RCBC Bankard Case
RCBC Bankard Case
RCBC Bankard Case
DECISION
CAGUIOA, J : p
Before the Court is the petition for review on certiorari 1(2) (Petition) under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules) filed by petitioner RCBC Bankard Services
Corporation (petitioner) assailing the Decision 2(3) dated August 13, 2013 (RTC
Decision) and the Order 3(4) dated March 1, 2016 (RTC Order) of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 71, Pasig City (RTC) in Civil Case No. 73756. The RTC Decision
affirmed in toto the Decision 4(5) dated September 28, 2012 of the Metropolitan Trial
Court, Branch 72, Pasig City (MeTC) in Civil Case No. 18629, which dismissed the
complaint of petitioner for lack of preponderance of evidence. 5(6) The RTC Order
denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. 6(7)
The antecedent facts as gleaned from the MeTC Decision and narrated in the
RTC Decision are straightforward.
Acting on the complaint, the MeTC issued summons on March 13, 2012.
18(19) Based on the return of the summons dated April 12, 2012 of Sheriff III
Inocentes P. Villasquez, the summons was duly effected to respondents through
substituted service on April 11, 2012. 19(20) For failure of respondents to file their
answer within the required period, the MeTC motu proprio, pursuant to Section 6 of
the Rule on Summary Procedure, considered the case submitted for resolution. 20(21)
CAIHTE
The MeTC, without delving into the merits of the case, dismissed it on the
ground that petitioner, as the plaintiff, failed to discharge the required burden of proof
in a civil case, which is to establish its case by preponderance of evidence. 21(22) The
MeTC justified the dismissal in this wise:
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 2
The decretal portion of the MeTC Decision dated September 28, 2012 reads:
SO ORDERED. 24(25)
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal 25(26) dated December 17, 2012 on the
ground that the MeTC Decision was contrary to the facts and law. 26(27)
In its Memorandum for Appellant 27(28) dated February 19, 2012, petitioner
argued that what it attached to the complaint were the "duplicate original copies" and
not mere photocopies. 28(29) Petitioner also argued that:
The RTC found petitioner's appeal to be without merit. 30(31) It reasoned out
that:
A perusal of the said annexes would show that there is a stamp mark at
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 3
the bottom right portion of each page of the said annexes, with the words
"DUPLICATE ORIGINAL (signature) CHARITO O. HAM, Senior Manager,
Collection Support Division Head, Collection Group, Bankard, Inc."
Further inspection of the said stamp marks would reveal that the
signatures appearing at the top of the name CHARITO O. HAM in the
respective annexes are not original signatures but are part of the subject stamp
marks. DETACa
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision dated August 13, 2013 reads:
SO ORDERED. 32(33)
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration 33(34) dated August 29, 2013,
which was denied by the RTC in its Order 34(35) dated March 1, 2016.
Hence, the instant Rule 45 Petition. The Court in its Resolution 35(36) dated
June 27, 2016 required respondents to comment on the Petition and directed the
Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC to elevate the complete records of Civil Case No.
73756, which were subsequently received by the Court. In view of the returned and
unserved copy of the Resolution dated June 27, 2016, the Court in its Resolution
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 4
36(37) dated June 6, 2018 dispensed with respondents' comment.
The Issues
1. on pure question of law, whether the RTC erred in affirming the MeTC's
dismissal of petitioner's complaint in that pursuant to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules
on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC), an electronic document is to be
regarded as an original thereof under the Best Evidence Rule and thus, with the
presented evidence in "original duplicate copies," petitioner has preponderantly
proven respondents' unpaid obligation; and
2. in any event, invoking the rule that technicalities must yield to substantial
justice, whether petitioner must be afforded the opportunity to rectify its mistake,
offer additional evidence and/or present to the court another set of direct print-outs of
the electronic documents.
On the first issue, petitioner invokes for the first time on appeal the Rules on
Electronic Evidence to justify its position that it has preponderantly proven its claim
for unpaid obligation against respondents because it had attached to its complaint
electronic documents. Petitioner argues that since electronic documents, which are
computer-generated, accurately representing information, data, figures and/or other
modes of written expression, creating or extinguishing a right or obligation, when
directly printed out are considered original reproductions of the same, they are
admissible under the Best Evidence Rule. 37(38) Petitioner explains that since the
attachments to its complaint are wholly computer-generated print-outs which it
caused to be reproduced directly from the computer, they qualify as electronic
documents which should be regarded as the equivalent of the original documents
pursuant to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. 38(39)
Procedurally, petitioner cannot adopt a new theory in its appeal before the
Court and abandon its theory in its appeal before the RTC. Pursuant to Section 15,
Rule 44 of the Rules, petitioner may include in his assignment of errors any question
of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and is within the issues framed
by the parties. aDSIHc
In the Memorandum for Appellant which it filed before the RTC, petitioner did
not raise the Rules on Electronic Evidence to justify that the so-called "duplicate
original copies" of the SOAs and Credit History Inquiry are electronic documents.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 5
Rather, it insisted that they were duplicate original copies, being computer-generated
reports, and not mere photocopies or substitutionary evidence, as found by the MeTC.
