NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NAPOCOR) vs. CODILLA, JR.

, BANGPAI SHIPPING
COMPANY (BANGPAI)and WALLEM SHIPPING, INCORPORATED (WALLEM)
Facts:
NAPOCOR filed before the RTC a complaint for damages against BANGPAI for the alleged
damages caused on NAPOCOR's power barges. WALLEM, on the other hand, was impleaded by
NAPOCOR as additional defendant for being allegedly the ship agent of BANGPAI.
NAPOCOR, after adducing evidence during the trial of the case, filed a formal offer of evidence
before the said court consisting of Exhibits "A" to "V" together with the sub-marked portions
thereof. Consequently, BANGPAI and WALLEM filed their respective objections to NAPOCOR's
formal offer of evidence for being mere Xerox or photocopies.
The RTC denied the admission and excluded from the records NAPOCORs exhibits and its submarkings.
NAPOCOR filed a Petition for Certiorari seeking to set aside the Order of the RTC. Accordingly,
the photocopies offered are equivalent to the original of the document on the basis of the
Electronic Evidence.
The CA denied the Petition of NAPOCOR. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not the Xerox or photocopies offered by NAPOCOR are admissible as evidence for
being equivalent to the original of the document on the basis of the Electronic Evidence.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that Xerox or photocopies offered by NAPOCOR are inadmissible as evidence.
Accordingly, it does not constitute the electronic evidence defined in Section 1 of Rule 2 of the
Rules on Electronic Evidence as follows:
"(h)
"Electronic document" refers to information or the representation of information, data,
figures, symbols or other models of written expression, described or however represented, by
which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and
affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any printout, readable by sight or other
means which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For the
purpose of these Rules, the term "electronic document" may be used interchangeably with
"electronic data message".
The information in those Xerox or photocopies was not received, recorded, retrieved or produced
electronically. Moreover, such electronic evidence must be authenticated (Sections 1 and 2, Rule
5, Rules on Electronic Evidence), which NAPOCOR failed to do. Finally, the required Affidavit to
prove the admissibility and evidentiary weight of the alleged electronic evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 9)
was not executed, much less presented in evidence.
Hence, the Xerox or photocopies offered should, therefore, be stricken off the record. (The Court
denied the Petition of NAPOCOR and affirmed the decision of the CA)