(1/10)
EXPERTRAVEL & TOUR, INC. vs COURT OF APPEALS
and KOREAN AIRLINES
G.R. NO. 152392
May 26, 2005
FACTS
Korean
Airlines (KAL) filed a complaint against Expertravel & Tours, Inc. (ETI)
for the collection of the principal amount of Php260,150.00 plus attorney’s
fees and exemplary damages. The verification and certification against forum
shopping was signed by Atty. Aguinaldo, who indicated therein that he was the
resident agent and legal counsel of KAL and had caused the preparation of the
complaint. ETI files a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Atty.
Aguinaldo was not authorized to execute the verification and certificate of
non-forum shopping. Atty. Aguinaldo claimed that he had been authorized to file
the complaint through a resolution of the KAL Board of Directors approved
during a special meeting held on June 25, 1999 through a teleconference which
he and its general manager Suk Kyoo Kim attended.
ISSUE
Whether
or not a teleconference is a valid medium of conducting board meetings and
making resolutions?
HELD
YES.
Republic Act No. 8792, gives light to the reality of teleconferencing and video
conferencing among members of board of directors of private corporation. The
Securities and Exchange Commission issued SEC Memorandum Circular No. 15, on
November 15, 2001, providing the guideline to be complied with related to such
conferences.
However,
in the abovementioned case, the court was not convinced that such a
teleconference was conducted.
(2/10)
MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION vs SSANGYONG
CORPORATION
G.R. NO. 170633
October 17, 2007
FACTS
MCC
Industrial Sales(MCC), a domestic corporation with office at Binondo, Manila, is
engaged in the business of importing and wholesaling stainless steel products.
One of its suppliers is the Ssangyong Corporation (Ssangyong), an international
trading company with head office in Seoul, South Korea and regional
headquarters in Makati City, Philippines. The two corporations conducted
business through telephone calls and facsimile or telecopy transmission.
Ssangyong would send the pro forma invoices
containing the details of the steel product order to MCC; if the latter
conforms thereto, its representative affixes his signature on the faxed copy
and sends it back to Ssangyong, again by fax.
ISSUE
Whether
or not photocopies of facsimile transmissions are electronic evidence and admissible
as such?
HELD
NO.
The court rule by determining first and foremost, whether original facsimile
transmissions are “electronic data messages” or “electronic documents” within
the Electronic Commerce Act. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
8792, defines the terms as:
Sec. 6. Definition of
Terms. For purposes of this Act and these Rules, the following terms are
defined as follows:
Xxx
(e) “Electronic Data
Message” refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by
electronic, optical or similar means, but not limited to, electronic data
interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy. Through these
Rules, the term “electronic data message” shall be equivalent to and be used
interchangeably with “electronic document.”
Xxxx
(h) “Electronic Document”
refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures,
symbols or other modes 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,
stores, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. Through these Rules,
the term “electronic document” shall be equivalent to and be used
interchangeably with “electronic data message”
The construction of the term “electronic data
message” excludes telexes or faxes, except
computer-generated faxes, is in harmony with the Electronic Commerce Law’s
focus on “paperless” communications and the “functional equivalent approach”.
Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic
evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best
Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.
Since
a facsimile transmission is not an “electronic data message” or an “electronic
document,” and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with
greater reason is a photocopy of such fax transmission not electronic evidence.
(3/10)
ELLERY MARCH G. TORRES vs PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT
and GAMING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 193531
December 14, 2011
FACTS
Ellery
March Torres was a Slot Machine Operator Supervisor of Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation. On the basis of an alleged intelligence report of padding
Credit Meter Readings of the slot machines at PAGCOR-Hyatt Manila, then Casino
Filipino-Hyatt, involving the slot machine and internal security personnel of
PAGCOR; and in connivance with slot machine customers. On May 4, 2007,
Corporate Investigation Unit serves Torres with a Memorandum of Charges for
dishonesty, serious misconduct, fraud and violation of office rules and
regulations which were considered grave offenses where the penalty imposable is
dismissal. Torres contends that he filed his letter reconsideration of his
dismissal on August 13, 2007, and that he did so by means of a facsimile
transmission sent to PAGCOR’s Office of Board of Directors, which the latter
denied.
