NOT THE OWNER...
NATIONAL NATIONAL POWER P OWER CORPORATION, Petitioner Petit ioner,, vs. vs . HON. RAMON G. CODILLA, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC of Ceu, !r. "#, !ANGPAI !ANGPAI $HIPPING COMPAN% COMPAN%,, &nd WALLEM $HIPPING, $HIPPI NG, INCORPORATED, Res'ondents. G.R. No. "()*#"+ A'ri *, -))( &/ts0 M/V Dibena Win, a vessel of foreign registry registry owned and operated by private respondent Bangpai Shipping, Co., allegedly bumped and damaged petitioners !ower Barge Barge "#$ whi%h was then moored at the Cebu &nternational !ort. 'hus, petitioner (led before the Cebu )'C a %omplaint for damages against private respondent Bangpai Shipping Co., for the alleged damages %aused on petitioners power barges. !etitioner, !etitioner, after addu%ing eviden%e during the trial of the %ase, (led a formal fo rmal o*er of eviden%e before the lower %ourt. Conse+uently, private respondents Bangpai Shipping Co. and Wallem Shipping, &n%. (led their respe%tive obe%tions to petitioners formal o*er of eviden%e. !ubli% respondent udge later issued the assailed order denying the admission and e-%luding from the re%ords petitioners -hibits and its sub mar0ings. 'he Court (nds merit in the obe%tions raised and the motion to stri0e out (led respe%tively by the defendants. 'he re%ord re%ord shows that the plainti* has been given every opportunity to present the originals of the 1ero1ero- or photo%opies of the do%uments it o*ered. &t never produ%ed the originals. 'he plainti* attempted to ustify the admission of the photo%opies by %ontending that 2the photo%opies o*ered are e+uivalent e+uivalent to the original of the do%ument3 on the basis of the le%troni% viden%e. 'he information in those 1ero- or photo%opies was not re%eived, re%orded, retrieved or produ%ed ele%troni%ally. Moreover, su%h ele%troni% eviden%e must be authenti%ated, whi%h the plainti* failed to do. d o. 4inally, 4inally, the re+uired 56davit to prove the admissibility and evidentiary weight of the alleged ele%troni% eviden%e was not e-e%uted, mu%h less presented in eviden%e. 'he 1ero- or photo%opies o*ered should, therefore, be stri%0en o* the re%ord. re%ord. 5side from f rom their being not properly identi(ed by any %ompetent witness, the loss of the prin%ipals thereof was not established by any %ompetent proof. proof.
'he fo%al point of this entire entire %ontroversy %ontroversy is petitioners obstinate %ontention %ontention that the photo%opies it o*ered as formal f ormal eviden%e before before the trial %ourt are the fun%tional e+uivalent of their original based on its inimitable interpretation interpretation of the )ules on le%troni% le%troni% viden%e. !etitioner !etitioner insists that, %ontrary to the rulings of both the trial %ourt and the appellate %ourt, the photo%opies it presented as do%umentary eviden%e a%tually %onstitute ele%troni% ele%troni% eviden%e based on its own premise that an 2ele%troni% 2ele%troni% do%ument3 as de(ned under Se%tion 78h9, )ule " of the )ules )ules on le%troni% le%troni% viden%e is not limited to information that is re%eived, re%orded, retrieved or produ%ed ele%troni%ally. )ather, petitioner maintains that an 2ele%troni% 2ele%troni% do%ument3 %an also refer to other modes of written e-pression that is produ%ed ele%troni%ally, ele%troni%ally, su%h as photo%opies, as in%luded in the se%tions %at%hall proviso: 2any printout or output, readable by sight or other means3.
Issue0 Whether or not the photo%opies are indeed ele%troni% do%uments as %ontemplated in )epubli% 5%t ;o.