST2-POSTS0"01-1&* and another for &&)M$ covered b- ST2-POSTS0"01-2 &B both that +hen plaintiff agreed to sell and defendants agreed to bu- the (()M$ of steel products for the price of FSK& BA) per dated April &* ()))# M$ the contract +as perfected# $he sub4ect transaction +as evidenced b- $ro *orma /nvoice Nos# ST2-POSTS0"01- & !n Cune () ())) Ssang-ong through its Manila !ffice informed San-o Sei%i and Chan b- +a- of a fa6 transmittal that and ST2-POSTS0"01-2 +hich +ere later amended onl- in terms of reduction of volume as +ell as the price per M$ it +as read- to ship &=.#'=*M$ of stainless steel from Iorea to the Philippines# /t re7uested that the opening of the ?GC be follo+ing $ro *orma /nvoice Nos# ST2-POSTS0#0-1 and ST2-POSTS0#0-2# $he R$C ho+ever e6cluded San-o Sei%i facilitated#&= Chan affi6ed his signature on the fa6 transmittal and returned the same b- fa6 to Ssang-ong# () from liabilit- for lac% of competent evidence# $he fallo of the decision reads1 $+o da-s later on Cune (( ())) Ssang-ong Manila !ffice informed San-o Sei%i thru Chan that it +as able to secure a @LERE0!RE premises considered Cudgment is hereb- rendered ordering defendants MCC /ndustrial Sales FSK.)GM$ price ad4ustment on the contracted price of FSK& BA)#))GM$ for the ())M$ stainless steel and that the goods Corporation and Hregor- Chan to pa- plaintiff 4ointl- and severall- the follo+ing1 +ere to be shipped in t+o tranches the first &))M$ on that da- and the second &))M$ not later than Cune (* ()))# &9 Actual damages of FSK=. :=.#B* representing the outstanding principal claim plus interest at the rate of Ssang-ong reiterated its re7uest for the facilitation of the ?GCJs opening# (& A> per annum from March .) ())&# Ssang-ong later through its Manila !ffice sent a letter on Cune (A ())) to the $reasur- Hroup of San-o Sei%i that it (9 Attorne-Js fees in the sum of P') )))#)) plus P( )))#)) per counselJs appearance in court the same being (( +as loo%ing for+ard to receiving the ?GC details and a cable cop- thereof that da-# Ssang-ong sent a separate letter of deemed 4ust and e7uitable considering that b- reason of defendantsJ breach of their obligation under the the same date to San-o Sei%i re7uesting for the opening of the ?GC covering pa-ment of the first &))M$ not later than sub4ect contract plaintiff +as constrained to litigate to enforce its rights and recover for the damages it Cune (B ()))#(. Similar letters +ere transmitted b- Ssang-ong Manila !ffice on Cune (* ()))# (: !n Cune (B ())) sustained and therefore had to engage the services of a la+-er# (' Ssang-ong sent another facsimile letter to MCC stating that its principal in Iorea +as alread- in a difficult situation .9 Costs of suit# because of the failure of San-o Sei%i and MCC to open the ?GCJs# No a+ard of e6emplar- damages for lac% of sufficient basis# $he follo+ing da- Cune (= ())) Ssang-ong received b- fa6 a letter signed b- Chan re7uesting an e6tension of time to S! !RDERED#:: open the ?GC because MCCJs credit line +ith the ban% had been full- availed of in connection +ith another transaction and !n April (( ()): MCC and Chan through their counsel of record Att-# Eladio B# Samson filed their Notice of Appeal# :' MCC +as +aiting for an additional credit line#(A !n the same date Ssang-ong replied re7uesting that it be informed of the !n Cune B ()): the la+ office of Castillo Mamora N Poblador entered its appearance as their collaborating counsel# date +hen the ?GC +ould be opened preferabl- at the earliest possible time since its Steel $eam ( in Iorea +as having /n their Appeal Brief filed on March = ())' :A MCC and Chan raised before the CA the follo+ing errors of the R$C1 problems and Ssang-ong +as incurring +arehousing costs#(* $o maintain their good business relationship and to support /# $LE L!N!RAB?E C!FR$ A ./' P?A/N?O ERRED /N 0/ND/NH $LA$ APPE??AN$S "/!?A$ED $LE/R MCC in its financial predicament Ssang-ong offered to negotiate +ith its steel manufacturer P!SC! another FSK()GM$ C!N$RAC$ @/$L APPE??EE

A# $LE L!N!RAB?E C!FR$ A ./' P?A/N?O ERRED /N 0/ND/NH $LA$ APPE??AN$S AHREED $! PFRCLASE ()) ME$R/C $!NS !0 S$EE? PR!DFC$S 0R!M APPE??EE /NS$EAD !0 !N?O &)) ME$R/C $!NS# &# $LE L!N!RAB?E C!FR$ A ./' P?A/N?O ERRED /N ADM/$$/NH /N E"/DENCE $LE $0' *'0(A /N"!/CES @/$L RE0ERENCE N!S# S$(; P!S$S):)&;& AND S$(;P!S$S):)&;(# //# $LE L!N!RAB?E C!FR$ A ./' P?A/N?O ERRED /N A@ARD/NH AC$FA? DAMAHES $! APPE??EE# ///# $LE L!N!RAB?E C!FR$ A ./' P?A/N?O ERRED /N A@ARD/NH A$$!RNEOJS 0EES $! APPE??EE# /"# $LE L!N!RAB?E C!FR$ A ./' P?A/N?O ERRED /N 0/ND/NH APPE??AN$ HREH!RO CLAN C!/N$?O AND SE"ERA??O ?/AB?E @/$L APPE??AN$ MCC# :* !n August .& ())' the CA rendered its Decision:B affirming the ruling of the trial court but absolving Chan of an- liabilit-# $he appellate court ruled among others that Pro 0orma /nvoice Nos# ST2-POSTS0"01-1 and ST2-POSTS0"01-2 8E6hibits PEP PE;&P and P0P9 +ere admissible in evidence although the- +ere mere facsimile printouts of MCCJs steel orders#:= $he dispositive portion of the appellate courtJs decision reads1 @LERE0!RE premises considered the Court holds1 8&9 $he a+ard of actual damages +ith interest attorne-Js fees and costs ordered b- the lo+er court is herebA00/RMED# 8(9 Appellant Hregor- Chan is hereb- ABS!?"ED from an- liabilit-# S! !RDERED#') A cop- of the said Decision +as received b- MCCJs and ChanJs principal counsel Att-# Eladio B# Samson on September &: ())'#'& $heir collaborating counsel Castillo Mamora N Poblador '( li%e+ise received a cop- of the CA decision on September &= ())'#'. !n October "- 2005 Castillo Mamora N Poblador on behalf of MCC filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision#': Ssang-ong opposed the motion contending that the decision of the CA had become final and e6ecutor- on account of the failure of MCC to file the said motion +ithin the reglementar- period# $he appellate court resolved on November (( ())' to den- the motion on its merits '' +ithout ho+ever ruling on the procedural issue raised# Aggrieved MCC filed a petition for revie+ on certiorari'A before this Court imputing the follo+ing errors to the Court of Appeals1 $LE C!FR$ !0 APPEA?S DEC/DED A ?EHA? QFES$/!N N!$ /N ACC!RDANCE @/$L CFR/SPRFDENCE AND SANC$/!NED A DEPAR$FRE 0R!M $LE FSFA? AND ACCEP$ED C!FRSE !0 CFD/C/A? PR!CEED/NHS BO RE"ERS/NH $LE C'/0T A ./'1S D/SM/SSA? !0 $LE C!MP?A/N$ /N C/"/? CASE N!# )(;&(: C!NS/DER/NH $LA$1 /# $LE C!FR$ !0 APPEA?S ERRED /N SFS$A/N/NH $LE ADM/SS/B/?/$O /N E"/DENCE !0 $LE PR!;0!RMA /N"!/CES @/$L RE0ERENCE N!S# S$(;P!S$S!:)&;& AND S$(; P!S$S!:)&;( DESP/$E $LE 0AC$ $LA$ $LE SAME @ERE MERE PL!$!C!P/ES !0 0ACS/M/?E PR/N$!F$S# //# $LE C!FR$ !0 APPEA?S 0A/?ED $! APPREC/A$E $LE !B"/!FS 0AC$ $LA$ E"EN ASSFM/NH PE$/$/!NER BREACLED $LE SFPP!SED C!N$RAC$ $LE 0AC$ /S $LA$ PE$/$/!NER 0A/?ED $! PR!"E $LA$ /$ SF00ERED ANO DAMAHES AND $LE AM!FN$ $LERE!0# ///# $LE A@ARD !0 AC$FA? DAMAHES /N $LE AM!FN$ !0 FSK=. :=.#B* /S S/MP?O FNC!NSC/!NAB?E AND SL!F?D LA"E BEEN A$ ?EAS$ REDFCED /0 N!$ DE?E$ED BO $LE C!FR$ !0 APPEA?S#'* /n its Comment Ssang-ong sought the dismissal of the petition raising the follo+ing arguments1 that the CA decision dated &' August ())' is alread- final and e6ecutor- because MCCJs motion for reconsideration +as filed be-ond the reglementar- period of &' da-s from receipt of a cop- thereof and that in an- case it +as a pro forma motion5 that MCC breached the contract for the purchase of the steel products +hen it failed to open the re7uired letter of credit5 that the printout copies andGor photocopies of facsimile or telecop- transmissions +ere properl- admitted b- the trial court because the- are considered original documents under R#A# No# B*=(5 and that MCC is liable for actual damages and attorne-Js fees because of its breach thus compelling Ssang-ong to litigate# $he principal issues that this Court is called upon to resolve are the follo+ing1 / , @hether the CA decision dated &' August ())' is alread- final and e6ecutor-5 // , @hether the print;out andGor photocopies of facsimile transmissions are electronic evidence and admissible as such5 /// , @hether there +as a perfected contract of sale bet+een MCC and Ssang-ong and if in the affirmative +hether MCC breached the said contract5 and /" , @hether the a+ard of actual damages and attorne-Js fees in favor of Ssang-ong is proper and 4ustified#

;/; /t cannot be gainsaid that in Albano v. Court of Appeals 'B +e held that receipt of a cop- of the decision b- one of several counsels on record is notice to all and the period to appeal commences on such date even if the other counsel has not -et received a cop- of the decision# /n this case +hen Att-# Samson received a cop- of the CA decision on September &: ())' MCC had onl- fifteen 8&'9 da-s +ithin +hich to file a motion for reconsideration conformabl- +ith Section & Rule '( of the Rules of Court or to file a petition for revie+ on certiorari in accordance +ith Section ( Rule :'# $he period should not be rec%oned from September (= ())' 8+hen Castillo Mamora N Poblador received their cop- of the decision9 because notice to Att-# Samson is deemed notice to collaborating counsel# @e note ho+ever from the records of the CA that it +as Castillo Mamora N Poblador not Att-# Samson +hich filed both MCCJs and ChanJs Brief and Repl- Brief# Apparentl- the arrangement bet+een the t+o counsels +as for the collaborating not the principal counsel to file the appeal brief and subse7uent pleadings in the CA# $his e6plains +h- it +as Castillo Mamora N Poblador +hich filed the motion for the reconsideration of the CA decision and the- did so on !ctober ' ())' +ell +ithin the &';da- period from September (= ())' +hen the- received their cop- of the CA decision# $his could also be the reason +h- the CA did not find it necessar- to resolve the 7uestion of the timeliness of petitionerJs motion for reconsideration even as the CA denied the same# /ndependent of this consideration though this Court assiduousl- revie+ed the records and found that strong concerns of substantial 4ustice +arrant the rela6ation of this rule# /n $hilippine $orts Authority v. Sargasso Construction and Development Corporation '= +e ruled that1 /n 'rata v. "ntermediate Appellate Court +e held that +here strong considerations of substantive 4ustice are manifest in the petition this Court ma- rela6 the strict application of the rules of procedure in the e6ercise of its legal 4urisdiction# /n addition to the basic merits of the main case such a petition usuall- embodies 4ustif-ing circumstance +hich +arrants our heeding to the petitionerJs cr- for 4ustice in spite of the earlier negligence of counsel# As +e held in 'but v. Court of Appeals1 D@Ee cannot loo% +ith favor on a course of action +hich +ould place the administration of 4ustice in a straight 4ac%et for then the result +ould be a poor %ind of 4ustice if there +ould be 4ustice at all# "eril- 4udicial orders such as the one sub4ect of this petition are issued to be obe-ed nonetheless a non;compliance is to be dealt +ith as the circumstances attending the case ma+arrant# @hat should guide 4udicial action is the principle that a part-;litigant is to be given the fullest opportunit- to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life libert- honor or propert- on technicalities# $he rules of procedure are used onl- to secure and not override or frustrate 4ustice# A si6;da- dela- in the perfection of the appeal as in this case does not +arrant the outright dismissal of the appeal# /n Development Ban of the $hilippines vs. Court of Appeals +e gave due course to the petitionerJs appeal despite the late filing of its brief in the appellate court because such appeal involved public interest# @e stated in the said case that the Court ma- e6empt a particular case from a strict application of the rules of procedure +here the appellant failed to perfect its appeal +ithin the reglementar- period resulting in the appellate courtJs failure to obtain 4urisdiction over the case# /n 0epublic vs. "mperial- 2r# +e also held that there is more lee+a- to e6empt a case from the strictness of procedural rules +hen the appellate court has alread- obtained 4urisdiction over the appealed case# @e emphasi<e that1 D$Ehe rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of 4ustice rather than frustrate it# A strict and rigid application of the rules must al+a-s be esche+ed +hen it +ould subvert the ruleJs primar- ob4ective of enhancing fair trials and e6pediting 4ustice# $echnicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other part-# Ever- part-;litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunit- for the proper and 4ust determination of his cause free from the constraints of technicalities#A) Moreover it should be remembered that the Rules +ere promulgated to set guidelines in the orderl- administration of 4ustice not to shac%le the hand that dispenses it# !ther+ise the courts +ould be consigned to being mere slaves to technical rules deprived of their 4udicial discretion# $echnicalities must ta%e a bac%seat to substantive rights# After all it is circumspect lenienc- in this respect that +ill give the parties the fullest opportunit- to ventilate the merits of their respective causes rather than have them lose life libert- honor or propert- on sheer technicalities# A& $he other technical issue posed b- respondent is the alleged pro forma nature of MCCJs motion for reconsideration ostensibl- because it merel- restated the arguments previousl- raised and passed upon b- the CA# /n this connection suffice it to sa- that the mere restatement of arguments in a motion for reconsideration does not per se result in a pro forma motion# /n Security Ban and Trust Company- "nc. v. Cuenca A( +e held that a motion for reconsideration ma- not be necessaril- pro forma even if it reiterates the arguments earlier passed upon and re4ected bthe appellate court# A movant ma- raise the same arguments precisel- to convince the court that its ruling +as erroneous# 0urthermore the pro forma rule +ill not appl- if the arguments +ere not sufficientl- passed upon and ans+ered in the decision sought to be reconsidered#