ISSUE
Whether
or not transmission by facsimile is a valid mode of filing motion for
reconsideration?
HELD
NO.
Sec. 39 of the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service states:
“When deemed filed. A motion for reconsideration sent by
mail shall be deemed filed on the date shown by the postmark on the envelope
which shall be attached to the records of the case and in case of personal
delivery, the date stamped thereon by the proper office.”
Clearly,
a motion for reconsideration may either be filed by mail or personal delivery.
The mode used by Torres in filing his reconsideration is not sanctioned by the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Facsimile transmission is
not considered as electronic evidence under the Electronic Commerce Act.
(4/10)
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs HON. RAMON G.
CODILLA, JR. and WALLEM SHIPPING, INC.
G.R. No. 170491
April 4, 2007
FACTS
M/V
Dibena Win, a vessel of foreign registry owned and operated by Bangpai Shipping
, Co., allegedly bumped and damaged NAPOCOR’s Power Barge 209 which was then
moored at the Cebu International Port. Thus, NAPOCOR filed before the Cebu RTC
a complaint for damages against Bangpai Shipping Co., for alleged damages
caused on the barges. NAPOCOR, after adducing evidence during the trial of the
case, filed a formal offer of evidence before the lower court consisting of
Exhibits “A” to “V” together with the sub-marked portions thereof.
ISSUE
Whether
or not photocopies are admissible as electronic evidence?
HELD
NO.
Photocopies are not tantamount to electronic documents, it is consequential
that the same may not be considered as the functional equivalent of the
original as decreed in the law.
(5/10)
SINFOROSO P. ANG vs ARNIEL E. CRUZ
A.M. No. P-04-1822
February 6, 2006
FACTS
Arniel
E. Cruz , Clerk III, of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court,
Cabanatuan was accused of having leaked the Order directing Deputy Sheriff
Angelito Annang to take custody of Yza from her mathernal grandmother Erlina
Sta. Maria, and entrust her temporary custody to Sinforoso Ang. A few minutes
before the oder was issued, Sheriff Annang received a text message stating “Pre,
pamangkin ko yung bata, baka puede mong gawan ng paraan, kawawa naman yung
nanay.” When Ang and Sheriff Annang proceeded to the school of Yza to implement
the Order, Yza was no longer there, her teacher informed them that she was
fetched by her mother the day before.
ISSUE
Whether
or not a text message is admissible as evidence?
HELD
YES.
The court noted that the respondent does not deny sending the text message to
Sheriff Annang, neither did he dispute of the message. By this act alone,
respondent is administratively liable.
(6/10)
VIRGILIO O. GARCILIANO vs THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC INFORMATION, PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY, NATIONAL DEFENSE AND
SECURITY, INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, and SUFFRAGE AND ELECTORA
REFORMS
G.R. No. 170338
December 23, 2008
FACTS
The case
at bar originated from incident regarding tapes ostensibly containing a
wiretapped conversation purported between the President of the Philippines and
a high-ranking official of the COMELEC. The tapes, notoriously referred to as
the “hello Garci” tapes, allegedly contained the President’s instructions to
COMELEC Commissioner Garcillano to manipulate in her favour results of 2004
presidential elections. Years later, Senator Panfilo Lacson, in his privilege speech
promised to provide the public “the whole unvarnished truth-the what’s, when’s,
where’s, who’s and why’s” of the alleged wirtap, and sought an inquiry into the
perceived willingness of the telecommunications providers to participate in
nefarious wiretapping activities.
On September
6, 2007, petitioners Santiago Ranada and Oswaldo Agcaoili, filed a Petition for
Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, seeking to bar the Senate from
conducting its scheduled legislative inquiry on the ground that it violates RA
No. 4200 and Section 3, Article III of the Constitution. The senate cannot be
allowed to continue without duly published rules of procedure, in clear
derogation of the constitutional requirement.
