5. G.R. No.
223274, June 19, 2019
RCBC BANKARD SERVICES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. MOISES ORACION, JR.
AND EMILY* L. ORACION, RESPONDENTs
FACTS:
Petitioner RCBC Bankard Services Corporation (petitioner) assailing the Decision2 dated
August 13, 2013 (RTC Decision) and the Order3 dated March 1, 2016 (RTC Order) of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City (RTC) in Civil Case No. 73756. The RTC Decision
affirmed in toto the Decision4 dated September 28, 2012 of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch
72, Pasig City (MeTC) in Civil Case No. 18629, which dismissed the complaint of petitioner for
lack of preponderance of evidence.5 The RTC Order denied petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration.
This case stemmed Respondents Moises Oracion, Jr. and Emily L. Oracion applied for and were
granted a Bankard PESO Mastercard Platinum credit card by petitioner RCBC Bankard Services
Corporation on December 2, 2010. They used the credit card for various purchases but failed to
pay the total amount of P117,157.98, inclusive of charges and penalties. Petitioner attached
"duplicate original" copies of Statements of Account (SOAs). The SOAs were addressed to
Moises, and the Credit History Inquiry bore the name "MR ORACION JR M A". Despite receiving
the SOAs and a demand letter dated January 26, 2012, respondents failed to settle their debt.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC erred in affirming the MeTC's dismissal of petitioner's complaint in that
pursuant to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC), an
electronic document is to be regarded as an original thereof under the Best Evidence Rule and
thus, with the presented evidence in "original duplicate copies," petitioner has preponderantly
proven respondents' unpaid obligation;
Whether or not in any event, invoking the rule that technicalities must yield to substantial
justice, whether petitioner must be afforded the opportunity to rectify its mistake, offer
additional evidence and/or present to the court another set of direct print-outs of the electronic
documents.
Ruling:
No, 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" as described
above.
Analysis:
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. The Court
emphasized that the Best Evidence Rule requires the presentation of the original document
unless exceptions apply. The documents submitted by petitioner were stamped as "DUPLICATE
ORIGINAL" and contained signatures part of a stamp mark, making them mere photocopies, not
originals or duplicate originals.
Petitioner invoked the Rules on Electronic Evidence to argue that the documents were
electronic and admissible as originals. However, the Court found that petitioner failed to comply
with the authentication requirements under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, such as
submitting an affidavit of evidence proving the documents' integrity and reliability.
The Court noted that petitioner did not make any effort to rectify its error or comply with
evidentiary rules after the lower courts pointed out the deficiencies in its evidence. The Court
deemed the petition frivolous, as it presented no justiciable question and was devoid of merit. It
imposed treble costs on petitioner's counsel for the frivolous appeal.
It is only when the original document is unavailable that secondary evidence may be
allowed pursuant to Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules, which provides:
SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. - When the original document has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence
and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a
copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order stated
Further, Section 4, Rule 130 of the Rules and Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence identify the following instances when copies of a document are equally regarded as
originals:
[1] When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with
identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.
[2] When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another
at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as
originals.49
[3] When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical
contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same
matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other
equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall
be regarded as the equivalent of the original