; // ; $he second issue poses a novel 7uestion that the Court +elcomes# /t provides the occasion for this Court to pronounce a definitive interpretation of the e7uall- innovative provisions of the Electronic Commerce Act of ())) 8R#A# No# B*=(9 vis&3& vis the Rules on Electronic Evidence# Although the parties did not raise the 7uestion +hether the original facsimile transmissions are Pelectronic data messagesP or Pelectronic documentsP +ithin the conte6t of the Electronic Commerce Act 8the petitioner merel- assails as inadmissible evidence the photocopies of the said facsimile transmissions9 +e deem it appropriate to determine first +hether the said fa6 transmissions are indeed +ithin the coverage of R#A# No# B*=( before ruling on +hether the photocopies thereof are covered b- the la+# /n an- case this Court has ample authorit- to go be-ond the pleadings +hen in the interest of 4ustice or for the promotion of public polic- there is a need to ma%e its o+n findings in order to support its conclusions# A. Petitioner contends that the photocopies of the pro forma invoices presented b- respondent Ssang-ong to prove the perfection of their supposed contract of sale are inadmissible in evidence and do not fall +ithin the ambit of R#A# No# B*=( because the la+ merel- admits as the best evidence the original fa6 transmittal# !n the other hand respondent posits that from a reading of the la+ and the Rules on Electronic Evidence the original facsimile transmittal of the pro forma invoice is admissible in evidence since it is an electronic document and therefore the best evidence under the la+ and the Rules# Respondent further claims that the photocopies of these fa6 transmittals 8specificall- ST2-POSTS0"01-1 and ST2POSTS0"01-29 are admissible under the Rules on Evidence because the respondent sufficientl- e6plained the non; production of the original fa6 transmittals# /n resolving this issue the appellate court ruled as follo+s1 Admissibility of $ro *orma "nvoices4 Breach of Contract by Appellants $urning first to the appellantsJ argument against the admissibilit- of the Pro 0orma /nvoices +ith Reference Nos# S$(;P!S$S):)&;& and S$(;P!S$S):)&;( 8E6hibits PEP PE;&P and P0P pp# (&';(&B Records9 appellants argue that the said documents are inadmissible 8sic9 being violative of the best evidence rule# $he argument is untenable# $he copies of the said pro;forma invoices submitted b- the appellee are admissible in evidence although theare mere electronic facsimile printouts of appellantJs orders# Such facsimile printouts are considered Electronic Documents under the Ne+ Rules on Electronic Evidence +hich came into effect on August & ())&# 8Rule ( Section & DhE A#M# No# )&;*;)&;SC9# P8h9 JElectronic documentJ refers to information or the representation of information data figures s-mbols or other modes of +ritten e6pression described or ho+ever represented b- +hich a right is established or an obligation e6tinguished or b- +hich a fact ma- be proved and affirmed +hich is received recorded transmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronicall-# /t includes digitall- signed documents and an- printout or output readable b- sight or other means +hich accuratel- reflects the electronic data message or electronic document# 0or purposes of these Rules the term Jelectronic documentJ ma- be used interchangeabl- +ith Jelectronic data messageJ# An electronic document shall be regarded as the e7uivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule as long as it is a printout or output readable b- sight or other means sho+ing to reflect the data accuratel-# 8Rule : Section & A#M# No# )&;*;)&;SC9 $he ruling of the Appellate Court is incorrect# R#A# No# B*=( A: other+ise %no+n as the Electronic Commerce Act of ())) considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional e7uivalent of a +ritten document for evidentiar- purposes#A' $he Rules on Electronic EvidenceAA regards an electronic document as admissible in evidence if it complies +ith the rules on admissibilit- prescribed b- the Rules of Court and related la+s and is authenticated in the manner prescribed b- the said Rules#A* An electronic document is also the e7uivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable b- sight or other means sho+n to reflect the data accuratel-# AB $hus to be admissible in evidence as an electronic data message or to be considered as the functional e7uivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule the +riting must foremost be an !electronic data message! or an !electronic document.! $he Electronic Commerce Act of ())) defines electronic data message and electronic document as follo+s1 Sec# '# Definition of Terms# 0or the purposes of this Act the follo+ing terms are defined as follo+s1 666 c# PElectronic Data MessageP refers to information generated sent received or stored b- electronic optical or similar means# 666 f# PElectronic DocumentP refers to information or the representation of information data figures s-mbols or other modes of +ritten e6pression described or ho+ever represented b- +hich a right is established or an

obligation e6tinguished or b- +hich a fact ma- be proved and affirmed +hich is received recorded transmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronicall-# $he /mplementing Rules and Regulations 8/RR9 of R#A# No# B*=( A= +hich +as signed on Cul- &. ())) b- the then Secretaries of the Department of $rade and /ndustr- the Department of Budget and Management and then Hovernor of the Bang o Sentral ng $ilipinas defines the terms as1 Sec# A# Definition of Terms# 0or the purposes of this Act and these Rules the follo+ing terms are defined as follo+s1 666 8e9 PElectronic Data MessageP refers to information generated sent received or stored b- electronic optical or similar means but not limited to- electronic data interchange 5ED"6- electronic mail- telegram- tele, or telecopy. Throughout these 0ules- the term !electronic data message! shall be e%uivalent to and be used interchangeably +ith !electronic document.! 6666 8h9 PElectronic DocumentP refers to information or the representation of information data figures s-mbols or other modes of +ritten e6pression described or ho+ever represented b- +hich a right is established or an obligation e6tinguished or b- +hich a fact ma- be proved and affirmed +hich is received recorded transmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronicall-# Throughout these 0ules- the term !electronic document! shall be e%uivalent to and be used interchangeably +ith !electronic data message #P $he phrase Pbut not limited to- electronic data interchange 5ED"6- electronic mail- telegram- tele, or telecopy P in the /RRJs definition of Pelectronic data messageP is copied from the Model ?a+ on Electronic Commerce adopted b- the Fnited Nations Commission on /nternational $rade ?a+ 8FNC/$RA?9 *) from +hich ma4orit- of the provisions of R#A# No# B*=( +ere ta%en#*& @hile Congress deleted this phrase in the Electronic Commerce Act of ())) the drafters of the /RR reinstated it# $he deletion b- Congress of the said phrase is significant and pivotal as discussed hereunder# $he clause on the interchangeabilit- of the terms Pelectronic data messageP and Pelectronic documentP +as the result of the Senate of the PhilippinesJ adoption in Senate Bill &=)( of the phrase Pelectronic data messageP and the Louse of RepresentativeJs emplo-ment in Louse Bill ==*& of the term Pelectronic document#P *( /n order to e6pedite the reconciliation of the t+o versions the technical +or%ing group of the Bicameral Conference Committee adopted both terms and intended them to be the e7uivalent of each one# *. Be that as it ma- there is a slight difference bet+een the t+o terms# @hile Pdata messageP has reference to information electronically sent- stored or transmitted- it does not necessarily mean that it +ill give rise to a right or e,tinguish an obligation *: unli%e an electronic document# Evident from the la+ ho+ever is the legislative intent to give the t+o terms the same construction# $he Rules on Electronic Evidence promulgated b- this Court defines the said terms in the follo+ing manner1 SEC$/!N &# Definition of Terms# , 0or purposes of these Rules the follo+ing terms are defined as follo+s1 6666 8g9 PElectronic data messageP refers to information generated sent received or stored b- electronic optical or similar means# 8h9 PElectronic documentP refers to information or the representation of information data figures s-mbols or other modes of +ritten e6pression described or ho+ever represented b- +hich a right is established or an obligation e6tinguished or b- +hich a fact ma- be proved and affirmed +hich is received recorded transmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronicall-# "t includes digitally signed documents and print&out or output- readable by sight or other means- +hich accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. *or purposes of these 0ules- the term !electronic document! may be used interchangeably +ith !electronic data message #P Hiven these definitions +e go bac% to the original 7uestion1 /s an original printout of a facsimile transmission an electronic data message or electronic documentR $he definitions under the Electronic Commerce Act of ())) its /RR and the Rules on Electronic Evidence at first glance conve- the impression that facsimile transmissions are electronic data messages or electronic documents because theare sent by electronic means# $he e6panded definition of an Pelectronic data messageP under the /RR consistent +ith the FNC/$RA? Model ?a+ further supports this theor- considering that the enumeration P666 DisE not limited to electronic data interchange 8ED/9 electronic mail telegram tele6 or telecopy#P And to telecop- is to send a document from one place to another via a fa, machine#*' As further guide for the Court in its tas% of statutor- construction Section .* of the Electronic Commerce Act of ())) provides that Fnless other+ise e6pressl- provided for the interpretation of this Act shall give due regard to its international origin and the need to promote uniformit- in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade relations# $he generall- accepted principles of international la+ and convention on electronic commerce shall li%e+ise be considered#

!bviousl- the Pinternational originP mentioned in this section can onl- refer to the FNC/$RA? Model ?a+ and the FNC/$RA?Js definition of Pdata messageP1 PData messageP means information generated sent received or stored b- electronic optical or similar means including- but not limited to- electronic data interchange 5ED"6- electronic mail- telegram- tele, or telecopy #*A is substantiall- the same as the /RRJs characteri<ation of an Pelectronic data message#P Lo+ever Congress deleted the phrase Pbut not limited to- electronic data interchange 5ED"6- electronic mail- telegramtele, or telecopy P and replaced the term Pdata messageP 8as found in the FNC/$RA? Model ?a+ 9 +ith Pelectronic data message#P $his legislative divergence from +hat is assumed as the termJs Pinternational originP has bred uncertaint- and no+ impels the Court to ma%e an in7uir- into the true intent of the framers of the la+# /ndeed in the construction or interpretation of a legislative measure the primar- rule is to search for and determine the intent and spirit of the la+# ** A construction should be re4ected that gives to the language used in a statute a meaning that does not accomplish the purpose for +hich the statute +as enacted and that tends to defeat the ends +hich are sought to be attained b- the enactment#*B /nterestingl- +hen Senator Ramon B# Magsa-sa- Cr# the principal author of Senate Bill &=)( 8the predecessor of R#A# No# B*=(9 sponsored the bill on second reading he proposed to adopt the term Pdata messageP as formulated and defined in the FNC/$RA? Model ?a+#*= During the period of amendments ho+ever the term evolved into Pelectronic data message P and the phrase Pbut not limited to- electronic data interchange 5ED"6- electronic mail- telegram- tele, or telecopyP in the FNC/$RA? Model ?a+ +as deleted# 0urthermore the term Pelectronic data message P though maintaining its description under the FNC/$RA? Model ?a+ e6cept for the aforesaid deleted phrase conveyed a different meaning as revealed in the follo+ing proceedings1 6666 Senator Santiago# Oes Mr# President# / +ill furnish a cop- together +ith the e6planation of this proposed amendment# And then finall- before / leave the 0loor ma- / please be allo+ed to go bac% to Section '5 the Definition of $erms# /n light of the acceptance b- the good Senator of m- proposed amendments it +ill then become necessar- to add certain terms in our list of terms to be defined# / +ould li%e to add a definition on +hat is Pdata P +hat is Pelectronic recordP and +hat is an Pelectronic record s-stem#P /f the gentleman +ill give me permission / +ill proceed +ith the proposed amendment on Definition of $erms Section '# Senator Magsa-sa-# Please go ahead Senator Santiago# Senator Santiago# @e are in Part & short title on the Declaration of Polic- Section ' Definition of $erms# At the appropriate places in the listing of these terms that have to be defined since these are arranged alphabeticall- Mr# President / +ould li%e to insert the term DA$A and its definition# So the amendment +ill read1 PDA$AP MEANS REPRESEN$A$/!N /N ANO 0!RM !0 /N0!RMA$/!N !R C!NCEP$S# $he e6planation is this1 $his definition of PdataP or PdataP as it is no+ fashionabl- pronounced in America ; ; the definition of PdataP ensures that our bill applies to an- form of information in an electronic record +hether these are figures facts or ideas# So again the proposed amendment is this1 PDA$AP MEANS REPRESEN$A$/!NS /N ANO 0!RM !0 /N0!RMA$/!N !R C!NCEP$S# Senator Magsa-sa-# Ma- / %no+ ho+ +ill this affect the definition of PData MessageP +hich encompasses electronic records electronic +ritings and electronic documentsR Senator Santiago# $hese are completel- congruent +ith each other# $hese are compatible# @hen +e define Pdata P +e are simpl- reinforcing the definition of +hat is a data message# Senator Magsa-sa-# /t is accepted Mr# President# Senator Santiago# $han% -ou# $he ne6t term is PE?EC$R!N/C REC!RD#P $he proposed amendment is as follo+s1 PE?EC$R!N/C REC!RDP MEANS DA$A $LA$ /S REC!RDED !R S$!RED !N ANO MED/FM /N !R BO A C!MPF$ER SOS$EM !R !$LER S/M/?AR DE"/CE $LA$ CAN BE READ !R PERCE/"ED BO A PERS!N !R A C!MPF$ER SOS$EM !R !$LER S/M/?AR DE"/CE# /$ /NC?FDES A D/SP?AO PR/N$!F$ !R !$LER !F$PF$ !0 $LA$ DA$A# $he e6planation for this term and its definition is as follo+s1 $he term PE?EC$R!N/C REC!RDP fi6es the scope of our bill# $he record is the data# $he record ma- be on an- medium# /t is electronic because it is recorded or stored in or b- a computer s-stem or a similar device# $he amendment is intended to appl- for e6ample to data on magnetic strips on cards or in Smart cards# As drafted1 it 2ould not appl to tele3es or fa3es1 e3cept computer-generated fa3es1 unli4e the $nited Nations model la2 on electronic commerce. "t +ould also not apply to regular digital telephone conversations since the information is not recorded. "t +ould apply to voice mail since the information has been recorded in or by a device similar to a computer. 7i e+ise- video records are not covered. Though +hen

