Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    MCC v. Ssangyong - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    May Angelica Teneza
    Ssangyong filed a case against MCC for breach of contract after MCC failed to open a letter of credit for a steel order. Ssangyong presented photocopies of facsimile transmissions as evidence. MCC argued these were inadmissible. The court held that facsimile transmissions are not considered electronic evidence under the Rules on Electronic Evidence and the Best Evidence Rule, and photocopies of them are therefore inadmissible. To be admitted as electronic evidence, a document must be an electronic data message or document, which facsimile transmissions are not defined as.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MCC v. Ssangyong - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    May Angelica Teneza
    3K views1 page
    Ssangyong filed a case against MCC for breach of contract after MCC failed to open a letter of credit for a steel order. Ssangyong presented photocopies of facsimile transmissions as evidence. MCC argued these were inadmissible. The court held that facsimile transmissions are not considered electronic evidence under the Rules on Electronic Evidence and the Best Evidence Rule, and photocopies of them are therefore inadmissible. To be admitted as electronic evidence, a document must be an electronic data message or document, which facsimile transmissions are not defined as.

    Original Description:

    EVIDENCE

    Original Title

    26. MCC v. Ssangyong_Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ssangyong filed a case against MCC for breach of contract after MCC failed to open a letter of credit for a steel order. Ssangyong presented photocopies of facsimile transmissions as evidence. MCC argued these were inadmissible. The court held that facsimile transmissions are not considered electronic evidence under the Rules on Electronic Evidence and the Best Evidence Rule, and photocopies of them are therefore inadmissible. To be admitted as electronic evidence, a document must be an electronic data message or document, which facsimile transmissions are not defined as.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    3K views1 page

    MCC v. Ssangyong - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    May Angelica Teneza
    Ssangyong filed a case against MCC for breach of contract after MCC failed to open a letter of credit for a steel order. Ssangyong presented photocopies of facsimile transmissions as evidence. MCC argued these were inadmissible. The court held that facsimile transmissions are not considered electronic evidence under the Rules on Electronic Evidence and the Best Evidence Rule, and photocopies of them are therefore inadmissible. To be admitted as electronic evidence, a document must be an electronic data message or document, which facsimile transmissions are not defined as.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    26.  G.R. No.

    170633, October 17, 2007


    MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION v. SSANGYONG CORPORATION

    Facts:

    Ssangyong was a supplier of MCC. They conducted business through telephone


    calls and facsimile or telecopy transmissions. Since MCC could open only a
    partial letter of credit, two separate invoices were prepared for MCC’s orders of
    steel from Ssangyong. MCC failed to open a letter of credit for the second order
    despite several requests for extension and price reduction, hence, Ssangyong
    filed a case for damages against MCC for breach of their contract. Ssangyong
    presented the photocopies of the facsimile print-outs.

    MCC argued that mere photocopies are inadmissible in evidence because the
    law merely admits as the best evidence the original fax transmittal.

    Ssangyong, on the other hand, contended that print-outs and/or photocopies


    of facsimile transmissions are electronic evidence and admissible.

    Issue:

    WON facsimile transmissions are electronic evidence and admissible as such.

    Held:

    No, facsimile transactions are not electronic evidence and are inadmissible.

    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.

    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. Electronic data message refers to information generated, sent,
    received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means.

    The terms electronic data message and electronic document as defined do not
    include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot
    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, hence, with greater reason that a photocopy of such fax transmission
    not electronic evidence.

    You might also like