SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 223274. June 19, 2019.]

RCBC BANKARD SERVICES CORPORATION , petitioner, vs.

MOISES ORACION, JR. and EMILY * L. ORACION, respondents.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J : p

Before the Court is the petition for review on certiorari 1 (Petition)

under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules) filed by petitioner RCBC Bankard
Services Corporation (petitioner) assailing the Decision 2 dated August 13,
2013 (RTC Decision) and the Order 3 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 Decision 4 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. 6
The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
The antecedent facts as gleaned from the MeTC Decision and narrated
in the RTC Decision are straightforward.
Respondents Moises Oracion, Jr. (Moises) and Emily L. Oracion (Emily)
(collectively, respondents) applied for and were granted by petitioner credit
card accommodations with the issuance of a Bankard PESO Mastercard
Platinum 7 with Account No. 5243-0205-8171-4007 (credit card) on
December 2, 2010. 8 Respondents on various dates used the credit card in
purchasing different products but failed to pay petitioner the total amount of
P117,157.98, inclusive of charges and penalties or at least the minimum
amount due under the credit card. 9 Petitioner attached to its complaint
against respondents "duplicate original" copies of the Statements of Account
from April 17, 2011 to December 15, 2011 10 (SOAs, Annexes "A", "A-1" to
"A-8") and the Credit History Inquiry (Annex "B"). 11 The SOAs bear the name
of Moises as the addressee and the Credit History Inquiry bears the name:
"MR ORACION JR M A" on the top portion. 12 Despite the receipt of the SOAs,
respondents failed and refused to comply with their obligation to petitioner
under the credit card. 13 Consequently, petitioner sent a written demand
letter (dated January 26, 2012, Annex "C" to the complaint) 14 to
respondents but despite receipt thereof, respondents refused to comply with
their obligation to petitioner. 15 Hence, petitioner filed a Complaint for Sum
of Money 16 dated February 7, 2012 before the MeTC. 17
Acting on the complaint, the MeTC issued summons on March 13,
2012. 18 Based on the return of the summons dated April 12, 2012 of Sheriff
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 III Inocentes P. Villasquez, the summons was duly effected to respondents
through substituted service on April 11, 2012. 19 For failure of respondents to
file their answer within the required period, the MeTC motu proprio, pursuant
to Section 6 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, considered the case
submitted for resolution. 20 CAIHTE

Ruling of the MeTC

The MeTC, without delving into the merits of the case, dismissed it on
the ground that petitioner, as the plaintiff, failed to discharge the required
burden of proof in a civil case, which is to establish its case by
preponderance of evidence. 21 The MeTC justified the dismissal in this wise:
Perusal of the records shows that the signature in the
attachments in support of the [complaint] are mere photocopies,
stamp mark 22 in the instant case. The Best Evidence Rule provides
that the court shall not receive any evidence that is merely
substitutionary in its nature, such as stamp mark, as long as the
original evidence can be had. Absent a clear showing that the original
writing has been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court; the
photocopies must be disregarded being unworthy of any probative
value and being an inadmissible piece of evidence. (PHILIPPINE
BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
LEONILO MARCOS, respondents , G.R. No. 127469, 2004 Jan. 15, 1st
Division). 23
The decretal portion of the MeTC Decision dated September 28, 2012
reads:
WHEREFORE, for lack of [p]reponderance of evidence, herein
[complaint] is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. 24

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal 25 dated December 17, 2012 on the

ground that the MeTC Decision was contrary to the facts and law. 26
In its Memorandum for Appellant 27 dated February 19, 2012,
petitioner argued that what it attached to the complaint were the "duplicate
original copies" and not mere photocopies. 28 Petitioner also argued that:
x x x [if for] unknown reasons or events the said Duplicate
Original Copies were no longer found in the record of the court or that
the copy of the Complaint intended for the court, where these
Originals were attached, was not forwarded to the x x x MTC,
[petitioner] respectfully submits that justice and equity dictates that
the x x x MTC should have required [petitioner] to produce or
reproduce the same instead of immediately dismissing the case on
that ground alone. In which case, a clarificatory hearing for that
purpose is proper. This is especially true in the present case
considering that there were allegations in the complaint that the
Duplicate Original Copies were attached as annexes therein; and that
the x x x MTC motu proprio submitted the case for decision. Not to
mention the fact that these documents are computer generated
reports, in which case, [petitioner] could simply present another set
of printed Duplicate Original Copies for the x x x MTC['s] perusal. 29
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Ruling of the RTC