the video is transferred to a +ebsite- it +ould be covered because of the involvement of the computer. (usic recorded by a computer system on a compact disc +ould be covered # "n short- not all data recorded or stored in digital form is covered. A computer or a similar device has to be involved in its creation or storage. The term !similar device! does not e,tend to all devices that create or store data in digital form. Although things that are not recorded or preserved by or in a computer system are omitted from this bill- these may +ell be admissible under other rules of la+. This provision focuses on replacing the search for originality proving the reliability of systems instead of that of individual records and using standards to sho+ systems reliability# $aper records that are produced directly by a computer system such as printouts are themselves electronic records being 8ust the means of intelligible display of the contents of the record. $hotocopies of the printout +ould be paper record sub8ect to the usual rules about copies- but the original printout +ould be sub8ect to the rules of admissibility of this bill. 9o+ever- printouts that are used only as paper records and +hose computer origin is never again called on are treated as paper records. "n that case- the reliability of the computer system that produces the record is irrelevant to its reliability# Senator Magsa-sa-# Mr# President if m- memor- does not fail me earlier the lad- Senator accepted that +e use the term PData MessageP rather than PE?EC$R!N/C REC!RDP in being consistent +ith the FNC/$RA? term of PData Message.! So +ith the ne+ amendment of defining !E7ECT0':"C 0EC'0D-! +ill this affect her accepting of the use of !Data (essage! instead of !E7ECT0':"C 0EC'0D! R Senator Santiago# No it +ill not# $han% -ou for reminding me# The term " +ould li e to insert is E7ECT0':"C DATA (ESSA;E in lieu of !E7ECT0':"C 0EC'0D.! Senator Magsa-sa-# $hen +e are in effect amending the term of the definition of 5Data !essage5 on page 'A1 line (&1 to 2hich 2e have no ob6ection# Senator Santiago# $han% -ou Mr# President# 6666 Senator Santiago# Mr# President / have proposed all the amendments that / desire to including the amendment on the effect of error or change# / +ill provide the language of the amendment together +ith the e6planation supporting that amendment to the distinguished sponsor and then he can feel free to ta%e it up in an- session +ithout an- further intervention# Senator Magsa-sa-# Before +e end Mr# President / understand from the proponent of these amendments that these are based on the Canadian E&commerce 7a+ of <==># /s that not rightR Senator Santiago# That is correct#B) $hus +hen the Senate conse7uentl- voted to adopt the term Pelectronic data message P it +as consonant +ith the e6planation of Senator Miriam Defensor;Santiago that it +ould not appl- Pto tele,es or fa,es- e,cept computer&generated fa,es- unli e the /nited :ations model la+ on electronic commerce#P /n e6plaining the term Pelectronic recordP patterned after the E;Commerce ?a+ of Canada Senator Defensor;Santiago had in mind the term Pelectronic data message#P $his term then +hile maintaining part of the FNC/$RA? Model ?a+Js terminolog- of Pdata message P has assumed a different conte6t this time consonant +ith the term Pelectronic recordP in the la+ of Canada# /t accounts for the addition of the +ord PelectronicP and the deletion of the phrase Pbut not limited to- electronic data interchange 5ED"6- electronic mail- telegramtele, or telecopy#P Note+orth- is that the Fniform ?a+ Conference of Canada e6plains the term Pelectronic record P as drafted in the Fniform Electronic Evidence Act in a manner stri%ingl- similar to Sen# SantiagoJs e6planation during the Senate deliberations1 PElectronic recordP fi6es the scope of the Act# $he record is the data# $he record ma- be an- medium# /t is PelectronicP because it is recorded or stored in or b- a computer s-stem or similar device# $he Act is intended to appl- for e6ample to data on magnetic strips on cards or in smart cards# As drafted it +ould not apply to tele,es or fa,es 5e,cept computer&generated fa,es6- unli e the /nited :ations (odel 7a+ on Electronic Commerce# /t +ould also not appl- to regular digital telephone conversations since the information is not recorded# /t +ould appl- to voice mail since the information has been recorded in or b- a device similar to a computer# ?i%e+ise video records are not covered though +hen the video is transferred to a @eb site it +ould be because of the involvement of the computer# Music recorded b- a computer s-stem on a compact dis% +ould be covered# /n short not all data recorded or stored in PdigitalP form is covered# A computer or similar device has to be involved in its creation or storage# $he term Psimilar deviceP does not e6tend to all devices that create or store data in digital form# Although things that are not recorded or preserved b- or in a computer s-stem are omitted from this Act the- ma- +ell be admissible under other rules of la+# $his Act focuses on replacing the search for originalit- proving the reliabilit- of s-stems instead of that of individual records and using standards to sho+ s-stems reliabilit-#

Paper records that are produced directl- b- a computer s-stem such as printouts are themselves electronic records being 4ust the means of intelligible displa- of the contents of the record# Photocopies of the printout +ould be paper records sub4ect to the usual rules about copies but the PoriginalP printout +ould be sub4ect to the rules of admissibilit- of this Act# Lo+ever printouts that are used onl- as paper records and +hose computer origin is never again called on are treated as paper records# See subsection :8(9# /n this case the reliabilit- of the computer s-stem that produced the record is relevant to its reliabilit-#B& $here is no 7uestion then that +hen Congress formulated the term Pelectronic data message P it intended the same meaning as the term Pelectronic recordP in the Canada la+# $his construction of the term Pelectronic data message P +hich e,cludes tele,es or fa,es- e,cept computer&generated fa,es is in harmon- +ith the Electronic Commerce ?a+Js focus on PpaperlessP communications and the Pfunctional e7uivalent approachPB( that it espouses# /n fact the deliberations of the ?egislature are replete +ith discussions on paperless and digital transactions# 0acsimile transmissions are not in this sense Ppaperless P but veril- are paper;based# A facsimile machine +hich +as first patented in &B:. b- Ale6ander Bain B. is a device that can send or receive pictures and te6t over a telephone line# /t +or%s b- digiti<ing an imageSdividing it into a grid of dots# Each dot is either on or off depending on +hether it is blac% or +hite# Electronicall- each dot is represented b- a bit that has a value of either ) 8off9 or & 8on9# /n this +a- the fa6 machine translates a picture into a series of <eros and ones 8called a bit map9 that can be transmitted li%e normal computer data# !n the receiving side a fa6 machine reads the incoming data translates the <eros and ones bac% into dots and reprints the picture# B: A fa6 machine is essentiall- an image scanner a modem and a computer printer combined into a highl- speciali<ed pac%age# $he scanner converts the content of a ph-sical document into a digital image the modem sends the image data over a phone line and the printer at the other end ma%es a duplicate of the original document#B' $hus in ;arvida v. Sales- 2r# BA +here +e e6plained the unacceptabilit- of filing pleadings through fa6 machines +e ruled that1 A facsimile or fa6 transmission is a process involving the transmission and reproduction of printed and graphic matter b- scanning an original cop- one elemental area at a time and representing the shade or tone of each area b- a specified amount of electric current# $he current is transmitted as a signal over regular telephone lines or via micro+ave rela- and is used b- the receiver to reproduce an image of the elemental area in the proper position and the correct shade# $he receiver is e7uipped +ith a st-lus or other device that produces a printed record on paper referred to as a facsimile# 6 6 6 A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading# /t is at best an e6act cop- preserving all the mar%s of an original# @ithout the original there is no +a- of determining on its face +hether the facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and +as originall- signed b- the part- and his counsel# /t ma- in fact be a sham pleading#B* Accordingl- in an ordinar- facsimile transmission there e6ists an original paper&based information or data that is scanned sent through a phone line and re;printed at the receiving end# Be it noted that in enacting the Electronic Commerce Act of ())) Congress intended virtual or paperless +ritings to be the functional e7uivalent and to have the same legal function as paper;based documents#BB 0urther in a virtual or paperless environment technicall- there is no original cop- to spea% of as all direct printouts of the virtual realit- are the same in all respects and are considered as originals# B= /neluctablthe la+Js definition of Pelectronic data message P +hich as aforesaid is interchangeable +ith Pelectronic document P could not have included facsimile transmissions +hich have an original paper&based cop- as sent and a paper&based facsimile cop- as received# $hese t+o copies are distinct from each other and have different legal effects# @hile Congress anticipated future developments in communications and computer technolog- =) +hen it drafted the la+ it e6cluded the earl- forms of technolog- li%e telegraph tele6 and telecop- 8e6cept computer;generated fa6es +hich is a ne+er development as compared to the ordinar- fa6 machine to fa6 machine transmission9 +hen it defined the term Pelectronic data message#P Clearl- then the /RR +ent be-ond the parameters of the la+ +hen it adopted verbatim the FNC/$RA? Model ?a+Js definition of Pdata message P +ithout considering the intention of Congress +hen the latter deleted the phrase P but not limited to- electronic data interchange 5ED"6- electronic mail- telegram- tele, or telecopy #P $he inclusion of this phrase in the /RR offends a basic tenet in the e6ercise of the rule;ma%ing po+er of administrative agencies# After all the po+er of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the implementation of a statute is necessaril- limited to +hat is found in the legislative enactment itself# $he implementing rules and regulations of a la+ cannot e6tend the la+ or e6pand its coverage as the po+er to amend or repeal a statute is vested in the ?egislature#=& $hus if a discrepanc- occurs bet+een the basic la+ and an implementing rule or regulation it is the former that prevails because the la+ cannot be broadened b- a mere administrative issuanceSan administrative agenc- certainl- cannot amend an act of Congress# =( Lad the ?egislature reall+anted ordinar- fa6 transmissions to be covered b- the mantle of the Electronic Commerce Act of ())) it could have easil- lifted +ithout a bit of tatter the entire +ordings of the FNC/$RA? Model ?a+# /ncidentall- the National Statistical Coordination Board $as% 0orce on the Measurement of E;Commerce =. on November (( ())A recommended a +or%ing definition of Pelectronic commerce P as PDaEn- commercial transaction conducted

through electronic optical and similar medium mode instrumentalit- and technolog-# $he transaction includes the sale or purchase of goods and services bet+een individuals households businesses and governments conducted over computer;mediated net+or%s through the /nternet mobile phones electronic data interchange 8ED/9 and other channels through open and closed net+or%s#P $he $as% 0orceJs proposed definition is similar to the !rgani<ation of Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentJs 8!ECDJs9 broad definition as it covers transactions made over an- net+or% and in addition it adopted the follo+ing provisions of the !ECD definition1 8&9 for transactions it covers sale or purchase of goods and services5 8(9 for channelGnet+or% it considers an- computer;mediated net+or% and N!$ limited to /nternet alone5 8.9 it e6cludes transactions receivedGplaced using fa6 telephone or non;interactive mail5 8:9 it considers pa-ments done online or offline5 and 8'9 it considers deliver- made online 8li%e do+nloading of purchased boo%s music or soft+are programs9 or offline 8deliveries of goods9#=: @e therefore conclude that the terms Pelectronic data message! and !electronic document-! as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of ?@@@- do not include a facsimile transmission# Accordingl- a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as e3ectro0/c e4/5e0ce# /t is not the functional e7uivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence# Since a facsimile transmission is not an Pelectronic data messageP or an Pelectronic document P and cannot be considered as electronic evidence b- the Court +ith greater reason is a photocop- of such a fa6 transmission not electronic evidence# /n the present case therefore Pro 0orma /nvoice Nos# ST2-POSTS0"01-1 and ST2-POSTS0"01-( 8E6hibits PEP and P0P9 +hich are .ere 67otoco6/e1 of the original fa6 transmittals are not electronic evidence contrar- to the position of both the trial and the appellate courts# ; /// ; Nevertheless despite the pro forma invoices not being electronic evidence this Court finds that respondent has proven bpreponderance of evidence the e6istence of a perfected contract of sale# /n an action for damages due to a breach of a contract it is essential that the claimant proves 8&9 the e6istence of a perfected contract 8(9 the breach thereof b- the other contracting part- and 8.9 the damages +hich heGshe sustained due to such breach# Actori incumbit onus probandi# $he burden of proof rests on the part- +ho advances a proposition affirmativel-#=' /n other +ords a plaintiff in a civil action must establish his case b- a preponderance of evidence that is evidence that has greater +eight or is more convincing than that +hich is offered in opposition to it#=A /n general contracts are perfected b- mere consent =* +hich is manifested b- the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause +hich are to constitute the contract# $he offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute# =B $he- are moreover obligator- in +hatever form the- ma- have been entered into provided all the essential re7uisites for their validit- are present#== Sale being a consensual contract follo+s the general rule that it is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing +hich is the ob4ect of the contract and upon the price# 0rom that moment the parties ma- reciprocall- demand performance sub4ect to the provisions of the la+ governing the form of contracts# &)) $he essential elements of a contract of sale are 8&9 consent or meeting of the minds that is to transfer o+nership in e6change for the price 8(9 ob4ect certain +hich is the sub4ect matter of the contract and 8.9 cause of the obligation +hich is established#&)& /n this case to establish the e6istence of a perfected contract of sale bet+een the parties respondent Ssang-ong formalloffered in evidence the testimonies of its +itnesses and the follo+ing e6hibits1 E6hibit Description Purpose E $ro forma /nvoice dated &* April ())) $o sho+ that defendants contracted +ith plaintiff for +ith Contract No# ST2-POSTS0"01-1 the deliver- of &&) M$ of stainless steel from Iorea photocopy pa-able b- +a- of an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of plaintiff among other conditions# E;& $ro forma /nvoice dated &* April ())) $o sho+ that defendants sent their confirmation of +ith Contract No# ST2-POSTS0"01 the 8i9 deliver- to it of the specified stainless steel contained in facsimileAthermal paper products 8ii9 defendantsJ pa-ment thereof b- +a- of fa,ed by defendants to plaintiff sho+ing an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of plaintiff the printed transmission details on the among other conditions# upper portion of said paper as coming from defendant (CC on ?B Apr @@ @>CD<A( E;( Conforme signature of Mr# Hregor$o sho+ that defendants sent their confirmation of Chan contained in facsimileAthermal the 8i9 deliver- to it of the total of (()M$ specified paper fa,ed by defendants to plaintiff stainless steel products 8ii9 defendantsJ pa-ment sho+ing the printed transmission details thereof b- +a- of an irrevocable letter of credit in on the upper portion of said paper as favor of plaintiff among other conditions# coming from defendant (CC on ?B Apr

@@ @>CD<A( Pro forma /nvoice dated &* April ())) +ith Contract No# ST2-POSTSO"01-2 photocopy

H;& L

/ C I ? M

M;&

N !

