MCC Industrial Vs Ssangyong

MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION VS.
SSANGYONG CORPORATION
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 (Ssangyong), an international trading company with head
office in Seoul, South Korea and regional headquarters in Makati City, Philippines.
The two corporations conducted business through telephone calls and facsimile or telecopy
transmissions. 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.
Respondent filed a civil action for damages due to breach of contract against petitioner
before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. In its complaint, respondent alleged that defendants
breached their contract when they refused to open the letter 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.
After respondent rested its case, petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence alleging that
respondent failed to present the original copies of the pro forma invoices on which the civil action
was based. 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 R.A. No. 8792, because the law merely admits as the
best evidence the original fax transmittal. On the other hand, Respondent claims that the
photocopies of these fax transmittals (specifically ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2) are
admissible under the Rules on Evidence because the respondent sufficiently explained the non-
production of the original fax transmittals.
ISSUE:
Whether the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions are electronic evidence and
admissible as such
RULING:
NO.
R.A. No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, considers an
electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional equivalent of a written
document for evidentiary purposes. The Rules on Electronic Evidence regards an electronic
document as 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 the said Rules. An
electronic document is also the 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.68
Thus, to be admissible in evidence as an electronic data message or to be considered as the

functional equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule, the writing must
foremost be an "electronic data message" or an "electronic document."
The Rules on Electronic Evidence promulgated by this Court defines the said terms in the
following manner:
SECTION 1. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of these Rules, the following terms are
defined, as follows:
xxxx
(g) "Electronic data message" refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by
electronic, optical or similar means.
(h) "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. It includes digitally signed documents and print-out or output,
readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or
electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, the term "electronic document" may be
used interchangeably with "electronic data message."
Given these definitions, we go back to the original question: Is an original printout of

a facsimile transmission an electronic data message or electronic document?
There is no question then that when Congress formulated the term "electronic data
message," it intended the same meaning as the term "electronic record" in the Canada law. This
construction of the term "electronic data message," which excludes telexes or faxes, except
computer-generated faxes, is in harmony with the Electronic Commerce Law's focus on "paperless"
communications and the "functional equivalent approach"82 that it espouses. In fact, the deliberations
of the Legislature are replete with discussions on paperless and digital transactions.
Facsimile transmissions are not, in this sense, "paperless," but verily are paper-based.
Ineluctably, the law's definition of "electronic data message," which, as aforesaid, is

interchangeable with "electronic document," could not have included facsimile transmissions, which
have anoriginal paper-based copy as sent and a paper-based facsimile copy as received. These two
copies are distinct from each other, and have different legal effects.
We, therefore, conclude 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 transmissioncannot 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.
Since a facsimile transmission is not an "electronic data message" or an "electronic

document," and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with greater reason is a
photocopy of such a fax transmission not electronic evidence. In the present case, therefore, Pro
Forma Invoice Nos. ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2 (Exhibits "E" and "F"), which
are mere photocopies of the original fax transmittals, are not electronic evidence, contrary to the
position of both the trial and the appellate courts.

MCC Industrial Vs Ssangyong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MCC Industrial Vs Ssangyong

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MCC Industrial Vs Ssangyong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION VS.

Thus, to be admissible in evidence as an electronic data message or to be considered as the

(h) "Electronic document" refers to information or the representation of information, data,

Given these definitions, we go back to the original question: Is an original printout of

Ineluctably, the law's definition of "electronic data message," which, as aforesaid, is

Since a facsimile transmission is not an "electronic data message" or an "electronic

You might also like