27. G.R. No.

170491, April 4, 2007

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner v. HON. RAMON G. CODILLA,
JR., Presiding Judge, RTC of Cebu, Br.19, BANGPAI SHIPPING COMPANY,
and WALLEM SHIPPING, INCORPORATED, Respondents.

Facts:

A vessel owned and operated by Bangpai Shipping, Co., allegedly

bumped and damaged NPC’s power barge. NPC filed a complaint for damages
against Bangpai and impleaded Wallem. NPC filed a formal offer of evidence
consisting of xerox and photocopies of the certain documents contending that
the photocopies offered are equivalent to the original of the document on the
basis of the Electronic Evidence. NPC alleged that an electronic document can
also refer to other modes of written expression that is produced electronically,
such as photocopies, as included in the catch-all proviso: any print-out or
output, readable by sight or other means.
Private respondents filed their respective objections to NPC’s formal offer
of evidence arguing that Xerox copies do not constitute the electronic evidence

Issue:

Whether or not photocopies are admissible as evidence for being equivalent to

the original of the document on the basis of Electronic Evidence.

Held:

No, photocopies are not equivalent to the original of the document and
are inadmissible as evidence.
An electronic document is relevant only in terms of the information
contained therein, similar to any other document which is presented in
evidence as proof of its contents. However, what differentiates an electronic
document from a paper-based document is the manner by which the
information is processed; clearly, the information contained in an electronic
document is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
produced electronically.
A perusal of the information contained in the photocopies submitted by
NPC will reveal that not all of the contents therein, such as the signatures of
the persons who purportedly signed the documents, may be recorded or
produced electronically.
Hence, photocopies are inadmissible as they violate the best evidence
rule and are of no probative value being incompetent pieces of evidence.