The RTC found petitioner's appeal to be without merit. 30 It reasoned

out that:
In the instant case, it is up to [petitioner] to prove that the
attachments in support of the complaint are originals and not merely
substitutionary in nature. Only after submission of such original
documents can the court delve into the merit of the case.
[Petitioner's] insistence that it attached Duplicate Original
Copies of the [SOAs] and the Credit History Inquiry as Annexes x x x
in its complaint is entirely for naught, as such documents could not be
considered as original.
A perusal of the said annexes would show that there is a stamp
mark at the bottom right portion of each page of the said annexes,
with the words "DUPLICATE ORIGINAL (signature) CHARITO O. HAM,
Senior Manager, Collection Support Division Head, Collection Group,
Bankard, Inc."
Further inspection of the said stamp marks would reveal that
the signatures appearing at the top of the name CHARITO O. HAM in
the respective annexes are not original signatures but are part of the
subject stamp marks. DETACa

Indeed, Annexes "A", "A-1" to "A-8" and "B", attached to the

complaint, cannot be considered as original documents contemplated
under Section 3, Rule 130 of the x x x Rules of Court. In fact, even
[petitioner] found the need to stamp mark them as "DUPLICATE
ORIGINAL" to differentiate them from the original documents.
The Court also noted the fact that [petitioner] filed a
MANIFESTATION dated August 9, 2012, attaching therewith as
Annexes "A", "A-1" to "A-8" the Duplicate Original Itemized [SOAs],
and as Annex "B" the Credit History Inquiry. Upon examination of
these latter annexes, the Court observed that they are merely
photocopies of the annexes attached to the complaint, but with a
mere addition of stamp marks bearing the same inscription as the
first stamp marks. These only demonstrate that whenever [petitioner]
describes a document as "DUPLICATE ORIGINAL," it only refers to a
copy of the document and not necessarily the original thereof. Such
substitutionary documents could not be given probative value and
are inadmissible pieces of evidence. 31
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision dated August 13, 2013
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and finding no cogent
reason to disturb the Decision of the [MeTC] dated September 28,
2012, said DECISION is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO .
SO ORDERED. 32

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration 33 dated August 29, 2013,

which was denied by the RTC in its Order 34 dated March 1, 2016.
Hence, the instant Rule 45 Petition. The Court in its Resolution 35 dated
June 27, 2016 required respondents to comment on the Petition and directed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC to elevate the complete records of Civil
Case No. 73756, which were subsequently received by the Court. In view of
the returned and unserved copy of the Resolution dated June 27, 2016, the
Court in its Resolution 36 dated June 6, 2018 dispensed with respondents'
comment.
The Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues:
1. on pure question of law, whether 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; and
2. 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.
The Court's Ruling
On the first issue, petitioner invokes for the first time on appeal the
Rules on Electronic Evidence to justify its position that it has preponderantly
proven its claim for unpaid obligation against respondents because it had
attached to its complaint electronic documents. Petitioner argues that since
electronic documents, which are computer-generated, accurately
representing information, data, figures and/or other modes of written
expression, creating or extinguishing a right or obligation, when directly
printed out are considered original reproductions of the same, they are
admissible under the Best Evidence Rule. 37 Petitioner explains that since
the attachments to its complaint are wholly computer-generated print-outs
which it caused to be reproduced directly from the computer, they qualify as
electronic documents which should be regarded as the equivalent of the
original documents pursuant to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence. 38
Procedurally, petitioner cannot adopt a new theory in its appeal before
the Court and abandon its theory in its appeal before the RTC. Pursuant to
Section 15, Rule 44 of the Rules, petitioner may include in his assignment of
errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below
and is within the issues framed by the parties. aDSIHc