P Q R

Sept ())) original final ?GC on time the cancellation of the contract as a conse7uence thereof and final demand upon $o sho+ that defendants contracted +ith plaintiff for defendants to remit its obligations# deliver- of another &&) M$ of stainless steel from Iorea pa-able b- +a- of an irrevocable letter of @ ?etter from plaintiff SSANHO!NH to $o prove that there +as a perfected sale and credit in favor of plaintiff among other conditions# defendant SANO! SE/I/ dated &. April purchase agreement bet+een the parties for (() ())) +ith fa6 bac% from defendants metric tons of steel products at the price of ?etter to defendant SANO! SE/IE dated $o prove that defendants +ere informed of the date SANO! SE/I/GMCC to plaintiff FSK& BA)Gton# () Cune ())) contained in of ?GC opening and defendantJs conformeGapproval SSANHO!NH contained in facsimileAthermal paper thereof# facsimileAthermal paper +ith bac &up Signature of defendant Hregor- Chan photocopy contained in facsimileAthermal paper # @;& Conforme signature of defendant $o prove that defendants acting through Hregor?etter to defendants dated (( Cune $o prove that defendants +ere informed of the Hregor- Chan contained in Chan agreed to the sale and purchase of (() ())) original successful price ad4ustments secured b- plaintiff in facsimileAthermal paper +ith bac &up metric tons of steel products at the price of favor of former and +ere advised of the schedules photocopy FSK& BA)Gton# of its ?GC opening# @;( Name of sender MCC /ndustrial Sales $o prove that defendants sent their conformit- to ?etter to defendants dated (A Cune $o prove that plaintiff repeatedl- re7uested Corporation the sale and purchase agreement b- facsimile ())) original defendants for the agreed opening of the ?etters of transmission# Credit defendantsJ failure and refusal to compl?etter to defendants dated (A Cune T $ro forma /nvoice dated &A August ())) $o prove that defendant MCC agreed to ad4ust and +ith their obligations and the problems of plaintiff is ())) original photocopy split the confirmed purchase order into ( shipments incurring b- reason of defendantsJ failure and ?etter to defendants dated (* Cune at &)) metric tons each at the discounted price of refusal to open the ?GCs# ())) original FSK& *))Gton# 0acsimile message to defendants dated T;& Notation P&G(P photocopy $o prove that the present $ro forma /nvoice +as (B Cune ())) photocopy the first of ( pro forma invoices# ?etter from defendants dated (= Cune $o prove that defendants admit of their liabilities to T;( Ref# No# S$(;P!S$S)B);& photocopy $o prove that the present $ro forma /nvoice +as ())) contained in facsimileAthermal plaintiff that the- re7uested for Pmore e6tensionP of the first of ( pro forma invoices# paper fa,ed by defendants to plaintiff time for the opening of the ?etter of Credit and T;. Conforme signature of defendant $o prove that defendant MCC acting through sho+ing the printed transmission details begging for favorable understanding and Hregor- Chan photocopy Hregor- Chan agreed to the sale and purchase of on the upper portion of said paper as consideration# the balance of &)) metric tons at the discounted coming from defendant (CC on ?= 2une price of FSK& *))Gton apart from the other order @@ <<C<? A( and shipment of &)) metric tons +hich +as Signature of defendant Hregor- Chan delivered b- plaintiff SSANHO!NH and paid for bcontained in facsimileAthermal paper defendant MCC# fa,ed by defendants to plaintiff sho+ing DD ?etter from defendant MCC to plaintiff $o prove that there +as a perfected sale and the printed transmission details on the SSANHO!NH dated (( August ())) purchase agreement bet+een plaintiff upper portion of said paper as coming contained in facsimileAthermal paper +ith SSANHO!NH and defendant MCC for the balance from defendant (CC on 2une @@ <<C<? bac &up photocopy of &)) metric tons apart from the other order and A( shipment of &)) metric tons +hich +as delivered b?etter to defendants dated (= Cune plaintiff SSANHO!NH and paid for b- defendant ())) original MCC# ?etter to defendants dated .) Cune $o prove that plaintiff reiterated its re7uest for DD;& Ref# No# S$(;P!S$S)B);& contained in $o prove that there +as a perfected sale and ())) photocopy defendants to ?GC opening after the latterJs re7uest facsimileAthermal paper +ith bac &up purchase agreement bet+een plaintiff for e6tension of time +as granted defendantsJ photocopy SSANHO!NH and defendant MCC for the balance failure and refusal to compl- there+ith e6tension of of &)) metric tons apart from the other order and time not+ithstanding# shipment of &)) metric tons +hich +as delivered bplaintiff SSANHO!NH and paid for b- defendant ?etter to defendants dated )A Cul- ())) MCC# original DD;( Signature of defendant Hregor- Chan $o prove that defendant MCC acting through Demand letter to defendants dated &' $o prove that plaintiff +as constrained to engaged contained in facsimileAthermal paper +ith Hregor- Chan agreed to the sale and purchase of Aug ())) original services of a la+-er for collection efforts# bac &up photocopy the balance of &)) metric tons apart from the other Demand letter to defendants dated (. $o prove that defendants opened the first ?GC in order and shipment of &)) metric tons +hich +as Aug ())) original favor of plaintiff re7uested for further delivered b- plaintiff Ssang-ong and paid for bpostponement of the final ?GC and for minimal defendant MCC#&)( amounts +ere urged to open the final ?GC on time Significantl- among these documentar- evidence presented b- respondent MCC in its petition before this Court assails and +ere informed that failure to compl- +ill cancel the admissibilit- onl- of $ro *orma /nvoice Nos# ST2-POSTS0"01-1 and ST2-POSTS0"01-2 8E6hibits PEP and P0P9# After the contract# sifting through the records the Court found that these invoices are .ere 67otoco6/e1 of their original fa6 transmittals# Demand letter to defendants dated && $o sho+ defendantsJ refusal and failure to open the

Ssang-ong avers that these documents +ere prepared after MCC as%ed for the splitting of the original order into t+o so that the latter can appl- for an ?GC +ith greater facilit-# /t ho+ever failed to e6plain +h- the originals of these documents +ere not presented# $o determine +hether these documents are admissible in evidence +e appl- the ordinar- Rules on Evidence for as discussed above +e cannot appl- the Electronic Commerce Act of ())) and the Rules on Electronic Evidence# Because these documents are mere photocopies the- are simpl- secondar- evidence admissible onl- upon compliance +ith Rule &.) Section ' +hich states PD+Ehen the original document has been lost or destro-ed or cannot be produced in court the offeror upon proof of its e6ecution or e6istence and the cause of its unavailabilit- +ithout bad faith on his part ma- prove its contents b- a cop- or b- a recital of its contents in some authentic document or b- the testimon- of +itnesses in the order stated#P 0urthermore the offeror of secondar- evidence must prove the predicates thereof namel-1 8a9 the loss or destruction of the original +ithout bad faith on the part of the proponentGofferor +hich can be sho+n bcircumstantial evidence of routine practices of destruction of documents5 8b9 the proponent must prove b- a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the original cop-5 and 8c9 it must be sho+n that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place or places# /t has been held that +here the missing document is the foundation of the action more strictness in proof is re7uired than +here the document is onl- collaterall- involved#&). Hiven these norms +e find that respondent failed to prove the e6istence of the original fa6 transmissions of E6hibits E and 0 and li%e+ise did not sufficientl- prove the loss or destruction of the originals# $hus E6hibits E and 0 cannot be admitted in evidence and accorded probative +eight# /t is observed ho+ever that respondent Ssang-ong did not rel- merel- on E6hibits E and 0 to prove the perfected contract# /t also introduced in evidence a variet- of other documents as enumerated above together +ith the testimonies of its +itnesses# Notable among them are $ro *orma /nvoice Nos# ST2-POSTS0#0-1 and ST2-POSTS0#0-2 +hich +ere issued b- Ssang-ong and sent via fa6 to MCC# As alread- mentioned these invoices slightl- varied the terms of the earlier invoices such that the 7uantit- +as no+ officiall- 100MT per invoice and the price reduced to US21-700.00 per M$# $he copies of the said August &A ())) invoices submitted to the court bear the conformit- signature of MCC Manager Chan# $ro *orma /nvoice No# ST2-POSTS0#0-1 8E6hibit PTP9 ho+ever is a mere photocop- of its original# But then again petitioner MCC does not assail the admissibilit- of this document in the instant petition# "eril- evidence not ob4ected to is deemed admitted and ma- be validl- considered b- the court in arriving at its 4udgment# &): /ssues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned# As to $ro *orma /nvoice No# ST2-POSTS0#0-2 8E6hibits P&;AP and P(;CP9 +hich +as certified b- PC/Ban% as a true copof its original &)' it +as in fact petitioner MCC +hich introduced this document in evidence# Petitioner MCC paid for the order stated in this invoice# /ts admissibilit- therefore is not open to 7uestion# $hese invoices 8ST2-POSTS0"01- ST2-POSTS0#0-1 805 ST2-POSTS0#0-29 along +ith the other unchallenged documentar- evidence of respondent Ssang-ong preponderate in favor of the claim that a contract of sale +as perfected b- the parties# $his Court also finds merit in the follo+ing observations of the trial court1 Defendants presented ?etter of Credit 8E6hibits P&P P&;AP to P&;RP9 referring to Pro 0orma /nvoice for Contract No# S$(P!S$S)B);( in the amount of FSK&*) )))#)) and +hich bears the signature of Hregor- Chan Heneral Manager of MCC# Plaintiff on the other hand presented Pro 0orma /nvoice referring to Contract No# S$(;P!S$S)B);& in the amount of FSK&*) )))#)) +hich li%e+ise bears the signature of Hregor- Chan MCC# Plaintiff accounted for the notation P&G(P on the right upper portion of the /nvoice that is that it +as the first of t+o 8(9 pro forma invoices covering the sub4ect contract bet+een plaintiff and the defendants# Defendants on the other hand failed to account for the notation P(G(P in its Pro 0orma /nvoice 8E6hibit P&;AP9# !bservabl- further both Pro 0orma /nvoices bear the same date and details +hich logicall- mean that theboth appl- to one and the same transaction# &)A /ndeed +h- +ould petitioner open an ?GC for the second half of the transaction if there +as no first half to spea% ofR $he logical chain of events as gleaned from the evidence of both parties started +ith the petitioner and the respondent agreeing on the sale and purchase of (()M$ of stainless steel at FSK& BA)#)) per M$# $his initial contract +as perfected# ?ater as petitioner as%ed for several e6tensions to pa- ad4ustments in the deliver- dates and discounts in the price as originall- agreed the parties slightl- varied the terms of their contract +ithout necessaril- novating it to the effect that the original order +as reduced to ())M$ split into t+o deliveries and the price discounted to FSK& *)) per M$# Petitioner ho+ever paid onl- half of its obligation and failed to open an ?GC for the other &))M$# Notabl- the conduct of both parties sufficientl- established the e6istence of a contract of sale even if the +ritings of the parties because of their contested admissibilit- +ere not as e6plicit in establishing a contract# &)* Appropriate conduct b- the parties ma- be sufficient to establish an agreement and +hile there ma- be instances +here the e6change of correspondence does not disclose the e6act point at +hich the deal +as closed the actions of the parties ma- indicate that a binding obligation has been underta%en#&)B

@ith our finding that there is a valid contract it is cr-stal;clear that +hen petitioner did not open the ?GC for the first half of the transaction 8&))M$9 despite numerous demands from respondent Ssang-ong petitioner breached its contractual obligation# /t is a +ell;entrenched rule that the failure of a bu-er to furnish an agreed letter of credit is a breach of the contract bet+een bu-er and seller# /ndeed +here the bu-er fails to open a letter of credit as stipulated the seller or e6porter is entitled to claim damages for such breach# Damages for failure to open a commercial credit ma- in appropriate cases include the loss of profit +hich the seller +ould reasonabl- have made had the transaction been carried out# &)= ; /" ; $his Court ho+ever finds that the a+ard of actual damages is not in accord +ith the evidence on record# /t is a6iomatic that actual or compensator- damages cannot be presumed but must be proven +ith a reasonable degree of certaint-# &&) /n Eillafuerte v. Court of Appeals &&& +e e6plained that1 Actual or compensator- damages are those a+arded in order to compensate a part- for an in4ur- or loss he suffered# $he- arise out of a sense of natural 4ustice and are aimed at repairing the +rong done# E6cept as provided b- la+ or b- stipulation a part- is entitled to an ade7uate compensation onl- for such pecuniar- loss as he has dul- proven# /t is hornboo% doctrine that to be able to recover actual damages the claimant bears the onus of presenting before the court actual proof of the damages alleged to have been suffered thus1 A part- is entitled to an ade7uate compensation for such pecuniar- loss actuall- suffered b- him as he has dul- proved# Such damages to be recoverable must not onl- be capable of proof but must actuall- be proved +ith a reasonable degree of certaint-# @e have emphasi<ed that these damages cannot be presumed and courts in ma%ing an a+ard must point out specific facts +hich could afford a basis for measuring +hatever compensator- or actual damages are borne# &&( /n the instant case the trial court a+arded to respondent Ssang-ong FSK=. :=.#B* as actual damages# !n appeal the same +as affirmed b- the appellate court# Noticeabl- ho+ever the trial and the appellate courts in ma%ing the said a+ard relied on the follo+ing documents submitted in evidence b- the respondent1 8&9 E6hibit PF P the Statement of Account dated March .) ())&5 8(9 E6hibit PF;& P the details of the said Statement of Account95 8.9 E6hibit P" P the contract of the alleged resale of the goods to a Iorean corporation5 and 8:9 E6hibit P";& P the authentication of the resale contract from the Iorean Embass- and certification from the Philippine Consular !ffice# $he statement of account and the details of the losses sustained b- respondent due to the said breach are at best self; serving# /t +as respondent Ssang-ong itself +hich prepared the said documents# $he items therein are not even substantiated b- official receipts# /n the absence of corroborative evidence the said statement of account is not sufficient basis to a+ard actual damages# $he court cannot simpl- rel- on speculation con4ecture or guess+or% as to the fact and amount of damages but must depend on competent proof that the claimant had suffered and on evidence of the actual amount thereof#&&. 0urthermore the sales contract and its authentication certificates E6hibits P"P and P";& P allegedl- evidencing the resale at a loss of the stainless steel sub4ect of the partiesJ breached contract fail to convince this Court of the veracit- of its contents# $he steel items indicated in the sales contract&&: +ith a Iorean corporation are different in all respects from the items ordered b- petitioner MCC even in si<e and 7uantit-# @e observed the follo+ing discrepancies1 ?ist of commodities as stated in E6hibit P"P1 C!MM!D/$O1 Stainless Steel LR Sheet in Coil Slit Edge SPEC1 SFS.): N!# & S/MEGQJ$O1 (#BMM T & (&=MM T C B#&=.M$ .#)MM T & (&=MM T C *#*.AM$ .#)MM T & (&=MM T C *#BB'M$ .#)MM T & (&=MM T C B#A(=M$ :#)MM T & (&=MM T C *#.)*M$ :#)MM T & (&=MM T C *#(:*M$ :#'MM T & (&=MM T C B#:')M$ :#'MM T & (&=MM T C B#B*)M$ '#)MM T & (&=MM T C B#.=&M$ A#)MM T & (&=MM T C A#'B=M$ A#)MM T & (&=MM T C *#B*BM$ A#)MM T & (&=MM T C B#.=*M$ $!$A?1 ='#'A(M$&&' ?ist of commodities as stated in E6hibit PTP 8the invoice that +as not paid91

DESCR/P$/!N1 Lot Rolled Stainless Steel Coil SFS .): S/ME AND QFAN$/$O1 (#A MM T :J T C &)#)M$ .#) MM T :J T C ('#)M$ :#) MM T :J T C &'#)M$ :#' MM T :J T C &'#)M$ '#) MM T :J T C &)#)M$ A#) MM T :J T C ('#)M$ $!$A?1 &))M$&&A 0rom the foregoing +e find merit in the contention of MCC that Ssang-ong did not ade7uatel- prove that the items resold at a loss +ere the same items ordered b- the petitioner# $herefore as the claim for actual damages +as not proven the Court cannot sanction the a+ard# Nonetheless the Court finds that petitioner %no+ingl- breached its contractual obligation and obstinatel- refused to padespite repeated demands from respondent# Petitioner even as%ed for several e6tensions of time for it to ma%e good its obligation# But in spite of respondentJs continuous accommodation petitioner completel- reneged on its contractual dut-# 0or such inattention and insensitivit- MCC must be held liable for nominal damages# PNominal damages are Jrecoverable +here a legal right is technicall- violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of an- %ind or +here there has been a breach of contract and no substantial in4ur- or actual damages +hatsoever have been or can be sho+n#JP&&* Accordingl- the Court a+ards nominal damages of P()) )))#)) to respondent Ssang-ong# As to the a+ard of attorne-Js fees it is +ell settled that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate and not ever+inning part- is entitled to an automatic grant of attorne-Js fees# $he part- must sho+ that he falls under one of the instances enumerated in Article (()B of the Civil Code#&&B /n the instant case ho+ever the Court finds the a+ard of attorne-Js fees proper considering that petitioner MCCJs un4ustified refusal to pa- has compelled respondent Ssang-ong to litigate and to incur e6penses to protect its rights# +)ERE'ORE PREM SES CONS DERED the appeal is PART ALL* &RANTED# $he Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA;H#R# C" No# B(=B. is MOD ' ED in that the a+ard of actual damages is DELETED# Lo+ever petitioner is ORDERED to pa- respondent NOM NAL DAMA&ES in the amount of P()) )))#)) and the ATTORNE*9S 'EES as a+arded b- the trial court# SO ORDERED# Fnares&Santiago- Chairperson- Austria&(artine)- Chico&:a)ario- 0eyes- 22.- concur# $L/RD D/"/S/!N &.R. No. 170"$1 A6r/3 "- 2007 NAT ONAL PO+ER CORPORAT ON- Petitioner vs# )ON. RAMON &. COD LLA- :R.- Pre1/5/0; :<5;e- RTC o= Ceb<- (r. 1$- (AN&PA S) PP N& COMPAN*- 805 +ALLEM S) PP N&- NCORPORATED- Respondents# DEC/S/!N C) CO-NA>AR O- 0.7 Before Fs is a Petition for Revie+ on Certiorari under Rule :' of the Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Decision & of the Court of Appeals in CA;H#R# CEB;SP No# ))B:B dated = November ())' +hich dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed b- the National Po+er Corporation see%ing to set aside the !rder ( issued b- the Regional $rial Court 8R$C9 of Cebu Branch &= dated &A November ()): den-ing admission and e6cluding from the records plaintiffs 8herein petitioner9 E6hibits PAP PCP PDP PEP PLP and its sub;mar%ings P/P PCP and its sub;mar%ings PIP P?P PMP and its sub;mar%ings PNP and its sub;mar%ings P!P PPP and its sub;mar%ings PQP and its sub;mar%ings PRP and PSP and its sub;mar%ings# !n () April &==A MG" Dibena @in a vessel of foreign registr- o+ned and operated b- private respondent Bangpai Shipping Co# allegedl- bumped and damaged petitioners Po+er Barge ()= +hich +as then moored at the Cebu /nternational Port# $hus on (A April &==A petitioner filed before the Cebu R$C a complaint for damages against private respondent Bangpai Shipping Co# for the alleged damages caused on petitioners po+er barges# $hereafter petitioner filed an Amended Complaint dated B Cul- &==A impleading herein private respondent @allem Shipping /nc# as additional defendant contending that the latter is a ship agent of Bangpai Shipping Co# !n &B September &==A @allem Shipping /nc# filed a Motion to Dismiss +hich +as subse7uentl- denied b- public respondent Cudge in an !rder dated () !ctober &==B# Bangpai Shipping Co# li%e+ise filed a Motion to Dismiss +hich +as also denied b- public respondent Cudge in an !rder issued on (: Canuar- ()).#

