ONATE V.

CA
G.R. No. 116149, November 23, 1995 CA held that Exhibits "F, "F-1," "F-2" and
"F3"(evidences) though not formally offered, may still
FACTS: be admitted in evidence for having complied with the
two (2) requisites for admission enunciated in our
The controversy involves Lot No. 1571, a riceland jurisprudence,7 that is, (1) evidence must be duly
located at Aparri, Cagayan covered by a TCT.  An action identified by testimony duly recorded and (2) it must be
for specific performance was filed by Eulalia Marcita incorporated in the records of the case.
Taguba in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of
the deceased Leonor Taguba against Elvira Mato Vda. ISSUE: Can the Court consider evidence not formally
de Oñate. offered?

The deceased Leonor Taguba bought the subject parcel RULING: Yes, as an exception- 2 requisites
of land from Elvira Mato Vda. de Oñate sometime in
1976 for a consideration of P5,000.00 payable in four (4) Sec. 35. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider
installments. After full payment was made, the parties no evidence which has not been formally offered. The
however failed to reduce their contract in writing. Later, purpose for which the evidence is offered must be
Leonor Taguba died. The instant complaint was filed specified.
when demand was made upon Elvira Mato Vda. de
Oñate to execute a public document of sale in favor of From the foregoing provision, it is clear that for
the deceased and her heirs and she refused. evidence to be considered, the same must be formally
offered. Corollarily, the mere fact that a particular
The trial court rejected the petitioners' defense that document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not
Elvira Mato Vda. de Oñate contracted a verbal loan from mean that it has already been offered as part of the
Leonor Taguba in the amount of P12,000.00 payable evidence of a party. 
within a period of 4 years with 12% interest. Also
disbelieved was the allegation that the land in dispute The Court had the occasion to make a distinction
was mortgaged by Elvira Mato Vda. de Oñate to Leonor between identification of documentary evidence and its
Taguba as security for the payment of the loan and that formal offer as an exhibit. The first is done in the course
only P5,000.00 of the P12,000.00 loan was given by of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the
Taguba. evidence as an exhibit while the second is done only
when the party rests its case and not before. A party,
The trial court ruled that the agreement between the late therefore, may opt to formally offer his evidence if he
Leonor Taguba and deceased defendant Elvira Mato believes that it will advance his cause or not to do so at
Vda. de Oñate entered into on 20 January 1976, as a all. In the event he chooses to do the latter, the trial court
contract of "to sell". Ordered the defendants to execute is not authorized by the Rules to consider the same.
the proper document to give effect to the contract
otherwise, the Court shall be forced to order the However, in subsequent cases decided, the Court relaxed
cancellation of the certificate of title to issue another the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not formally
certificate of title in the name of the Estate of Leonor offered to be admitted and considered by the trial
Taguba; court provided the following requirements are
present, viz.: first, the same must have been duly
Petitioners appealed contending that the trial court erred identified by testimony duly recorded and, second,
when it took cognizance of the plaintiff's evidence which the same must have been incorporated in the records
had been marked but never formally submitted in of the case.
evidence as required by the Rules of Court.
Consequently, it was claimed that the trial court erred in These requisites have been satisfied.
relying on the said evidence in deciding for private
respondents.
The evidence in question refers to Exhibits "F," receipt delivered it to her sister Susan Ala-Quimbo for deposit
for P2,250.00 dated January 20, 1976; "F-1," receipt for with the Prudential Bank, Quezon Avenue Branch.
P750.00 dated February 23, 1976, "F-2," receipt for Instead of complying with Oscar's instruction, Marilene
P1,000.00 dated March 20, 1976; and "F-3," receipt for and Susan entrusted the bank draft to Josefina Rey, an
another P1,000.00 dated July 29, 1976, all showing the employee of the China Banking Corporation, for the
varying amounts paid by Leonor Taguba to Elvira Mato purpose of earning higher rate of interest. But Josefina
Vda. de Oñate. These exhibits were marked at the pre- Rey absconded with the money. Forthwith, spouses
trial for the purpose of identifying them. In fact, the Manuel and Susan Ala-Quimbo filed criminal and civil
payment of P5,000.00 was admitted by herein petitioners cases against her.
in the same pre-trial. Eulalia Marcita Taguba identified
Believing that spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala and
the said exhibits in her testimony which was duly
Susan Ala-Quimbo connived with each other in
recorded. 
appropriating her money for their own benefit, Rebecca,
through her sister, Atty. Leticia Ala, demanded that they
Likewise, extant from the records is the witness'
return the amount but to no avail. This prompted
explanation of the contents of each of the said exhibits.
Rebecca to cause the filing with the court a quo a
Also telling is petitioners' counsel vigorous cross-
criminal case for estafa against spouses Oscar and
examination of the said witness who testified on the
Marilene Ala and Susan Ala-Quimbo.
exhibits in question. Herein subject exhibits were also
incorporated and made part of the records of this case. In due time, they were arraigned and trial ensued.