As observed by the RTC, petitioner even tried to rectify the attachments (annexes) to
its complaint, by filing a Manifestation dated August 9, 2012 wherein it attached
copies of the said annexes. Unfortunately, as observed by the RTC, the attachments to
the said Manifestation "are merely photocopies of the annexes attached to the
complaint, but with a mere addition of stamp marks bearing the same inscription as
the first stamp marks" 39(40) that were placed in the annexes to the complaint.
Because petitioner has not raised the electronic document argument before the RTC,
it may no longer be raised nor ruled upon on appeal.
Even in the complaint, petitioner never intimated that it intended the annexes
to be considered as electronic documents as defined in the Rules on Electronic
Evidence. If such were petitioner's intention, then it would have laid down in the
complaint the basis for their introduction and admission as electronic documents.
Also, estoppel bars a party from raising issues, which have not been raised in
the proceedings before the lower courts, for the first time on appeal. 40(41) Clearly,
petitioner, by its acts and representations, is now estopped to claim that the annexes to
its complaint are not duplicate original copies but electronic documents. It is too late
in the day for petitioner to switch theories.
Thus, procedurally, the Court is precluded from resolving the first issue.
Even assuming that the Court brushes aside the above-noted procedural
obstacles, the Court cannot just concede that the pieces of documentary evidence in
question are indeed electronic documents, which according to the Rules on Electronic
Evidence are considered functional equivalent of paper-based documents 41(42) and
regarded as the equivalent of original documents under the Best Evidence Rule if they
are print-outs or outputs readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately. 42(43)
For the Court to consider an electronic document as evidence, it must pass the
test of admissibility. According to Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence, "[a]n electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the
rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is
authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules."
Evidently, petitioner could not have complied with the Rules on Electronic
Evidence because it failed to authenticate the supposed electronic documents through
the required affidavit of evidence. As earlier pointed out, what petitioner had in mind
at the inception (when it filed the complaint) was to have the annexes admitted as
duplicate originals as the term is understood in relation to paper-based documents.
Thus, the annexes or attachments to the complaint of petitioner are inadmissible as
electronic documents, and they cannot be given any probative value.
In fine, both the MeTC and the RTC correctly applied the Best Evidence Rule.
They correctly regarded the annexes to the complaint as mere photocopies of the
SOAs and the Credit History Inquiry, and not necessarily the original thereof. Being
substitutionary documents, they could not be given probative value and are
inadmissible based on the Best Evidence Rule.
The Best Evidence Rule, which requires the presentation of the original
document, is unmistakable:
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
after reasonable notice;
Section 4, Rule 130 of the Rules and Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence identify the following instances when copies of a document are
equally regarded as originals:
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 9
SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the
original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or
by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order stated. (4a)
Going back to the documents in question, the fact that a stamp with the
markings:
DUPLICATE ORIGINAL
(Sgd.)
CHARITO O. HAM
Senior Manager
Collection Support Division Head
Collection group
Bankard, Inc. 51(52)
was placed at the right bottom of each page of the SOAs and the Credit History
Inquiry did not make them "duplicate original copies" as described above. The
necessary allegations to qualify them as "duplicate original copies" must be stated in
the complaint and duly supported by the pertinent affidavit of the qualified
person.
The Court observes that based on the records of the case, only the signature in
the stamp at the bottom of the Credit History Inquiry appears to be original. The
signatures of the "certifying" person in the SOAs are not original but part of the
stamp. Thus, even if all the signatures of Charito O. Ham, Senior Manager, Collection
Support Division Head of petitioner's Collection Group are original, the required
authentication so that the annexes to the complaint can be considered as "duplicate
original copies" will still be lacking.
The Court is aware that the instant case was considered to be governed by the
Rule on Summary Procedure, which does not expressly require that the affidavits of
the witness must accompany the complaint or the answer and it is only after the
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 10
receipt of the order in connection with the preliminary conference and within 10 days
therefrom, wherein the parties are required to submit the affidavits of the parties'
witnesses and other evidence on the factual issues defined in the order, together with
their position papers setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by them. 52(53)
Given the nature of the documents that petitioner needed to adduce in order to
prove its cause of action, it would have been prudent on the part of its lawyer, to
make the necessary allegations in the complaint and attach thereto the required
accompanying affidavits to lay the foundation for their admission as evidence in
conformity with the Best Evidence Rule.