Petitioner after adducing evidence during the trial of the case filed a formal offer of evidence before the lo+er court on ( 0ebruar- ()): consisting of E6hibits PAP to P"P together +ith the sub;mar%ed portions thereof# Conse7uentl- private respondents Bangpai Shipping Co# and @allem Shipping /nc# filed their respective ob4ections to petitioners formal offer of evidence# !n &A November ()): public respondent 4udge issued the assailed order den-ing the admission and e6cluding from the records petitioners E6hibits PAP PCP PDP PEP PLP and its sub;mar%ings P/P PCP and its sub;mar%ings PIP P?P PMP and its sub;mar%ings PNP and its sub;mar%ings P!P PPP and its sub;mar%ings PQP and its sub;mar%ings PRP and PSP and its sub; mar%ings# According to the court a %uo1 $he Court finds merit in the ob4ections raised and the motion to stri%e out filed respectivel- b- the defendants# $he record sho+s that the plaintiff has been given ever- opportunit- to present the originals of the Tero6 or photocopies of the documents it offered# /t never produced the originals# $he plaintiff attempted to 4ustif- the admission of the photocopies bcontending that Pthe photocopies offered are e7uivalent to the original of the documentP on the basis of the Electronic Evidence 8Comment to Defendant @allem Philippines !b4ections and Motion to Stri%e9# But as rightl- pointed out in defendant @allems Repl- to the Comment of Plaintiff the Tero6 copies do not constitute the electronic evidence defined in Section & of Rule ( of the Rules on Electronic Evidence as follo+s1 P8h9 PElectronic documentP refers to information or the representation of information data figures s-mbols or other models of +ritten e6pression described or ho+ever represented b- +hich a right is established or an obligation e6tinguished or b- +hich a fact ma- be proved and affirmed +hich is received recorded transmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronicall-# /t includes digitall- signed documents and an- printout readable b- sight or other means +hich accuratel- reflects the electronic data message or electronic document# 0or the purpose of these Rules the term Pelectronic documentP ma- be used interchangeabl- +ith Pelectronic data messageP# $he information in those Tero6 or photocopies +as not received recorded retrieved or produced electronicall-# Moreover such electronic evidence must be authenticated 8Sections & and ( Rule ' Rules on Electronic Evidence9 +hich the plaintiff failed to do# 0inall- the re7uired Affidavit to prove the admissibilit- and evidentiar- +eight of the alleged electronic evidence 8Sec# & Rule = /bid9 +as not e6ecuted much less presented in evidence# $he Tero6 or photocopies offered should therefore be stric%en off the record# Aside from their being not properlidentified b- an- competent +itness the loss of the principals thereof +as not established b- an- competent proof# 6666 @LERE0!RE plaintiffs E6hibits PAP PCP PDP PEP PLP and its sub;mar%ings P/P PCP and its sub;mar%ings PIP P?P PMP and its sub;mar%ings PNP and its sub;mar%ings P!P PPP and its sub;mar%ings PQP and its sub;mar%ings and PRP are hereb- DEN/ED admission and e6cluded from the records# Lo+ever these e6cluded evidence should be attached to the records of this case to enable the appellate court to pass upon them should an appeal be ta%en from the decision on the merits to be rendered upon the termination of the trial of this case# E6hibits PSP and its sub;mar%ings are also DEN/ED admission for lac% of proper identification since the +itness +ho brought these pictures e6pressl- admitted that he +as not present +hen the photos +ere ta%en and had not %no+ledge +hen the same +here ta%en#. Fpon denial of petitioners Motion for Reconsideration in an !rder dated () April ())' petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule A' of the Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals maintaining that public respondent Cudge acted +ith grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac% or e6cess of 4urisdiction in den-ing the admission of its E6hibits PAP PCP PDP PEP PLP and its sub;mar%ings P/P PCP and its sub;mar%ings PIP P?P PMP and its sub;mar%ings PNP and its sub;mar%ings P!P PPP and its sub;mar%ings PQP and its sub;mar%ings PRP and PSP and its sub;mar%ings# !n = November ())' the appellate court issued a Decision dismissing petitioners petition for certiorari the pertinent portions of +hich elucidate1 After a 4udicious scrutin- of the record of the case on hand together +ith the rules and 4urisprudence +hich are applicable in the premises +e have come up +ith a finding that the petition for certiorari filed in this case is not meritorious# /t appears that there is no sufficient sho+ing b- the petitioner that the respondent 4udge acted +ith grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders in Civil Case No# CEB;&BAA(# As +hat our 4urisprudence tells us grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and +himsical e6ercise of 4udgment as +ould be e7uivalent to lac% of 4urisdiction 6 6 6# /n the case at bench +hat has been sho+n to the contrar- b- the totalit- of the record on hand is that the respondent 4udge acted correctl- and +ithin the pale of his sound discretion in issuing the assailed order dated November &A ()): in Civil Case No# CEB;&BAA(# /ndeed it appears that the pieces of petitioners documentar- evidence +hich +ere denied admission b- the respondent 4udge +ere not properl- identified b- an- competent +itness# As pointed out b- the respondent Bangpai Shipping Compan- in its comment on the petition filed in this case +hich reproduces some e6cerpts of the testimonies in the court a %uo of Att-# Marianito De ?os Santos Engr# Nestor Enri7ue< Cr# and Mr# Rodulfo /# Pagaling the said +itnesses did not have personal %no+ledge of and participation in the preparation and ma%ing of the pieces of documentar- evidence denied admission b- respondent 4udge 6 6 6# /n other +ords there +as lac% of proper identification of said pieces of documentarevidence# 6 6 6#

$hen another ground for den-ing admission of petitioners E6hibits A C D E L / C I ? M N ! P Q R and S b- the respondent 4udge is that said pieces of documentar- evidence +ere merel- photocopies of purported documents or papers# $here is no gainsa-ing the fact that the respondent 4udge acted +ithin the pale of his discretion +hen he denied admission of said documentar- evidence# Section . of Rule &.) of the Rules of Court of the Philippines is ver- e6plicit in providing that +hen the sub4ect of in7uir- are the contents of documents no evidence shall be admissible other than the original documents themselves e6cept in certain cases specificall- so enumerated therein and the petitioner has not sho+n that the non;presentation or non;production of its original documentar- pieces of evidence falls under such e6ceptions# As aptl- pointed out b- the respondent 4udge in the order issued b- him on November &A ()):1 P6 6 6 $he record sho+s that the plaintiff 8petitioner herein9 has been given ever- opportunit- to present the originals of the Tero6 or photocopies of the documents it offered# /t never produced said originals#P So the petitioner has onl- itself to blame for the respondent 4udges denial of admission of its aforementioned documentar- evidence# !f course the petitioner tries to contend that the photocopies of documents offered b- it are e7uivalent to the original documents that it sought to offer in evidence based on the Rules on Electronic Evidence +hich +ere in force and effect since August & ())&# Lo+ever such a contention is devoid of merit# $he pieces of documentar- evidence offered b- the petitioner in Civil Case CEB;&BAA( +hich +ere denied admission b- the respondent 4udge do not actuall- constitute as electronic evidence as defined in the Rules on Electronic Evidence# $he informations therein +ere not received retrieved or produced electronicall-# $he petitioner has not ade7uatel- established that its documentar- evidence +ere electronic evidence# it has not properl- authenticated such evidence as electronic documents assuming arguendo that the- are# ?astl- the petitioner has not properl- established b- affidavit pursuant to Rule = of the Rules on Electronic Evidence the admissibilit- and evidentiar- +eight of said documentar- evidence# $hus b- an- legal -ardstic% it is manifest that the respondent 4udge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in den-ing admission of the aforementioned documentar- evidence of petitioner# But even if it be granted 4ust for the sa%e of argument that the respondent 4udge committed an error in den-ing the aforementioned documentar- evidence of the petitioner still the petition for certiorari filed in this case must fail# Such error +ould at most be onl- an error of la+ and not an error of 4urisdiction# /n 7ee vs. $eople- G=G SC0A G=H the Supreme Court of the Philippines said that certiorari +ill not lie in case of an error of la+# 6 6 6# @LERE0!RE in vie+ of the foregoing premises 4udgment is hereb- rendered b- us D/SM/SS/NH the petition filed in this case and A00/RM/NH the assailed orders issued b- respondent 4udge in Civil Case No# CEB;&BAA(# : Aggrieved b- the afore7uoted decision petitioner filed the instant petition# $he focal point of this entire controvers- is petitioners obstinate contention that the photocopies it offered as formal evidence before the trial court are the functional e7uivalent of their original based on its inimitable interpretation of the Rules on Electronic Evidence# Petitioner insists that contrar- to the rulings of both the trial court and the appellate court the photocopies it presented as documentar- evidence actuall- constitute electronic evidence based on its o+n premise that an Pelectronic documentP as defined under Section &8h9 Rule ( of the Rules on Electronic Evidence is not limited to information that is received recorded retrieved or produced electronicall-# Rather petitioner maintains that an Pelectronic documentP can also refer to other modes of +ritten e6pression that is produced electronicall- such as photocopies as included in the sections catch; all proviso1 Pan- print;out or output readable b- sight or other meansP# @e do not agree# /n order to shed light to the issue of +hether or not the photocopies are indeed electronic documents as contemplated in Republic Act No# B*=( or the /mplementing Rules and Regulations of the Electronic Commerce Act as +ell as the Rules on Electronic Evidence +e shall enumerate the follo+ing documents offered as evidence b- the petitioner to +it1 &# E6hibit PAP is a photocop- of a letter manuall- signed b- a certain Cose C# $ro-o +ith PRECE/"EDP stamped thereon together +ith a hand+ritten date5 (# E6hibit PCP is a photocop- of a list of estimated cost of damages of petitioners po+er barges ()* and ()= prepared b- Lope+ell Mobile Po+er S-stems Corporation and manuall- signed b- Messrs# Re6 Malaluan and "irgilio Asprer5 .# E6hibit PDP is a photocop- of a letter manuall- signed b- a certain Nestor H# Enri7ue< Cr# +ith PRECE/"EDP stamped thereon together +ith a hand+ritten notation of the date it +as received5 :# E6hibit PEP is a photocop- of a Standard Marine Protest 0orm +hich +as filled up and accomplished b- Re6 Coel C# Malaluan in his o+n hand+riting and signed b- him# Portions of the Curat +ere hand+ritten and manuall- signed b- the Notar- Public5 '# E6hibit PLP is a photocop- of a letter manuall- signed b- Mr# Nestor H# Enri7ue< Cr# +ith PRECE/"EDP stamped thereon together +ith a hand+ritten notation of the date it +as received5 A# E6hibit P/P is a photocop- of a computation of the estimated energ- loss allegedl- suffered b- petitioner +hich +as manuall- signed b- Mr# Nestor H# Enri7ue< Cr#5

*# E6hibit PCP is a photocop- of a letter containing the brea%do+n of the cost estimate manuall- signed b- Mr# Nestor H# Enri7ue< Cr# +ith PRECE/"EDP stamped thereon together +ith a hand+ritten notation of the date it +as received and other hand+ritten notations5 B# E6hibit PIP is a photocop- of the Subpoena Duces $ecum Ad $estificandum +ritten using a manual t-pe+riter signed manuall- b- Att-# !felia Polo;De ?os Re-es +ith a hand+ritten notation +hen it +as received b- the part-5 =# E6hibit P?P is a photocop- of a portion of the electricit- suppl- and operation and maintenance agreement bet+een petitioner and Lope+ell containing hand+ritten notations and ever- page containing three unidentified manuall- placed signatures5 &)# E6hibit PMP is a photocop- of the Notice of $ermination +ith attachments addressed to Re6 Coel C# Malaluan manuall- signed b- Caime S# Patinio +ith a hand+ritten notation of the date it +as received# $he sub;mar%ings also contain manual signatures andGor hand+ritten notations5 &&# E6hibit PNP is a photocop- of a letter of termination +ith attachments addressed to "/rgilio Asprer and manuall- signed b- Caime S# Patino# $he sub;mar%ings contain manual signatures andGor hand+ritten notations5 &(# E6hibit P!P is the same photocopied document mar%ed as Anne6 C5 &.# E6hibit PPP is a photocop- of an incident report manuall- signed b- Messrs# Malaluan and Bautista and bthe Notar- Public +ith other hand+ritten notations5 &:# E6hibit PQP is a photocop- of a letter manuall- signed b- "irgilio Asprer and b- a Notar- Public together +ith other hand+ritten notations# !n the other hand an Pelectronic documentP refers to information or the representation of information data figures s-mbols or other models of +ritten e6pression described or ho+ever represented b- +hich a right is established or an obligation e6tinguished or b- +hich a fact ma- be proved and affirmed +hich is received recorded transmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronicall-#' /t includes digitall- signed documents and an- printout readable b- sight or other means +hich accuratel- reflects the electronic data message or electronic document# A $he rules use the +ord PinformationP to define an electronic document received recorded transmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronicall-# $his +ould suggest that an electronic document is relevant onl- in terms of the information contained therein similar to an- other document +hich is presented in evidence as proof of its contents# * Lo+ever +hat differentiates an electronic document from a paper;based document is the manner b- +hich the information is processed5 clearl- the information contained in an electronic document is received recorded transmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronicall-# A perusal of the information contained in the photocopies submitted b- petitioner +ill reveal that not all of the contents therein such as the signatures of the persons +ho purportedl- signed the documents ma- be recorded or produced electronicall-# B- no stretch of the imagination can a persons signature affi6ed manuall- be considered as information electronicall- received recorded transmitted stored processed retrieved or produced# Lence the argument of petitioner that since these paper printouts +ere produced through an electronic process then these photocopies are electronic documents as defined in the Rules on Electronic Evidence is obviousl- an erroneous if not preposterous interpretation of the la+# Laving thus declared that the offered photocopies are not tantamount to electronic documents it is conse7uential that the same ma- not be considered as the functional e7uivalent of their original as decreed in the la+# 0urthermore no error can be ascribed to the court a 7uo in den-ing admission and e6cluding from the records petitioners E6hibits PAP PCP PDP PEP PLP and its sub;mar%ings P/P PCP and its sub;mar%ings PIP P?P PMP and its sub;mar%ings PNP and its sub;mar%ings P!P PPP and its sub;mar%ings PQP and its sub;mar%ings and PRP# $he trial court +as correct in re4ecting these photocopies as the- violate the best evidence rule and are therefore of no probative value being incompetent pieces of evidence# Before the onset of liberal rules of discover- and modern techni7ue of electronic cop-ing the best evidence rule +as designed to guard against incomplete or fraudulent proof and the introduction of altered copies and the +ithholding of the originals#B But the modern 4ustification for the rule has e6panded from the prevention of fraud to a recognition that +ritings occup- a central position in the la+#= $he importance of the precise terms of +ritings in the +orld of legal relations the fallibilit- of the human memor- as reliable evidence of the terms and the ha<ards of inaccurate or incomplete duplicate are the concerns addressed b- the best evidence rule# &) Moreover as mandated under Section ( Rule &.) of the Rules of Court1 PSEC$/!N (# !riginal +riting must be produced5 e6ceptions# S $here can be no evidence of a +riting the contents of +hich is the sub4ect of in7uir- other than the original +riting itself e6cept in the follo+ing cases1 8a9 @hen the original has been lost destro-ed or cannot be produced in court5 8b9 @hen the original is in the possession of the part- against +hom the evidence is offered and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice5 8c9 @hen the original is a record or other document in the custod- of a public officer5 8d9 @hen the original has been recorded in an e6isting record a certified cop- of +hich is made evidence bla+5