Upon motion of the prosecution, the lower court

G.R. No. 117512*           October 2, 2001 reversed the order of trial, directing the defense to first
present its evidence, followed by the prosecution. This
REBECCA ALA-MARTIN, petitioner, vs.
order was based on the finding of the trial judge that the
HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN, in his capacity as
charge of estafa was established by the Joint Counter
Presiding udge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
Affidavit of spouses Manuel and Susan Ala-Quimbo and
98, Quezon City; MARILINE D. ALA, SPOUSE
spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala. Spouses Manuel and
MANUEL and SUSAN QUIMBO, respondents.
Susan Ala-Quimbo admitted in their Joint Counter
FACTS: Affidavit that they received from Marilene Ala
Rebecca's money for the purpose of depositing it with
Rebecca, Susan and Leticia, all surnamed Ala, are
the China Banking Corporation in order to earn a higher
sisters. Atty. Oscar Ala is their brother.
rate of interest, but that Josefina Rey, an employee
Sometime in December, 1994, Rebecca Ala-Martin, therein, misappropriated it. For their part, spouses Oscar
petitioner, designated her brother Atty. Oscar Ala as her and Marilene Ala alleged in their Joint Counter Affidavit
attorney-in-fact, authorizing him to withdraw from the that he (Oscar) withdrew Rebecca's money in the sum of
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation certain $19,245.20 from the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank and
amounts under her Dollar Savings Account for the gave it to his wife Marilene. In turn, she delivered it to
purpose of paying the amortizations on her residential lot her sister Susan Ala-Quimbo for deposit with the
she purchased in 1985. Atty. Ala suggested to her to Prudential Bank, Quezon Avenue Branch.
transfer her dollar deposit to the Prudential Bank in
Subsequently, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence
Quezon Avenue where his wife Marilene and his sister
but was denied by the trial court.
Susan Ala-Quimbo, worked. Rebecca agreed.
During the hearing on March 3, 1993, instead of
Sometime in February, 1987, upon inquiry with the
presenting its evidence in accordance with the reverse
Prudential Bank, she was informed that her money
order of trial, the defense, through counsel, manifested
($19,245.20 or P500,500.00 at the then current rate of
that the accused are waiving their right to present their
exchange) was not deposited there. What actually
evidence. Thereupon, the private prosecutor manifested
transpired was that Atty. Ala withdrew her dollars (in
that he will present evidence to prove the accused's civil
bank draft) from the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
liability was impliedly instituted with the criminal
Corporation, gave it to his wife Marilene, who, in turn
action, the defense objected vigorously. On April 12,
1993, the trial court issued an order allowing the Rules of Court provides that the court shall consider no
prosecution to prove the civil liability of the accused. evidence which has not been formally offered." 