This prudent or cautionary action may avert a dismissal of the complaint for
insufficiency of evidence, as what happened in this case, when the court acts pursuant
to Section 6 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, which provides:
Upon a perusal of the items in the SOAs, the claim of petitioner against
respondents is less than P100,000.00, 53(54) if the late charges and interest charges
are deducted from the total claim of P117,157.98. Given that the action filed by
petitioner is for payment of money where the value of the claim does not exceed
P100,000.00 (the jurisdictional amount when the complaint was filed in January
2013), exclusive of interest and costs, petitioner could have opted to prosecute its
cause under the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (Revised Rules
for Small Claims).
Section 6 of the Revised Rules for Small Claims provides: "A small claims
action is commenced by filing with the court an accomplished and verified Statement
of Claim (Form 1-SCC) in duplicate, accompanied by a Certification against Forum
Shopping, Splitting a Single Cause of Action, and Multiplicity of Suits (Form
1-A-SCC), and two (2) duly certified photocopies of the actionable document/s
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 11
subject of the claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses and other evidence to
support the claim. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not
attached to or submitted together with the Statement of Claim, unless good cause is
shown for the admission of additional evidence."
If petitioner took this option, then it would have been incumbent upon it to
attach to its Statement of Claim even the affidavits of its witnesses. If that was the
option that petitioner took, then maybe its complaint might not have been dismissed
for lack of preponderance of evidence. Unfortunately, petitioner included the late and
interest charges in its claim and prosecuted its cause under the Rule on Summary
Procedure.
Proceeding to the second issue, petitioner begs for the relaxation of the
application of the Rules on Evidence and seeks the Court's equity jurisdiction.
Firstly, petitioner cannot, on one hand, seek the review of its case by the Court
on a pure question of law and afterward, plead that the Court, on equitable grounds,
grant its Petition, nonetheless. For the Court to exercise its equity jurisdiction, certain
facts must be presented to justify the same. A review on a pure question of law
necessarily negates the review of facts.
Secondly, petitioner has not been candid in admitting its error as pointed out
by both the MeTC and the RTC. After being apprised that the annexes to its
complaint do not conform to the Best Evidence Rule, petitioner did not make any
effort to comply so that the lower courts could have considered its claim. Rather, it
persisted in insisting that the annexes are compliant. Even before the Court,
petitioner did not even attach such documents which would convince the Court
that petitioner could adduce the original documents as required by the Best
Evidence Rule to prove its claim against respondents.
A Final Note
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
* Also stated as "Emy" in some parts of the records.
1. Rollo, pp. 8-21, excluding Annexes.
2. Id. at 22-25. Penned by Judge Elisa R. Sarmiento-Flores.
3. Id. at 26.
4. Id. at 45-47. Penned by Presiding Judge Joy N. Casihan-Dumlao.
5. Id. at 46.
6. Id. at 26.
7. Id. at 27.
8. Id. at 22.
9. Id.
10. Stated as "December 15, 2012" in the Complaint and in the Petition, id. at 9 and 29.
11. Rollo, pp. 22, 29 and 32-41.
12. Id. at 32-41.
13. Id. at 22-23.
14. Id. at 42.
15. Id. at 23.
16. Id. at 27-44.
17. Id. at 23.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id. at 46.
22. The stamp appears to the bottom of each page of the SOAs with the following entry:
Duplicate Original
(Sgd.)
CHARITO O. HAM
Senior Manager
Collection Support Division Head
Collection group
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 13
Bankard, Inc. (Records, pp. 5-14.)
23. Rollo, p. 46.
24. Id.
25. Id. at 48-49.
26. Id. at 48.
27. Id. at 56-61.
28. Id. at 58.
29. Id.
30. Id. at 24.
31. Id. at 24-25.
32. Id. at 25.
33. Id. at 52-55.
34. Id. at 26.
35. Id. at 71-72.
36. Id. at 104-105.
37. Id. at 15.
38. Id. at 14-15.
39. Id. at 25.
40. See Imani v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, 649 Phil. 647, 661-662 (2010).
41. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE, Rule 3, Sec. 1.
42. Id., Rule 4, Sec. 1.
43. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130.
44. Id. Rule 130, Sec. 4 (a).
45. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE, Rule 4, Sec. 1 in relation to Rule 3, Sec. 1.
46. Id., Rule 2, Sec. 1 (h).
47. Id.
48. Id., Rule 2, Sec. 1 (g).
49. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 4 (b) and (c).
50. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE, Rule 4, Sec. 2, first paragraph.