In the Memorandum for Appellant which it filed before the RTC,

petitioner did not raise the Rules on Electronic Evidence to justify that the
so-called "duplicate original copies" of the SOAs and Credit History Inquiry
are electronic documents. Rather, it insisted that they were duplicate
original copies, being computer-generated reports, and not mere
photocopies or substitutionary evidence, as found by the MeTC. As observed
by the RTC, petitioner even tried to rectify the attachments (annexes) to its
complaint, by filing a Manifestation dated August 9, 2012 wherein it
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 attached copies of the said annexes. Unfortunately, as observed by the RTC,
the attachments to the said Manifestation "are merely photocopies of the
annexes attached to the complaint, but with a mere addition of stamp marks
bearing the same inscription as the first stamp marks" 39 that were placed in
the annexes to the complaint. Because petitioner has not raised the
electronic document argument before the RTC, it may no longer be raised
nor ruled upon on appeal.
Even in the complaint, petitioner never intimated that it intended the
annexes to be considered as electronic documents as defined in the Rules
on Electronic Evidence. If such were petitioner's intention, then it would have
laid down in the complaint the basis for their introduction and admission as
electronic documents.
Also, estoppel bars a party from raising issues, which have not been
raised in the proceedings before the lower courts, for the first time on
appeal. 40 Clearly, petitioner, by its acts and representations, is now
estopped to claim that the annexes to its complaint are not duplicate original
copies but electronic documents. It is too late in the day for petitioner to
switch theories.
Thus, procedurally, the Court is precluded from resolving the first issue.
Even assuming that the Court brushes aside the above-noted
procedural obstacles, the Court cannot just concede that the pieces of
documentary evidence in question are indeed electronic documents, which
according to the Rules on Electronic Evidence are considered functional
equivalent of paper-based documents 41 and regarded as the equivalent of
original documents under the Best Evidence Rule if they are print-outs or
outputs readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately. 42
For the Court to consider an electronic document as evidence, it must
pass the test of admissibility. According to Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence, "[a]n electronic document is admissible in evidence if it
complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and
related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules."
Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence lays down the
authentication process of electronic documents. Section 1 of Rule 5 imposes
upon the party seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal
proceeding the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided
therein. Section 2 of Rule 5 sets forth the required proof of authentication:
SEC. 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to
the satisfaction of the judge.
As to method of proof, Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence provides:
SECTION 1. Affidavit of evidence. — All matters relating to
the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic document
may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal
knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit
must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to testify on
the matters contained therein.
Evidently, petitioner could not have complied with the Rules on
Electronic Evidence because it failed to authenticate the supposed electronic
documents through the required affidavit of evidence. As earlier pointed out,
what petitioner had in mind at the inception (when it filed the complaint) was
to have the annexes admitted as duplicate originals as the term is
understood in relation to paper-based documents. Thus, the annexes or
attachments to the complaint of petitioner are inadmissible as electronic
documents, and they cannot be given any probative value.
Even the section on "Business Records as Exception to the Hearsay
Rule" of Rule 8 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence requires authentication
by the custodian or other qualified witness: ETHIDa

SECTION 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. — A

memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events,
conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or
other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or
supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept
in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was
the regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or
data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all of which
are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified
witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
In the absence of such authentication through the affidavit of the
custodian or other qualified person, the said annexes or attachments cannot
be admitted and appreciated as business records and excepted from the rule
on hearsay evidence. Consequently, the annexes to the complaint fall within
the Rule on Hearsay Evidence and are to be excluded pursuant to Section
36, Rule 130 of the Rules.
In fine, both the MeTC and the RTC correctly applied the Best Evidence
Rule. They correctly regarded the annexes to the complaint as mere
photocopies of the SOAs and the Credit History Inquiry, and not necessarily
the original thereof. Being substitutionary documents, they could not be
given probative value and are inadmissible based on the Best Evidence Rule.
The Best Evidence Rule, which requires the presentation of the original
document, is unmistakable:
SEC. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. —
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot
be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control
of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails
to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or
other documents which cannot be examined in court without great
loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only
the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office. (2a) 43
With respect to paper-based documents, the original of a document,
i.e., the original writing, instrument, deed, paper, inscription, or
memorandum, is one the contents of which are the subject of the inquiry. 44
Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, an electronic document is regarded
as the functional equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence
Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to
reflect the data accurately. 45 As defined, "electronic document" refers to
information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or
other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by
which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact
may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted,
stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically; and it includes
digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or
other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or
electronic document. 46 The term "electronic document" may be used
interchangeably with "electronic data message" 47 and the latter refers to
information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or
similar means. 48
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. cSEDTC