8e9 @hen the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents +hich cannot be e6amined in court +ithout great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is onl- the general result of the +hole#P @hen the original document has been lost or destro-ed or cannot be produced in court the offeror upon proof of its e6ecution or e6istence and the cause of its unavailabilit- +ithout bad faith on his part ma- prove its contents b- a cop- or b- a recital of its contents in some authentic document or b- the testimon- of +itnesses in the order stated# && $he offeror of secondar- evidence is burdened to prove the predicates thereof1 8a9 the loss or destruction of the original +ithout bad faith on the part of the proponentGofferor +hich can be sho+n b- circumstantial evidence of routine practices of destruction of documents5&( 8b9 the proponent must prove b- a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the original cop-5 and 8c9 it must be sho+n that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place or places#&. Lo+ever in the case at bar though petitioner insisted in offering the photocopies as documentar- evidence it failed to establish that such offer +as made in accordance +ith the e6ceptions as enumerated under the above7uoted rule# Accordingl- +e find no error in the !rder of the court a 7uo den-ing admissibilit- of the photocopies offered b- petitioner as documentar- evidence# 0inall- it perple6es this Court +h- petitioner continued to obduratel- disregard the opportunities given b- the trial court for it to present the originals of the photocopies it presented -et comes before us no+ pra-ing that it be allo+ed to present the originals of the e6hibits that +ere denied admission or in case the same are lost to la- the predicate for the admission of secondar- evidence# Lad petitioner presented the originals of the documents to the court instead of the photocopies it obstinatel- offered as evidence or at the ver- least laid the predicate for the admission of said photocopies this controvers- +ould not have unnecessaril- been brought before the appellate court and finall- to this Court for ad4udication# Lad it not been for petitioners intransigence the merits of petitioners complaint for damages +ould have been decided upon b- the trial court long ago# As aptl- articulated b- the Court of Appeals petitioner has onl- itself to blame for the respondent 4udges denial of admission of its aforementioned documentar- evidence and conse7uentl- the denial of its pra-er to be given another opportunit- to present the originals of the documents that +ere denied admission nor to la- the predicate for the admission of secondar- evidence in case the same has been lost# @LERE0!RE premises considered the instant petition is hereb- DEN/ED# $he Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA; H#R# CEB;SP No# ))B:B dated = November ())' is hereb- A00/RMED# Costs against petitioner# S! !RDERED#

/n the earl- morning of Cune ' ())' /rish received through multimedia message service 8MMS9 a picture of a na%ed +oman +ith spread legs and +ith /rishs face superimposed on the figure 8E6hibit A9#( $he senders cellphone number stated in the message +as )=(&;B)B:*AB one of the numbers that Rustan used# /rish surmised that he copied the picture of her face from a shot he too% +hen the- +ere in Baguio in ()). 8E6hibit B9#. After she got the obscene picture /rish got other te6t messages from Rustan# Le boasted that it +ould be eas- for him to create similarl- scandalous pictures of her# And he threatened to spread the picture he sent through the internet# !ne of the messages he sent to /rish +ritten in te6t messaging shorthand read1 P(adali lang i alat yun- my chatrum ang tarlac rayt p+ede ring send sa lahat ng chatter#P: /rish sought the help of the vice ma-or of Maria Aurora +ho referred her to the police# Fnder police supervision /rish contacted Rustan through the cellphone numbers he used in sending the picture and his te6t messages# /rish as%ed Rustan to meet her at the ?orentess Resort in Brg-# Ramada Maria Aurora and he did# Le came in a motorc-cle# After par%ing it he +al%ed to+ards /rish but the +aiting police officers intercepted and arrested him# $he- searched him and sei<ed his Son- Ericsson P=)) cellphone and several S/M cards# @hile Rustan +as being 7uestioned at the police station he shouted at /rish1 P(alandi a asiIP Coseph Hon<ales an instructor at the Aurora State College of $echnolog- testified as an e6pert in information technologand computer graphics# Le said that it +as ver- much possible for one to lift the face of a +oman from a picture and superimpose it on the bod- of another +oman in another picture# Pictures can be manipulated and enhanced b- computer to ma%e it appear that the face and the bod- belonged to 4ust one person# Hon<ales testified that the picture in 7uestion 8E6hibit A9 had t+o distinct irregularities1 the face +as not proportionate to the bod- and the face had a lighter color# /n his opinion the picture +as fa%e and the face on it had been copied from the picture of /rish in E6hibit B# 0inall- Hon<ales e6plained ho+ this could be done transferring a picture from a computer to a cellphone li%e the Son- Ericsson P=)) sei<ed from Rustan# 0or his part Rustan admitted having courted /rish# Le began visiting her in $arlac in !ctober ()). and their relation lasted until December of that -ear# Le claimed that after their relation ended /rish +anted reconciliation# $he- met in December ()): but after he told her that his girlfriend at that time 8later his +ife9 +as alread- pregnant /rish +al%ed out on him# Sometime later Rustan got a te6t message from /rish as%ing him to meet her at ?orentess Resort as she needed his help in selling her cellphone# @hen he arrived at the place t+o police officers approached him sei<ed his cellphone and the contents of his poc%ets and brought him to the police station# Rustan further claims that he also +ent to ?orentess because /rish as%ed him to help her identif- a pran%ster +ho +as SEC!ND D/"/S/!N sending her malicious te6t messages# Rustan got the senders number and pretending to be /rish contacted the person# &.R. No. 1#2#!5 A6r/3 20- 2010 Rustan claims that he got bac% obscene messages from the pran%ster +hich he for+arded to /rish from his cellphone# RUSTAN AN& ? PASCUA- Petitioner $his e6plained he said +h- the obscene messages appeared to have originated from his cellphone number# Rustan vs# claims that it +as /rish herself +ho sent the obscene picture 8E6hibit A9 to him# Le presented si6 pictures of a +oman T)E )ONORA(LE COURT O' APPEALS 805 R S) SA&UD- Respondents# +hom he identified as /rish 8E6hibits ( to *9#' DEC/S/!N Michelle Ang 8Michelle9 Rustans +ife testified that she +as sure /rish sent the si6 pictures# Michelle claims that she A(AD- 0.7 received the pictures and hid the memor- card 8E6hibit B9 that contained them because she +as 4ealous and angr-# She $his case concerns a claim of commission of the crime of violence against +omen +hen a former bo-friend sent to the girl did not +ant to see an-thing of /rish# But +hile the +oman in the pictures posed in se6- clothing in none did she appear the picture of a na%ed +oman not her but +ith her face on it# na%ed as in E6hibit A# 0urther the face of the +oman in E6hibits ( : ' and A could not be seen# /rish denied that she +as $he /ndictment the +oman in those four pictures# As for E6hibits . and * the +oman in the picture +as full- dressed# $he public prosecutor charged petitioner;accused Rustan Ang 8Rustan9 before the Regional $rial Court 8R$C9 of Baler After trial the R$C found /rishs testimon- completel- credible given in an honest and spontaneous manner# $he R$C Aurora of violation of the Anti;"iolence Against @omen and $heir Children Act or Republic Act 8R#A#9 =(A( in an observed that she +ept +hile recounting her e6perience prompting the court to comment1 PLer tears +ere tangible information that reads1 e6pression of pain and anguish for the acts of violence she suffered in the hands of her former s+eetheart# $he cr-ing of $hat on or about Cune ' ())' in the Municipalit- of Maria Aurora Province of Aurora Philippines and +ithin the the victim during her testimon- is evidence of the credibilit- of her charges +ith the verit- borne out of human nature and 4urisdiction of this Lonorable Court the said accused +illfull- unla+full- and feloniousl- in a purposeful and rec%less e6perience#PA $hus in its Decision dated August & ())& the R$C found Rustan guilt- of the violation of Section '8h9 of conduct sent through the Short Messaging Service 8SMS9 using his mobile phone a pornographic picture to one /rish R#A# =(A(# Sagud +ho +as his former girlfriend +hereb- the face of the latter +as attached to a completel- na%ed bod- of another !n Rustans appeal to the Court of Appeals 8CA9 * the latter rendered a decision dated Canuar- .& ())B B affirming the +oman ma%ing it to appear that it +as said /rish Sagud +ho is depicted in the said obscene and pornographic picture R$C decision# $he CA denied Rustans motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated April (' ())B# $hus Rustan filed thereb- causing substantial emotional anguish ps-chological distress and humiliation to the said /rish Sagud# & the present for revie+ on certiorari# $he 0acts and the Case $he /ssues Presented $he evidence for the prosecution sho+s that complainant /rish Sagud 8/rish9 and accused Rustan +ere classmates at $he principal issue in this case is +hether or not accused Rustan sent /rish b- cellphone message the picture +ith her face @esle-an Fniversit- in Aurora Province# Rustan courted /rish and the- became Pon;and;offP s+eethearts to+ards the end pasted on the bod- of a nude +oman inflicting anguish ps-chological distress and humiliation on her in violation of of ()):# @hen /rish learned after+ards that Rustan had ta%en a live;in partner 8no+ his +ife9 +hom he had gotten Section '8h9 of R#A# =(A(# pregnant /rish bro%e up +ith him# $he subordinate issues are1 Before Rustan got married ho+ever he got in touch +ith /rish and tried to convince her to elope +ith him sa-ing that he &# @hether or not a Pdating relationshipP e6isted bet+een Rustan and /rish as this term is defined in R#A# =(A(5 did not love the +oman he +as about to marr-# /rish re4ected the proposal and told Rustan to ta%e on his responsibilit- to (# @hether or not a single act of harassment li%e the sending of the nude picture in this case alreadthe other +oman and their child# /rish changed her cellphone number but Rustan someho+ managed to get hold of it and constitutes a violation of Section '8h9 of R#A# =(A(5 sent her te6t messages# Rustan used t+o cellphone numbers for sending his messages namel- )=();:*A=.)& and )=(&; .# @hether or not the evidence used to convict Rustan +as obtained from him in violation of his constitutional B)B:*AB# /rish replied to his te6t messages but it +as to as% him to leave her alone# rights5 and

:# @hether or not the R$C properl- admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case# $he Courts Rulings Section .8a9 of R#A# =(A( provides that violence against +omen includes an act or acts of a person against a +oman +ith +hom he has or had a se6ual or dating relationship# $hus1 SEC# .# Definition of $erms# , As used in this Act 8a9 P"iolence against +omen and their childrenP refers to an- act or a series of acts committed b- an- person against a +oman +ho is his +ife former +ife or against a +oman +ith +hom the person has or had a se6ual or dating relationship or +ith +hom he has a common child or against her child +hether legitimate or illegitimate +ithin or +ithout the famil- abode +hich result in or is li%el- to result in ph-sical se6ual ps-chological harm or suffering or economic abuse including threats of such acts batter- assault coercion harassment or arbitrar- deprivation of libert-# 6666 Section ' identifies the act or acts that constitute violence against +omen and these include an- form of harassment that causes substantial emotional or ps-chological distress to a +oman# $hus1 SEC# '# Acts of "iolence Against @omen and $heir Children# , $he crime of violence against +omen and their children is committed through an- of the follo+ing acts1 6666 h# Engaging in purposeful %no+ing or rec%less conduct personall- or through another that alarms or causes substantial emotional or ps-chological distress to the +oman or her child# $his shall include but not be limited to the follo+ing acts1 6666 '# Engaging in an- form of harassment or violence5 $he above provisions ta%en together indicate that the elements of the crime of violence against +omen through harassment are1 &# $he offender has or had a se6ual or dating relationship +ith the offended +oman5 (# $he offender b- himself or through another commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the +oman5 and .# $he harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or ps-chological distress to her# !ne# $he parties to this case agree that the prosecution needed to prove that accused Rustan had a Pdating relationshipP +ith /rish# Section .8e9 provides that a Pdating relationshipP includes a situation +here the parties are romanticall- involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship# $hus1 8e9 PDating relationshipP refers to a situation +herein the parties live as husband and +ife +ithout the benefit of marriage or are romanticall- involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship# A casual ac7uaintance or ordinar- sociali<ation bet+een t+o individuals in a business or social conte6t is not a dating relationship# 8Fnderscoring supplied#9 Lere Rustan claims that being Promanticall- involved P implies that the offender and the offended +oman have or had se6ual relations# According to him PromanceP implies a se6ual act# Le cites @ebsters Comprehensive DictionarEnc-clopedia Edition +hich provides a collo7uial or informal meaning to the +ord PromanceP used as a verb i.e. Pto ma%e love5 to ma%e love toP as in PLe romanced her#P But it seems clear that the la+ did not use in its provisions the collo7uial verb PromanceP that implies a se6ual act# /t did not sa- that the offender must have PromancedP the offended +oman# Rather it used the noun PromanceP to describe a couples relationship i.e. Pa love affair#P= R#A# =(A( provides in Section . that Pviolence against +omen 6 6 6 refers to an- act or a series of acts committed b- anperson against a +oman 6 6 6 +ith +hom the person has or had a se6ual or dating relationship#P Clearl- the la+ itself distinguishes a se6ual relationship from a dating relationship# /ndeed Section .8e9 above defines Pdating relationshipP +hile Section .8f9 defines Pse6ual relations#P $he latter Prefers to a single se6ual act +hich ma- or ma- not result in the bearing of a common child#P $he dating relationship that the la+ contemplates can therefore e6ist even +ithout a se6ual intercourse ta%ing place bet+een those involved# Rustan also claims that since the relationship bet+een /rish and him +as of the Pon;and;offP variet- 8a+a-;bati9 their romance cannot be regarded as having developed Pover time and on a continuing basis#P But the t+o of them +ere romanticall- involved as Rustan himself admits from !ctober to December of ()).# $hat +ould be time enough for nurturing a relationship of mutual trust and love# An Pa+ay&batiP or a fight;and;%iss thing bet+een t+o lovers is a common occurrence# $heir ta%ing place does not mean that the romantic relation bet+een the t+o should be deemed bro%en up during periods of misunderstanding# E6plaining +hat Pa+a-;batiP meant /rish e6plained that at times +hen she could not repl- to Rustans messages he +ould get angrat her# $hat +as all# /ndeed she characteri<ed their three;month romantic relation as continuous# &) $+o# Rustan argues that the one act of sending an offensive picture should not be considered a form of harassment# Le claims that such +ould undul- ruin him personall- and set a ver- dangerous precedent# But Section .8a9 of R#A# =(A(

