Digest 5:EMMANUEL B. AZNAR vs. CITIBANK, N.A., (Philippines)

G.R. No. 164273 March 28, 2007
EMMANUEL B. AZNAR, Petitioner,
vs.
CITIBANK, N.A., (Philippines), Respondent.

Facts:  The herein petitioner, Emmanuel B. Aznar, is a prominent businessman and entrepreneur in Cebu.  He decided to treat his wife together with their grandchildren for an Asian Tour using his Citibank credit card.  He deposited P485,000 to his account to increase his ordinary credit limit from P150,000 to P635,000.  He bought tickets to Kuala Lumpur amounting to P235,000.  When they were in Kuala Lumpur, they decided to purchases things to which the credit card was dishonoured for over the limit.  Eventually the agency further dishonoured the card and even mentioned that the petitioner be a swindler.  In that note, they decided to go back Philippines and instantly filed a complaint for damages.  The lower court initially dismissed the complaint on the ground that their was no proper authentication as to the print out of the computer generated document presented as evidence before the court.  The petitioner filed a motion for the re-raffle of the case, raising the contention that the judge was also a holder of Citibank credit card.  The judge later acceded with the contention of petitioner and ordered for the company to pay enormous amount of damages to the plaintiff.  When the case was elevated before the CA the latter denied such.

Issue:  Whether or not the print out of the computer generated document was properly authenticated to be admissible before the court?

Held:  No, the Supreme Court mentioned the following:
Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be excluded as it qualifies as electronic evidence following the Rules on Electronic Evidence which provides that print-outs are also originals for purposes of the Best Evidence Rule;

Section 20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. It provides that whenever any private document 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.

Pertinent sections of Rule 5 read:
Section 1. Burden of proving authenticity. – The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule.
Section 2. Manner of authentication. – Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
(a) By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document; or
(c) By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.

Indeed there was no proper authentication of the electronic evidence presented by the petitioner before the court which is the print out of the computer generated document where on it printed that the card was over the limit.  During the trial the petitioner mentioned that desk officer phoned someone and eventually the hard copy was given to him signed by one named Nubi, however such was not witnessed by the petitioner or he does not have personal knowledge of such authentication.
The high court denied the petition.