[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. 50
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Apparently, "duplicate original copies" or "multiple original copies"
wherein two or more copies are executed at or about the same time with
identical contents are contemplated in 1 and 3 above. If the copy is
generated after the original is executed, it may be called a "print-out or
output" based on the definition of an electronic document, or a "counterpart"
based on Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
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. (4a)
Going back to the documents in question, the fact that a stamp with
the markings:
DUPLICATE ORIGINAL
(Sgd.)
CHARITO O. HAM
Senior Manager
Collection Support Division Head
Collection group
Bankard, Inc. 51

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. 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 observes that based on the records of the case, only the
signature in the stamp at the bottom of the Credit History Inquiry appears to
be original. The signatures of the "certifying" person in the SOAs are not
original but part of the stamp. Thus, even if all the signatures of Charito O.
Ham, Senior Manager, Collection Support Division Head of petitioner's
Collection Group are original, the required authentication so that the
annexes to the complaint can be considered as "duplicate original copies"
will still be lacking.
If petitioner intended the annexes to the complaint as electronic
documents, then the proper allegations should have been made in the
complaint and the required proof of authentication as "print-outs," "outputs"
or "counterparts" should have been complied with.
The Court is aware that the instant case was considered to be
governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure, which does not expressly
require that the affidavits of the witness must accompany the complaint or
the answer and it is only after the receipt of the order in connection with the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 preliminary conference and within 10 days therefrom, wherein the parties
are required to submit the affidavits of the parties' witnesses and other
evidence on the factual issues defined in the order, together with their
position papers setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by them. 52
Given the nature of the documents that petitioner needed to adduce in
order to prove its cause of action, it would have been prudent on the part of
its lawyer, to make the necessary allegations in the complaint and attach
thereto the required accompanying affidavits to lay the foundation for their
admission as evidence in conformity with the Best Evidence Rule.
This prudent or cautionary action may avert a dismissal of the
complaint for insufficiency of evidence, as what happened in this case, when
the court acts pursuant to Section 6 of the Rule on Summary Procedure,
which provides:
SEC. 6. Effect of failure to answer. — Should the defendant
fail to answer the complaint within the period above provided, the
court, motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render
judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint
and limited to what is prayed for therein: Provided, however, That the
court may in its discretion reduce the amount of damages and
attorney's fees claimed for being excessive or otherwise
unconscionable. This is without prejudice to the applicability of
Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, if there are two or more
defendants.
As provided in the said Section, the judgment that is to be rendered is
that which is "warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint" and such
facts must be duly established in accordance with the Rules on Evidence. SDAaTC

Upon a perusal of the items in the SOAs, the claim of petitioner against
respondents is less than P100,000.00, 53 if the late charges and interest
charges are deducted from the total claim of P117,157.98. Given that the
action filed by petitioner is for payment of money where the value of the
claim does not exceed P100,000.00 (the jurisdictional amount when the
complaint was filed in January 2013), exclusive of interest and costs,
petitioner could have opted to prosecute its cause under the Revised Rules
of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (Revised Rules for Small Claims).
Section 6 of the Revised Rules for Small Claims provides: "A small
claims action is commenced by filing with the court an accomplished and
verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) in duplicate, accompanied by a
Certification against Forum Shopping, Splitting a Single Cause of Action, and
Multiplicity of Suits (Form 1-A-SCC), and two (2) duly certified photocopies of
the actionable document/s subject of the claim, as well as the affidavits of
witnesses and other evidence to support the claim. No evidence shall be
allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or submitted together
with the Statement of Claim, unless good cause is shown for the admission
of additional evidence."
If petitioner took this option, then it would have been incumbent upon
it to attach to its Statement of Claim even the affidavits of its witnesses. If
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 that was the option that petitioner took, then maybe its complaint might not
have been dismissed for lack of preponderance of evidence. Unfortunately,
petitioner included the late and interest charges in its claim and prosecuted
its cause under the Rule on Summary Procedure.
Proceeding to the second issue, petitioner begs for the relaxation of the
application of the Rules on Evidence and seeks the Court's equity
jurisdiction.
Firstly, petitioner cannot, on one hand, seek the review of its case by
the Court on a pure question of law and afterward, plead that the Court, on
equitable grounds, grant its Petition, nonetheless. For the Court to exercise
its equity jurisdiction, certain facts must be presented to justify the same. A
review on a pure question of law necessarily negates the review of facts.
Petitioner has not presented any compelling equitable arguments to
persuade the Court to relax the application of elementary evidentiary rules in
its cause.
Secondly, petitioner has not been candid in admitting its error as
pointed out by both the MeTC and the RTC. After being apprised that the
annexes to its complaint do not conform to the Best Evidence Rule,
petitioner did not make any effort to comply so that the lower courts could
have considered its claim. Rather, it persisted in insisting that the annexes
are compliant. Even before the Court, petitioner did not even attach
such documents which would convince the Court that petitioner
could adduce the original documents as required by the Best
Evidence Rule to prove its claim against respondents.
A Final Note
The present Petition is clearly a frivolous appeal. An appeal is frivolous
if it presents no justiciable question and is so readily recognizable as devoid
of any merit on the face of the record that there is little, if any, prospect that
it can ever succeed. 54 The Petition indubitably shows the counsel's frantic
search for any ground to resuscitate petitioner's lost cause, which due to the
counsel's fault was doomed with the filing of a deficient complaint. 55 Thus,
pursuant to Section 3, Rule 142 of the Rules the imposition of treble costs on
petitioner, to be paid by its counsel, is justified.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated
August 13, 2013 and the Order dated March 1, 2016 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 71, Pasig City in Civil Case No. 73756 are AFFIRMED. Treble
costs are hereby charged against the counsel for petitioner RCBC Bankard
Services Corporation. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the personal
records of Atty. Xerxes E. Cortel in the Office of the Bar Confidant. acEHCD

SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Perlas-Bernabe, J.C. Reyes, Jr. and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 * Also stated as "Emy" in some parts of the records.
1. Rollo , pp. 8-21, excluding Annexes.
2. Id. at 22-25. Penned by Judge Elisa R. Sarmiento-Flores.
3. Id. at 26.
4. Id. at 45-47. Penned by Presiding Judge Joy N. Casihan-Dumlao.

5. Id. at 46.
6. Id. at 26.
7. Id. at 27.
8. Id. at 22.
9. Id.

10. Stated as "December 15, 2012" in the Complaint and in the Petition, id. at 9
and 29.

11. Rollo , pp. 22, 29 and 32-41.

12. Id. at 32-41.

13. Id. at 22-23.

14. Id. at 42.

15. Id. at 23.

16. Id. at 27-44.

17. Id. at 23.

18. Id.
19. Id.

20. Id.
21. Id. at 46.

22. The stamp appears to the bottom of each page of the SOAs with the following
entry:
  Duplicate Original

  (Sgd.)

  CHARITO O. HAM
  Senior Manager

  Collection Support Division Head

  Collection group
  Bankard, Inc. (Records, pp. 5-14.)

23. Rollo , p. 46.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 24. Id.

25. Id. at 48-49.

26. Id. at 48.

27. Id. at 56-61.

28. Id. at 58.

29. Id.

30. Id. at 24.

31. Id. at 24-25.

32. Id. at 25.

33. Id. at 52-55.

34. Id. at 26.

35. Id. at 71-72.

36. Id. at 104-105.

37. Id. at 15.

38. Id. at 14-15.

39. Id. at 25.

40. See Imani v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, 649 Phil. 647, 661-662
(2010).
41. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE, Rule 3, Sec. 1.

42. Id., Rule 4, Sec. 1.

43. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130.

44. Id. Rule 130, Sec. 4 (a).

45. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE, Rule 4, Sec. 1 in relation to Rule 3, Sec. 1.

46. Id., Rule 2, Sec. 1 (h).

47. Id.

48. Id., Rule 2, Sec. 1 (g).

49. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 4 (b) and (c).

50. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE, Rule 4, Sec. 2, first paragraph.

51. Records, pp. 5-14.

52. THE 1991 REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE, Sec. 9.

53. Total amount of claim inclusive of charges and penalties (based on the
complaint) of P117,157.98 less total late charges and interest charges of
P25,747.20 equals P91,410.78.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 54. See De la Cruz v. Blanco, 73 Phil. 596, 597 (1942).
55. See Maglana Rice and Corn Mill, Inc. v. Spouses Tan , 673 Phil. 532, 544 (2011).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com