51. Records, pp. 5-14.
52. THE 1991 REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE, Sec. 9.
53. Total amount of claim inclusive of charges and penalties (based on the complaint) of
P117,157.98 less total late charges and interest charges of P25,747.20 equals
P91,410.78.
54. See De la Cruz v. Blanco, 73 Phil. 596, 597 (1942).
55. See Maglana Rice and Corn Mill, Inc. v. Spouses Tan, 673 Phil. 532, 544 (2011).
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 14
Endnotes
1 (Popup - Popup)
* Also stated as "Emy" in some parts of the records.
2 (Popup - Popup)
1. Rollo, pp. 8-21, excluding Annexes.
3 (Popup - Popup)
2. Id. at 22-25. Penned by Judge Elisa R. Sarmiento-Flores.
4 (Popup - Popup)
3. Id. at 26.
5 (Popup - Popup)
4. Id. at 45-47. Penned by Presiding Judge Joy N. Casihan-Dumlao.
6 (Popup - Popup)
5. Id. at 46.
7 (Popup - Popup)
6. Id. at 26.
8 (Popup - Popup)
7. Id. at 27.
9 (Popup - Popup)
8. Id. at 22.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 15
10 (Popup - Popup)
9. Id.
11 (Popup - Popup)
10. Stated as "December 15, 2012" in the Complaint and in the Petition, id. at 9 and 29.
12 (Popup - Popup)
11. Rollo, pp. 22, 29 and 32-41.
13 (Popup - Popup)
12. Id. at 32-41.
14 (Popup - Popup)
13. Id. at 22-23.
15 (Popup - Popup)
14. Id. at 42.
16 (Popup - Popup)
15. Id. at 23.
17 (Popup - Popup)
16. Id. at 27-44.
18 (Popup - Popup)
17. Id. at 23.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 16
19 (Popup - Popup)
18. Id.
20 (Popup - Popup)
19. Id.
21 (Popup - Popup)
20. Id.
22 (Popup - Popup)
21. Id. at 46.
23 (Popup - Popup)
22. The stamp appears to the bottom of each page of the SOAs with the following entry:
Duplicate Original
(Sgd.)
CHARITO O. HAM
Senior Manager
Collection Support Division Head
Collection group
Bankard, Inc. (Records, pp. 5-14.)
24 (Popup - Popup)
23. Rollo, p. 46.
25 (Popup - Popup)
24. Id.
26 (Popup - Popup)
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 17
25. Id. at 48-49.
27 (Popup - Popup)
26. Id. at 48.
28 (Popup - Popup)
27. Id. at 56-61.
29 (Popup - Popup)
28. Id. at 58.
30 (Popup - Popup)
29. Id.
31 (Popup - Popup)
30. Id. at 24.
32 (Popup - Popup)
31. Id. at 24-25.
33 (Popup - Popup)
32. Id. at 25.
34 (Popup - Popup)
33. Id. at 52-55.
35 (Popup - Popup)
34. Id. at 26.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 18
36 (Popup - Popup)
35. Id. at 71-72.
37 (Popup - Popup)
36. Id. at 104-105.
38 (Popup - Popup)
37. Id. at 15.
39 (Popup - Popup)
38. Id. at 14-15.
40 (Popup - Popup)
39. Id. at 25.
41 (Popup - Popup)
40. See Imani v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, 649 Phil. 647, 661-662 (2010).
42 (Popup - Popup)
41. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE, Rule 3, Sec. 1.
43 (Popup - Popup)
42. Id., Rule 4, Sec. 1.
44 (Popup - Popup)
43. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 19
45 (Popup - Popup)
44. Id. Rule 130, Sec. 4 (a).
46 (Popup - Popup)
45. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE, Rule 4, Sec. 1 in relation to Rule 3, Sec. 1.
47 (Popup - Popup)
46. Id., Rule 2, Sec. 1 (h).
48 (Popup - Popup)
47. Id.
49 (Popup - Popup)
48. Id., Rule 2, Sec. 1 (g).
50 (Popup - Popup)
49. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 4 (b) and (c).
51 (Popup - Popup)
50. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE, Rule 4, Sec. 2, first paragraph.
52 (Popup - Popup)
51. Records, pp. 5-14.
53 (Popup - Popup)
52. THE 1991 REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE, Sec. 9.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 20
54 (Popup - Popup)
53. Total amount of claim inclusive of charges and penalties (based on the complaint) of
P117,157.98 less total late charges and interest charges of P25,747.20 equals
P91,410.78.
55 (Popup - Popup)
54. See De la Cruz v. Blanco, 73 Phil. 596, 597 (1942).
56 (Popup - Popup)
55. See Maglana Rice and Corn Mill, Inc. v. Spouses Tan, 673 Phil. 532, 544 (2011).
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 21