punishes Pan- act or series of actsP that constitutes violence against +omen# $his means that a single act of harassment +hich translates into violence +ould be enough# $he ob4ect of the la+ is to protect +omen and children# Punishing onlviolence that is repeatedl- committed +ould license isolated ones# Rustan alleges that toda-s +omen li%e /rish are so used to obscene communications that her getting one could not possibl- have produced alarm in her or caused her substantial emotional or ps-chological distress# Le claims having previousl- e6changed obscene pictures +ith /rish such that she +as alread- desensiti<ed b- them# But firstl- the R$C +hich sa+ and heard Rustan and his +ife give their testimonies +as not impressed +ith their claim that it +as /rish +ho sent the obscene pictures of herself 8E6hibits (;*9# /t is doubtful if the +oman in the picture +as /rish since her face did not clearl- sho+ on them# Michelle Rustans +ife claimed that she deleted several other pictures that /rish sent e6cept E6hibits ( to *# But her testimon- did not ma%e sense# She said that she did not %no+ that E6hibits ( to * had remained saved after she deleted the pictures# ?ater ho+ever she said that she did not have time to delete them#&& And if she thought that she had deleted all the pictures from the memor- card then she had no reason at all to %eep and hide such memor- card# $here +ould have been nothing to hide# 0inall- if she %ne+ that some pictures remained in the card there +as no reason for her to %eep it for several -ears given that as she said she +as too 4ealous to +ant to see an-thing connected to /rish# $hus the R$C +as correct in not giving credence to her testimon-#<avvphi< Secondl- the Court cannot measure the trauma that /rish e6perienced based on Rustans lo+ regard for the alleged moral sensibilities of toda-s -outh# @hat is obscene and in4urious to an offended +oman can of course onl- be determined based on the circumstances of each case# Lere the na%ed +oman on the picture her legs spread open and bearing /rishs head and face +as clearl- an obscene picture and to /rish a revolting and offensive one# Surel- an- +oman li%e /rish +ho is not in the pornograph- trade +ould be scandali<ed and pained if she sees herself in such a picture# @hat ma%es it further terrif-ing is that as /rish testified Rustan sent the picture +ith a threat to post it in the internet for all to see# $hat must have given her a nightmare# $hree# Rustan argues that since he +as arrested and certain items +ere sei<ed from him +ithout an- +arrant the evidence presented against him should be deemed inadmissible# But the fact is that the prosecution did not present in evidence either the cellphone or the S/M cards that the police officers sei<ed from him at the time of his arrest# $he prosecution did not need such items to prove its case# E6hibit C for the prosecution +as but a photograph depicting the Son- Ericsson P=)) cellphone that +as used +hich cellphone Rustan admitted o+ning during the pre;trial conference# Actuall- though the bul% of the evidence against him consisted in /rishs testimon- that she received the obscene picture and malicious te6t messages that the senders cellphone numbers belonged to Rustan +ith +hom she had been previousl- in communication# /ndeed to prove that the cellphone numbers belonged to Rustan /rish and the police used such numbers to summon him to come to ?orentess Resort and he did#&( Conse7uentl- the prosecution did not have to present the confiscated cellphone and S/M cards to prove that Rustan sent those messages# Moreover Rustan admitted having sent the malicious te6t messages to /rish# &. Lis defense +as that he himself received those messages from an unidentified person +ho +as harassing /rish and he merel- for+arded the same to her using his cellphone# But Rustan never presented the cellphone number of the unidentified person +ho sent the messages to him to authenticate the same# $he R$C did not give credence to such version and neither +ill this Court# Besides it +as most unli%el- for /rish to pin the things on Rustan if he had merel- tried to help her identif- the sender# 0our# Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to /rish through a te6t message constitutes an electronic document# $hus it should be authenticated b- means of an electronic signature as provided under Section & Rule ' of the Rules on Electronic Evidence 8A#M# )&;*;)&;SC9# But firstl- Rustan is raising this ob4ection to the admissibilit- of the obscene picture E6hibit A for the first time before this Court# $he ob4ection is too late since he should have ob4ected to the admission of the picture on such ground at the time it +as offered in evidence# Le should be deemed to have alread- +aived such ground for ob4ection# &: Besides the rules he cites do not appl- to the present criminal action# $he Rules on Electronic Evidence applies onl- to civil actions 7uasi;4udicial proceedings and administrative proceedings# &' /n conclusion this Court finds that the prosecution has proved each and ever- element of the crime charged be-ond reasonable doubt# @LERE0!RE the Court DEN/ES the petition and A00/RMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA;H#R# CR .)'A* dated Canuar- .& ())B and its resolution dated April (' ())B# S! !RDERED# DA#M# No# CA;)';&B;P# April &( ())'E MA?DO NFEM complainant- vs# E?"/RA CRFM;APA! respondent. DEC/S/!N $E0 C/0"A(1 @hat brings our 4udicial s-stem into disrepute are often the actuations of a fe+ erring court personnel peddling influence to part-;litigants creating the impression that decisions can be bought and sold ultimatel- resulting in the disillusionment of the public# $his Court has never +avered in its vigilance in eradicating the so;called 2bad eggs3 in the 4udiciar-# And

+henever +arranted b- the gravit- of the offense the supreme penalt- of dismissal in an administrative case is meted to erring personnel#D&E $he above pronouncement of this Court in the case of (endo)a vs. TiongsonD(E is applicable to the case at bar# $his is an administrative case for Dishonest- and Hrave MisconductD.E against Elvira Cru<;Apao 8Respondent9 E6ecutive Assistant // of the Acting Division Cler% of Court of the 0ifteenth 8&'th9 Division Court of Appeals 8CA9# $he complaint arose out of respondents solicitation of !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9 from Mald- Nue< 8Complainant9 in e6change for a speed- and favorable decision of the latters pending case in the CA D:E more particularl- CA;H#R# SP No# *.:A) entitled $A;C'0 vs. Jaldy :ue).D'E Complainant initiall- lodged a complaint +ith the Action Center of the $elevision program "mbestigador of HMA Net+or% DAE the cre+ of +hich had accompanied him to the Presidential Anti;!rgani<ed Crime Commission,Special Pro4ects Hroup 8PA!CC;SPH9 in MalacaUang +here he filed a complaint for e6tortionD*E against respondent# $his led to the conduct of an entrapment operation b- elements of the Presidential Anti;!rgani<ed Crime $as% 0orce 8PA!C$09 on (B September ()): at the Collibee Restaurant (nd 0loor $imes Pla<a Bldg# corner $aft and Fnited Nations Avenue Manila DBE the place +here the supposed hand;over of the mone- +as going to ta%e place# Respondents apprehension b- agents of the PA!C$0 in the course of the entrapment operation prompted then CA Presiding Custice 8PC9 Cancio C# Harcia 8no+ Supreme Court Custice9 to issue !ffice !rder No# (=*;):;CHD=E 8!rder9 +hich created an ad;hoc investigating committee 8Committee9#D&)E $he Committee +as specificall- tas%ed among others to conduct a thorough and e6haustive investigation of respondents case and to recommend the proper administrative sanctions against her as the evidence ma- +arrant#D&&E /n accordance +ith the mandate of the !rder the Committee conducted an investigation of the case and issued a 0esolutionD&(E dated &B !ctober ()): +here it concluded that a prima facie case of Dishonest- and Serious Misconduct against respondent e6isted# $he Committee thus recommended respondents preventive suspension for ninet- 8=)9 da-s pending formal investigation of the charges against her#D&.E !n (B Canuar- ())' the Committee submitted a 0eportD&:E to the ne+ CA Presiding Custice Romeo A# Bra+ner +ith its recommendation that respondent be dismissed from service# Based on the hearings conducted and the evidence received b- the Committee the antecedent facts are as follo+s1 Complainants case referred to above had been pending +ith the CA for more than t+o -ears#D&'E Complainant filed an illegal dismissal case against PAHC!R before the Civil Service Commission 8CSC9# $he CSC ordered complainants reinstatement but a +rit of preliminar- in4unction and a temporar- restraining order +as issued b- the CA in favor of PAHC!R thus complainant +as not reinstated to his former 4ob pending ad4udication of the case#D&AE Desiring an e6peditious decision of his case complainant sought the assistance of respondent sometime in Cul- ()): after learning of the latters emplo-ment +ith the CA from her sister Magdalena David# During their first telephone conversationD&*E and thereafter through a series of messages the- e6changed via SMS D&BE complainant informed respondent of the particulars of his pending case# Allegedl- complainant thought that respondent +ould be able to advise him on ho+ to achieve an earl- resolution of his case# Lo+ever a +ee% after their first telephone conversation respondent allegedl- told complainant that a favorable and speed- decision of his case +as attainable but the person +ho +as to draft the decision +as in return as%ing for !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9#D&=E Complainant e6postulated that he did not have that %ind of mone- since he had been 4obless for a long time to +hich respondent replied Eh- ganoon talaga ang la aran dito- eh. #ung +ala ang pera- pasensiya na. D()E Complainant then tried to as for a reduction of the amount but respondent held firm asserting that the price had been set not b- her but bthe person +ho +as going to ma%e the decision#D(&E Respondent even admonished complainant +ith the +ords Kala tayo sa paleng e ihoI3D((E +hen the latter bargained for a lo+er amount#D(.E Complainant then as%ed for time to determine +hether or not to pa- the mone- in e6change for the decision# /nstead in August of ()): he sought the assistance of "mbestigador#D(:E $he cre+ of the $" program accompanied him to PA!CC0; SPH +here he lodged a complaint against respondent for e6tortion#D('E $hereafter he communicated +ith respondent again to verif- if the latter +as still as%ing for the mone-D(AE and to set up a meeting +ith her#D(*E Fpon learning that respondents offer of a favorable decision in e6change for !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9 +as still standing the plan for the entrapment operation +as formulated b- "mbestigador in cooperation +ith the PA!CC# !n (: September ()): complainant and respondent met for the first time in person at the (nd 0loor of Collibee $imes Pla<a Bldg# D(BE the place +here the entrapment operation +as later conducted# Patricia Siringan 8Siringan9 a researcher of "mbestigador accompanied complainant and posed as his sister;in;la+#D(=E During the meeting complainant clarified from respondent that if he gave the amount of !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9 he +ould get a favorable decision# $his +as confirmed b- the latter together +ith the assurance that it +ould ta%e about a month for the decision to come out#D.)E Respondent also e6plained that the amount of !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9 guaranteed a favorable decision onl- in the CA but did not e6tend to the Supreme Court should the case be appealed later#D.&E @hen respondent +as as%ed +here the mone- +ill go she claimed that it +ill go to a male researcher +hose name she refused to divulge# $he researcher +as allegedl- a la+-er in the CA 0ifth 8'th9 Division +here complainant case +as pending#D.(E She also claimed that she +ill not get an- part of the mone- unless the researcher decides to give her some#D..E

Complainant tried once again to bargain for a lo+er amount during the meeting but respondent asserted that the amount +as fi6ed# She even e6plained that this +as their second transaction and the reason +h- the amount +as closed at !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9 +as because on a previous occasion onl- Eight Lundred $housand Pesos 8PB)) )))#))9 +as paid b- the client despite the fact that the amount had been pegged at !ne Million $hree Lundred $housand Pesos 8P& .)) )))#))9#D.:E Complainant then proposed that he pa- a do+n pa-ment of Seven Lundred $housand Pesos 8P*)) )))#))9 +hile the balance of $hree Lundred $housand Pesos 8P.)) )))#))9 +ill be paid once the decision had been released#D.'E Lo+ever respondent refused to entertain the offer she and the researcher having learned their lesson from their previous e6perience for as then the client no longer paid the balance of 0ive Lundred $housand Pesos 8P')) )))#))9 after the decision had come out#D.AE Complainant brought along copies of the documents pertinent to his case during the first meeting# After reading through them respondent allegedl- uttered Ah- panalo a.3D.*E $he parties set the ne6t meeting date at lunchtime on (B September ()): and it +as understood that the mone- +ould be handed over b- complainant to respondent then#D.BE !n the pre;arranged meeting date five 8'9 PA!C$0 agents namel-1 Capt# Re-naldo Maclang 8Maclang9 as team leader SP!& Renato Bana- 8Bana-9 P!& Bernard "illena 8"illena9 P!& Dann- 0eliciano and P!( Edgar delos Re-esD.=E arrived at around &&1.) in the morning at Collibee#D:)E Nue< and Siringan arrived at past noon and seated themselves at the table beside the one occupied b- the t+o 8(9 agents Bana- and "illena# Complainant had +ith him an unsealed long bro+n envelope containing ten 8&)9 bundles of mar%ed mone- and paper mone- +hich +as to be given to respondent#D:&E $he envelope did not actuall- contain the !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9 demanded b- respondent but instead contained paper mone- in denominations of !ne Lundred Pesos 8P&))#))9 0ive Lundred Pesos 8P'))#))9 and !ne $housand Pesos 8P& )))#))9 as +ell as ne+spaper cut;outs#D:(E $here +ere also ten 8&)9 authentic !ne Lundred Peso 8P&))#))9 bills +hich had been previousl- dusted +ith ultra;violet po+der b- the PA!C$0#D:.E $he three other PA!C$0 agents +ere seated a fe+ tables a+a-D::E and there +ere also three 8.9 cre+ members from "mbestigador at another table operating a mini D" camera that +as secretl- recording the +hole transaction#D:'E Respondent arrived at around &1)) p#m#D:AE She appeared ver- nervous and suspicious during the meeting#D:*E /ronicallshe repeatedl- said that complainant might entrap her precisel- li%e those that +ere sho+n on "mbestigador#D:BE She thus refused to receive the mone- then and there# @hat she proposed +as for complainant and Siringan to travel +ith her in a ta6i and drop her off at the CA +here she +ould receive the mone-#D:=E More iron- ensued# Respondent actuall- said that she felt there +ere policemen around and she +as afraid that once she too% hold of the envelope complainant proffered she +ould suddenl- be arrested and handcuffed#D')E At one point she even said Ayan o- tapos na silang umain- ba it hindi pa sila umaalisL 3D'&E referring to Bana- and "illena at the ne6t table# $o alla- respondents suspicion the t+o agents stood up after a fe+ minutes and +ent near the staircase +here the- could still see +hat +as going on#D'(E Complainant respondent and Siringan negotiated for almost one hour#D'.E Complainant and Siringan bargained for a lo+er price but respondent refused to accede# @hen respondent finall- touched the unsealed envelope to loo% at the mone- inside the PA!C$0 agents converged on her and invited her to the @estern Police District 8@PD9 Lead7uarters at Fnited Nations Avenue for 7uestioning#D':E Respondent became h-sterical as a commotion ensued inside the restaurant# D''E !n the +a- to the @PD on board the PA!C$0 vehicle Bana- as%ed respondent +h- she +ent to the restaurant# $he latter replied that she +ent there to get the !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9#D'AE Respondent +as brought to the PNP Crime ?aborator- at the @PD +here she +as tested and found positive for ultra; violet po+der that +as previousl- dusted on the mone-#D'*E She +as later detained at the @PD Lead7uarters# At seven ocloc% in the evening of (B September ()): respondent called Att-# ?ilia Mercedes Encarnacion Hept- 8Att-# Hept-9 her immediate superior in the CA at the latters house#D'BE She tearfull- confessed to Att-# Hept- that 2she as%ed for mone- for a case and +as entrapped b- police officers and the media#3D'=E Enraged at the ne+s Att-# Hept- as%ed +h- she had done such a thing to +hich respondent replied Kala lang maMam- sinubu an o lang ba a ma alusot. 3DA)E Respondent claimed that she +as ashamed of +hat she did and repented the same# She also as%ed for Att-# Hept-s forgiveness and help# $he latter instead reminded respondent of the instances +hen she and her co;emplo-ees at the CA +ere e6horted during office meetings never to commit such offenses#DA&E Att-# Hept- rendered a verbal reportDA(E of her conversation +ith their divisions chairman Custice Martin S# "illarama# She reduced the report into +riting and submitted the same to then PC Cancio Harcia on (= September ()):#DA.E She also later testified as to the contents of her report to the Committee# During the hearing of this case respondent maintained that +hat happened +as a case of instigation and not an entrapment# She asserted that the offer of mone- in e6change for a favorable decision came not from her but from complainant# $o support her contention she presented +itnesses +ho testified that it +as complainant +ho allegedloffered mone- to an-one +ho could help him +ith his pending case# She li%e+ise claimed that she never touched the mone- on (B September ()): rather it +as Capt# Maclang +ho forcibl- held her hands and pressed it to the envelope containing the mone-# She thus as%ed that the administrative case against her be dismissed#

