RCBC vs Oracion CASE DIGEST ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE G.R. No. 223274, June 19, 2019

 

RCBC vs Oracion, G.R. No. 223274, June 19, 2019

P: CAGUIOA, J.

 

FACTS: Moises Oracion, Jr. (Moises) and Emily Oracion (Emily) were granted a credit card by the RCBC. They failed to pay the total amount of P117k. RCBC attached to its complaint “duplicate original” copies of the Statements of Account and the Credit History Inquiry. Despite the receipt of the SOAs, Oracion failed and refused to comply with their obligation to RCBC under the credit card. RCBC sent a written demand letter but they refused to comply with their obligation. RCBC files a Complaint for Sum of Money. Oracion to file their answer. MeTC and RTC found the Duplicate Original Copies of the SOAs and the Credit History Inquiry as could not be considered as original. There is a stamp mark at the bottom right portion of each page of the said annexes, with the words "DUPLICATE ORIGINAL”. The signatures are not original signatures but are part of the subject stamp marks.

 

ISSUE: Whether or not the document with the stamp mark “duplicate original copy” is admissible as evidence

 

HELD: No. 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. Being substitutionary documents, they could not be given probative value and are inadmissible based on the Best Evidence Rule.

 

Because RCBC has not raised the electronic document argument before the RTC, it may no longer be raised nor ruled upon on appeal. For the Court to consider an electronic document as evidence, it must pass the test of admissibility. RCBC 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.

 

The fact that a stamp with the markings was placed at the right bottom of each page of the SOAs and the Credit History Inquiry did not make them "duplicate original copies". 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.

 

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 the Senior Manager are original, the required authentication so that the annexes to the complaint can be considered as "duplicate original copies" will still be lacking.

 

If RCBC intended the annexes to the complaint as electronic documents, then the proper allegations should have been made in the complaint and the required proof of authentication as "print-outs", "outputs" or "counterparts" should have been complied with.