MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORP v SSANGYONG CORP

G.R. No. 170633, October 17, 2007

FACTS:
 Petitioner 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, an international trading company with
head office in Seoul, South Korea and regional headquarters in Makati City, Philippines.
 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.
 On November 16, 2001, Ssangyong then filed, a civil action for damages due to breach
of contract against defendants MCC, Sanyo Seiki and Gregory Chan before the Regional
Trial Court of Makati City.
 In its complaint, Ssangyong alleged that defendants breached their contract when they
refused to open the L/C (Line of Credit) in the amount of US$170,000.00 for the
remaining 100MT of steel under Pro Forma Invoice Nos. ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-
POSTS0401-2.
 The RTC rendered its Decision in favor of Ssangyong. The trial court ruled that when
plaintiff agreed to sell and defendants agreed to buy the 220MT of steel products for
the price of US$1,860 per MT, the contract was perfected.
 MCC and Chan, through their counsel of record, Atty. Eladio B. Samson, filed their Notice
of Appeal.
 Petitioner contends that the photocopies of the pro forma invoices presented by
respondent Ssangyong to prove the perfection of their supposed contract of sale are
inadmissible in evidence and do not fall within the ambit of Electronic Commerce Act of
2000 (R.A. No. 8792) vis-avis the Rules on Electronic Evidence, because the law merely
admits as the best evidence the original fax transmittal.
 On the other hand, respondent posits that, from a reading of the law and the Rules on
Electronic Evidence, the original facsimile transmittal of the pro forma invoice is
admissible in evidence since it is an electronic document and, therefore, the best
evidence under the law and the Rules.

ISSUE:
Whether the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions are electronic evidence
and admissible.

RULING:
 No, it is not admissible.
 The court held that the terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document," as
defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile
transmission. 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.
 Nevertheless, despite the pro forma invoices not being electronic evidence, this Court
finds that respondent has proven by preponderance of evidence the existence of a
perfected contract of sale.
 The Court finds that petitioner knowingly breached its contractual obligation and
obstinately refused to pay despite repeated demands from respondent. Petitioner even
asked for several extensions of time for it to make good its obligation. But in spite of
respondent's continuous accommodation, petitioner completely reneged on its
contractual duty. For such inattention and insensitivity, MCC must be held liable for
nominal damages.
 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
 LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
G.R. No. 204637, April 16, 2013

FACTS:
 On May 24, 2010, Chato filed an electoral protest claiming that irregularities occured at
four of the seven municipalities comprising the Second District of Camarines Norte.
 On March 21, 2011, the HRET started the initial revision of ballots in 25% of the pilot
protested CPs. The revision ended on March 24, 2011. Per physical count, Chato’s votes
increased by 518, while those cast for Panotes decreased by 2,875 votes.
 There was a substantial discrepancy between the figures indicated in the
ERs/Statements of Votes by Precinct (SOVPs) on one hand, and the results of the
physical count during the revision, on the other.
 Thereafter, the HRET issued Resolution No. 11-208 directing the decryption and copying
of the picture image files of ballots (PIBs).
 Chato filed before the HRET an Urgent Motion to Prohibit the Use by Protestee of the
Decrypted and Copied Ballot Images. Chato likewise argues that under Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9369, the May 10, 2010 Automated Election System was paper-based and the
PIBs are not the official ballots.
 The HRET denied Chato’s motion

ISSUE:
WON the picture images of the ballots are the official ballots

RULING:
 Yes, the court held that picture images of the ballots are the official ballots.
 Section 2(3) of R.A. No. 9369 defines "official ballot" where AES (Automated Election
System) is utilized as the "paper ballot, whether printed or generated by the technology
applied, that faithfully captures or represents the votes cast by a voter recorded or to be
recorded in electronic form."
 The May 10, 2010 elections used a paper-based technology that allowed voters to fill
out an official paper ballot by shading the oval opposite the names of their chosen
candidates. Each voter was then required to personally feed his ballot into the Precinct
Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machine which scanned both sides of the ballots
simultaneously, meaning, in just one pass.
 As established during the required demo tests, the system captured the images of the
ballots in encrypted format which, when decrypted for verification, were found to be
digitized representations of the ballots cast.
 As such, the printouts thereof PIBs are the functional equivalent of the paper ballots
filled out by the voters and, thus, may be used for purposes of revision of votes in an
electoral protest.
 WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack
of merit.