$his Court is not persuaded b- respondents version# Based on the evidence on record +hat happened +as a clear case of entrapment and not instigation as respondent +ould li%e to claim# /n entrapment +a-s and means are resorted to for the purpose of ensnaring and capturing the la+;brea%ers in the e6ecution of their criminal plan# !n the other hand in instigation the instigator practicall- induces the +ould;be defendant into the commission of the offense and he himself becomes a co;principal#DA:E /n this case complainant and the la+ enforcers resorted to entrapment precisel- because respondent demanded the amount of !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9 from complainant in e6change for a favorable decision of the latters pending case# Complainants narration of the incidents +hich led to the entrapment operation are more in accord +ith the circumstances that actuall- transpired and are more credible than respondents version# Complainant +as able to prove b- his testimon- in con4unction +ith the te6t messages from respondent dul- presented before the Committee that the latter as%ed for !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9 in e6change for a favorable decision of the formers pending case +ith the CA# $he te6t messages +ere properl- admitted b- the Committee since the same are no+ covered b- Section &8%9 Rule ( of the Rules on Electronic EvidenceDA'E +hich provides1 2Ephemeral electronic communication3 refers to telephone conversations te6t messages # # # and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of +hich is not recorded or retained#3 Fnder Section ( Rule && of the Rules on Electronic Evidence 2Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven bthe testimon- of a person +ho +as a part- to the same or +ho has personal %no+ledge thereof # # # #3 /n this case complainant +ho +as the recipient of said messages and therefore had personal %no+ledge thereof testified on their contents and import# Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone number reflected in complainants cellphone from +hich the messages originated +as hers#DAAE Moreover an- doubt respondent ma- have had as to the admissibilit- of the te6t messages had been laid to rest +hen she and her counsel signed and attested to the veracit- of the te6t messages bet+een her and complainant#DA*E /t is also +ell to remember that in administrative cases technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictl- applied#DABE @e have no doubt as to the probative value of the te6t messages as evidence in determining the guilt or lac% thereof of respondent in this case# Complainants testimon- as to the discussion bet+een him and respondent on the latters demand for !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9 +as corroborated b- the testimon- of a disinterested +itness Siringan the reporter of "mbestigador +ho +as present +hen the parties met in person# Siringan +as priv- to the parties actual conversation since she accompanied complainant on both meetings held on (: and (B of September ()): at Collibee# Respondents evidence +as comprised b- the testimon- of her daughter and sister as +ell as an ac7uaintance +ho mereltestified on ho+ respondent and complainant first met# Respondents o+n testimon- consisted of bare denials and self; serving claims that she did not remember either the statements she herself made or the contents of the messages she sent# Respondent had a ver- selective memor- made apparent +hen clarificator- 7uestions +ere propounded b- the Committee# @hen she +as as%ed if she had sent the te6t messages contained in complainants cellphone and +hich reflected her cellphone number respondent admitted those that +ere not incriminating but claimed she did not remember those that clearl- sho+ed she +as transacting +ith complainant# $hus during the &* November ()): hearing +here respondent +as 7uestioned b- Custice Sala<ar;0ernando the follo+ing transpired1 Q1 After reading those te6t messages do -ou remember having made those te6t messagesR 8Respondent9 A1 !nl- some of these -our honors# Custice Sala<ar;0ernando1 @hich oneR A1 Sabi o po magpunta na lang sila sa office. Fung nasa bandang unahan po- your 9onors # Q1 @hat elseR A1 Tapos yung sabi o pong pagpunta niya magdala siya ng ".D. or isama niya sa anya si 7en David. Q1 !%a- Oou remember having te6ted Mald- Nue< on September (. ()): at &.)= +hich +as around &1)= in the afternoon and -ou said di me p+ede punta na lang ayo dito sa office Thursday DCDN p.m. Room &)* Centennial Building# A1 Oes -our Lonors# Q1 And on September (. ()): at &*.& +hich +as around '1.& in the afternoon -ou again te6ted MaldNue< and -ou said Sige bu as nang tanghali sa Times $la)a- Taft Avenue- corner /.:. Avenue. (agdala a ng ".D. para ma ilala ita o isama mo si 7en David. A1 !po -our Lonors# Q1 Lo+ about on September (. at '1)' in the afternoon +hen -ou said Di p+ede elan mo gusto fi,ed price na iyon. A1 / dont remember that -our Lonors# Q1 Again on September (. at '1&: p#m# -ou said Alam mo di o iyon price and nagbigay noon yung gaga+a. Kala a o doon. Oou dont also remember thisR A1 Oes -our Lonors#

September (* at &1:( p#m# 'o naman ayusin nyo yung hindi halatang pera# Oou also dont remember thatR A1 Oes Oour Lonors# Q1 September (* at &1.) in the afternoon Di na p+ede sabi sa a in. $ina aiusapan o na nga ulit iyon. Oou dont remember thatR A1 No -our Lonors#DA=E Respondent +ould li%e this Court to believe that she never had an- intention of committing a crime that the offer of a million pesos for a favorable decision came from complainant and that it +as complainant and the la+ enforcers +ho instigated the +hole incident# Respondent thus stated that she met +ith complainant onl- to tell the latter to stop calling and te6ting her not to get the !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9 as pre;arranged# $his claim of respondent is preposterous to sa- the least# Lad the offer of a million pesos reall- come from complainant and had she reall- intended to stop the latter from corrupting her she could have simpl- refused to ans+er the latters messages and calls# $his she did not do# She ans+ered those calls and messages though she later claimed she did not remember having sent the same messages to complainant# She could also have reported the matter to the CA Presiding Custice an action +hich respondent admitted during the hearing +as the proper thing to do under the circumstances#D*)E But this course of action she did not resort to either allegedl- because she never e6pected things to end this +a-#D*&E @hile claiming that she +as not interested in complainants offer of a million pesos she met +ith him not onl- once but t+ice ostensibl- to tell the latter to stop pestering her# /f respondent felt that telling complainant to stop pestering her +ould be more effective if she did it in person the same +ould have been accomplished +ith a single meeting# $here +as no reason for her to meet +ith complainant again on (B September ()): unless there +as reall- an understanding bet+een them that the !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9 +ill be handed over to her then# Respondent even claimed that she became afraid of complainant +hen she learned that the latter had been dismissed b- PAHC!R for using illegal drugs#D*(E $his not+ithstanding she still met +ith him on (B September ()):# Anent complainants narration of respondents refusal to reduce the amount of !ne Million Pesos 8P& )))#)))#))9 based on the lesson learned from a previous transaction +hile admitting that she actuall- said the same respondent +ants this Court to believe that she said it merel- to have something to tal% about#D*.E /f indeed respondent had no intention of committing an- +rongdoing it escapes the Court +h- she had to ma%e up stories merel- to test if complainant could ma%e good on his alleged boast that he could come up +ith a million pesos# /t is not in accord +ith ordinar- human e6perience for an honest government emplo-ee to ma%e up stories that +ould ma%e part-;litigants believe that court decisions ma- be bought and sold# $ime and again this Court has declared thus1 2Ever-one in the 4udiciar- bears a heav- burden of responsibilit- for the proper discharge of his dut- and it behooves ever-one to steer clear of an- situations in +hich the slightest suspicion might be cast on his conduct# An- misbehavior on his part +hether true or onl- perceived is li%el- to reflect adversel- on the administration of 4ustice#3D*:E Respondent having +or%ed for the government for t+ent- four 8(:9 -ears nineteen 8&=9 of +hich have been in the CA D*'E should have %no+n ver- +ell that court emplo-ees are held to the strictest standards of honest- and integrit-# $heir conduct should at all times be above suspicion# As held b- this Court in a number of cases 2$he conduct or behavior of all officials of an agenc- involved in the administration of 4ustice from the Presiding Cudge to the most 4unior cler% should be circumscribed +ith the heav- burden of responsibilit-#3D*AE $heir conduct must at all times be characteri<ed b- among others strict propriet- and decorum in order to earn and maintain the respect of the public for the 4udiciar-#D**E Respondents actuations from the time she started communicating +ith complainant in Cul- ()): until the entrapment operation on (B September ()): sho+ a lac% of the moral fiber demanded from court emplo-ees# Respondents avo+als of innocence not+ithstanding the evidence clearl- sho+ that she solicited the amount of !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9 from complainant in e6change for a favorable decision# $he testimon- of Att-# Hept- the recipient of respondents confession immediatel- after the entrapment operation unmista%abl- supports the finding that respondent did voluntaril- engage herself in the activit- she is being accused of# Respondents solicitation of mone- from complainant in e6change for a favorable decision violates Canon / of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel +hich too% effect on & Cune ()): pursuant to A#M# No# ).;)A;&.;SC# Sections & and ( Canon / of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel e6pressl- provide1 2SEC$/!N &# Co<rt 6er1o00e3 17833 0ot <1e t7e/r o==/c/83 6o1/t/o0 to 1ec<re <0@8rr80te5 be0e=/t1- 6r/4/3e;e1 or eAe.6t/o0 =or t7e.1e34e1 or =or ot7er1.B 2SEC$/!N (# Co<rt 6er1o00e3 17833 0ot 1o3/c/t or 8cce6t 80? ;/=t- =84or or be0e=/t b81e5 o0 80? eA63/c/t or /.63/c/t <05er1t805/0; t78t 1<c7 ;/=t- =84or or be0e=/t 17833 /0=3<e0ce t7e/r o==/c/83 8ct/o01.B 8Fnderscoring supplied9 /t is note+orth- that the penultimate paragraph of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel specificall- provides1 /NC!RP!RA$/!N !0 !$LER RF?ES 2SEC$/!N &# All provisions of the la+ Civil Service rules and issuances of the Supreme Court governing the conduct of public officers and emplo-ees applicable to the 4udiciar- are deemed incorporated into this Code#3

Q1

B- soliciting the amount of !ne Million Pesos 8P& ))) )))#))9 from complainant respondent committed an act of impropriet- +hich immeasurabl- affects the honor and dignit- of the 4udiciar- and the peoples confidence in it# /n the recent case of Aspiras vs. Abalos D*BE complainant charged respondent an emplo-ee of the Records Section !ffice of the Court Administrator 8!CA9 Supreme Court for allegedl- deceiving him into giving her mone- in the total amount of 0ift- $+o $housand Pesos 8P'( )))#))9 in e6change for his ac7uittal in a murder case on appeal before the Supreme Court# /t turned out that respondents representation +as false because complainant +as subse7uentl- convicted of murder and sentenced to suffer the penalt- of reclusion perpetua b- the Supreme Court#D*=E $he Supreme Court en banc found Esmeralda Abalos guilt- of serious misconduct and ordered her dismissal from the service# $his Court aptl- held thus1 2/n (irano vs. Saavedra DB)E this Court emphaticall- declared that a public servant must e6hibit at all times the highest sense of honest- and integrit-# $he administration of 4ustice is a sacred tas% and b- the ver- nature of their duties and responsibilities all those involved in it must faithfull- adhere to hold inviolate and invigorate the principle that public office is a public trust solemnl- enshrined in the Constitution#3DB&E ?i%e+ise in the grave misconduct case against Datu Al-%han $# Amilbangsa of the Sharia Circuit Court Bengo $a+i; $a+i DB(E this Court stated1 2No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from the occupant than the 4udicial office# $hose connected +ith the dispensation of 4ustice bear a heav- burden of responsibilit-# Court emplo-ees in particular must be individuals of competence honest- and probit- charged as the- are +ith safeguarding the integrit- of the court # # # # $he Ligh Court has consistentl- held that persons involved in the administration of 4ustice ought to live up to the strictest standards of honest- and integrit- in the public service# Le should refrain from financial dealings +hich +ould interfere +ith the efficient performance of his duties#DB.E $he conduct re7uired of court personnel must al+a-s be be-ond reproach#3DB:E $he follo+ing pronouncement of this Court in the case of Frastor)a- Sr. vs. 7ati)a- Court Aide- 0TC Branch <D Cebu CityDB'E is also +orth remembering1 2Court emplo-ees bear the burden of observing e6acting standards of ethics and moralit-# $his is the price one pa-s for the honor of +or%ing in the 4udiciar-# $hose +ho are part of the machiner- dispensing 4ustice from the lo+liest cler% to the presiding 4udge must conduct themselves +ith utmost decorum and propriet- to maintain the publics faith and respect for the 4udiciar-# /mproper behavior e6hibits not onl- a paucit- of professionalism at the +or%place but also a great disrespect to the court itself# Such demeanor is a failure of circumspection demanded of ever- public official and emplo-ee#3DBAE /n vie+ of the facts narrated above and ta%ing into account the applicable la+s and 4urisprudence the Committee in their 0eportDB*E recommended that respondent be dismissed from government service for HRA"E M/SC!NDFC$ and violation of Sections & and ( Canon & of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel#DBBE 0inding the Committees recommendation to be supported b- more than substantial evidence and in accord +ith the applicable la+s and 4urisprudence the recommendation is +ell ta%en# +)ERE'ORE premises considered respondent Elvira Cru<;Apao is found HF/?$O of HRA"E M/SC!NDFC$ and violation of SEC$/!NS & and ( of the C!DE !0 C!NDFC$ 0!R C!FR$ PERS!NNE? and is accordingl- D/SM/SSED from government service +ith pre4udice to re;emplo-ment in an- branch instrumentalit- or agenc- of the government including government;o+ned and controlled corporations# Ler retirement and all benefits e6cept accrued leave credits are hereb- 0!R0E/$ED# S! !RDERED#