ISSUE
Whether
or not publication through the internet meets the publication requirement of
the constitution?
HELD
NO. The
organic law instructs, without more, that the Senate or its committees may
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation only in accordance with duly published
rules of procedure, and does not make any distinction whether or not these
rules have undergone amendments or revision. The constitutional mandate to
publish the said rules prevails over any custom, practice or tradition followed
by the Senate. The use of the respondents of the Electronic Commerce Act of
2000 to support their claim of valid publication through the internet is all
the more incorrect; the said Act considers an electronic data message or an
electronic document as the functional equivalent of a written document only for
evidentiary purposes.
(7/10)
EMMANUEL B. AZNAR vs CITIBANK, N.A., (Philippines)
G.R. No. 164273
March 28, 2007
FACTS
Aznar, a
known business man in Cebu, is a cardholder of a Preferred Master Credit Card
issued by Citibank with a credit limit of Php150,000.00. As he planned to take
an Asian tour with his wife and two grandchildren, he made a total advance
deposit of Php485,000.00 with Citibank with the intention of increasing his
credit limit to Php635,000.00. During the tour his card was dishonoured on some
establishments. One particular establishment in Indonesia, Ingtan Tour and
Travel Agency, gave them a print-out showing that the card was dishonoured
because it was over limit.
ISSUE
Whether
or not the print-out issued by Ingtan Tour and Travel Agency is an electronic
document and is admissible as evidence?
HELD
NO. The
prevailing rule at the time of the promulgation of the RTC Decision is Sec.
20,Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. It provides that whenever any private
document is offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either by (a) anyone who saw the document executed
or written; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting
of the maker. Even if examined under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the
authentication of the said print-out would still be found wanting.
(8/10)
RUSTAN ANG y PASCUAL vs THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and
IRISH SAGUD
G.R. No. 182835
April 20, 2010
FACTS
Rustan
Ang is the former boyfriend Irish Sagud. Before Rustan got marries, he got in
touch with Irish and tried to convince her to elope with him, saying that he
did not love the woman he was about to marry. In the early morning of June 5,
2005, Irish received through MMS a picture of a naked woman with spread legs
and with her face superimposed on the figure. The sender’s cellphone number was
one of the numbers used by Rustan. Rustan also sent Irish a message threatening
her of spreading the photo in the internet.
ISSUE
Whether
or not the obscene picture presented in the case is an electronic document and is
admissible as evidence?
HELD
NO. The
Rules on Electronic Evidence does not apply to criminal cases; it applies only
to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings.
(9/10)
ANNA JANE D. LIHAYLIHAY vs JUDGE ALEJANDO T. CANDA
A.M. No. MTJ-06-1659
June 18, 2009
FACTS
Anna Jane
Lihaylihay is a Clerk III of Branch 28, RTC of Zamboanga del Norte. Judge
Alejandro Canda is a MCTC Judge in Liloy-Tampas, Zamboanga del Norte. Canda
threatened Lihaylihay through text messages, thinking that Lihaylihay was
assisting Alimpolo in his application as Sheriff IV.
ISSUE
Whether
or not text messages or SMS is admissible as evidence?
HELD
The court
rules in this case that in administrative proceeding, the complainant has the
burden of proving, by substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, the allegations
in the complaint. The Court cannot rely on mere conjectures or suppositions.
(10/10)
TERESITA G. NARVASA vs BENJAMIN A. SANCHEZ, JR.
G.R.No. 169449
March 26, 2010
FACTS
Sanchez
was accused of sending text messages to De la Cruz and Gayaton which amounted
to sexual harassment.
ISSUE
Whether
or not text messages or SMS are admissible as evidence?
HELD
The Court
having recognized the findings of the Municipal Mayor that Sanchez in guilty of
grave sexual harassment admits to the admissibility of the text messages sent
to Dela Cruz and Sanches.