On June 2, 1993, Rebecca testified mainly on the civil A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to
aspect of the case. She identified Exhibit "A" which is a base their findings of fact and their judgment solely and
Certification dated February 9, 1987 of Manuel A. strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the
Quimbo wherein he undertook to pay Rebecca trial. To allow parties to attach any document to their
$19,245.20; Exhibit "B," the Joint Counter Affidavit of pleadings and then expect the court to consider is as
spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala; and Exhibit "C," the evidence, even without formal offer and admission, may
Joint Counter Affidavit of spouses Manuel and Susan draw unwarranted consequences. Opposing parties will
Ala-Quimbo. On June 10, 1993, the prosecution rested be deprived of their chance to examine the document and
its case and formally offered the foregoing documentary to object to its admissibility. On the other hand, the
evidence which were admitted by the trial court. appellate court will have difficulty reviewing documents
not previously scrutinized by the court below."
The defense did not present any testimonial evidence but
merely offered in evidence the prosecution's Exhibit "A" The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in
as its Exhibit "1," stressing that the accused's establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
undertaking to pay Rebecca is conditioned upon their, doubt. This the prosecution failed to do. It did not
ability to collect the amounts involved in the criminal formally offer its documentary evidence. It merely
and civil cases they filed against Josefina Rey. offered the same during that part of the hearing on the
civil liability of the accused.
The trial court: declared the three accused namely Susan
Quimbo, Marilene D. Ala and Atty. Manuel S. There is another reason why the trial court acquitted the
Quimbo, acquitted on reasonable doubt. They are not accused. After they were arraigned on June 24, 1992, the
however absolved of their civil liability to Mrs. Rebecca prosecution moved that Atty. Oscar Ala be ordered to
Ala-Martin. testify to prove the transaction between his wife
Marilene and Rebecca. The trial court granted the
The Solicitor General argues that respondent judge's
motion. On October 1, 1992, Marilene moved to
refusal to consider Exhibits "B" and "C" in determining
expunge from the records the testimony of her husband
the guilt of the accused violates the fundamental right of
and to discharge him as witness pursuant to Section 22,
the State to due process. These documents are "judicial
Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court. She claimed that his
admissions" and were formally offered by the
testimony given was without her consent and violates
prosecution during the hearing of the civil aspect of the
"her marital privilege."
instant case.
According to respondent judge, his order to expunge the
ISSUE/GUIDE Q.: Is the prosecution required to
testimony of Atty. Ala from the records carries with it
formally offer the counter-affidavit of the accused for
the exclusion of the Joint Counter Affidavit (Exhibit
it to be considered by the court?
"B") signed by him and his wife Marilene. Such
RULING: YES.  exclusion lost much of the prosecution's "needed support
such that the crucial link of the Quimbo spouses to the
We hold that respondent judge did not gravely abuse his crime charged became obscure. Thus, the need for a
discretion. The reason why he disregarded Exhibits "B" clear and convincing proof against them, but which the
and "C" was because they were not formally offered in prosecution failed to fill the gap."
evidence by the prosecution.
It bears stressing that the challenged judgment acquitting
In Ong vs. Court of Appeals,6 this Court, through Justice the accused is a final verdict which cannot be reopened,
Artemio v. Panganiban, ruled: assuming it is erroneous, because of the doctrine of
"Evidence not formally offered during the trial cannot be double jeopardy.
used for or against a party litigant. Neither may it be People v. Nuyok
taken into account on appeal. Section 34, Rule 132 of the  G.R. No. 195424, June 15, 2015
FACTS: All the circumstances must be consistent with
AAA was 13 years old when the accused each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the
committed the rapes in June, July, August and accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with
September of 2005. At the time, she resided in the house the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other
of her grandmother in Davao del Sur. The accused, her rational hypothesis except that of guilt. In other words, a
paternal uncle, also lived in the same house. After she judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence
reported the rape to her mother ABC, AAA was can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an
submitted to a medical examination by Dr. Jaileen D. unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable
Milar, the Municipal Health Doctor. The medical conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of
examination showed: (a) healed laceration of AAA's all others, as the perpetrator.
hymen at the 5:00 to 7:00 o'clock positions; (b) AAA's ISSUE:
vagina admitting two fingers with ease; and (c) her being Did the court a quo erred in convicting accused-
in a non-virgin state physically. At the trial, the appellant despite the failure of the prosecution to prove
Prosecution presented AAA,her mother ABC, and Dr. his guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Millar.
In his defense, the accused and BBB, his mother, HELD: 
testified. He denied having raped AAA, and imputed ill No.
motives to ABC, insisting that ABC had wanted to get In almost all cases of sexual abuse, the
back at him after he had told his brother DEF, AAA's credibility of the victim's testimony is crucial because
father and ABC's husband, that he had caught ABC with more often than not, only the persons involved can
a paramour. Nonetheless, the RTC convicted him. testify as to its occurrence. Whenever the question arises
The accused now goes to court and claims that as to which of the conflicting versions of the Prosecution
the RTC erred in finding him guilty of rape despite the and the Defense is worthier of belief, therefore, the
fatal defects of the informations, arguing that three of the assessment by the trial court is generally given respect, if
informations having only stated "in July 2005," "in not finality. The assigning of values to the declarations
August 2005" and "in September 2005," respectively, of witnesses is best and most competently performed by
did not specify the dates of commission of the rapes. He the trial judge who has the unique and unmatched
asserts that such failure to specify the definite dates opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and
affected the veracity of the allegations therein, as well as assess their credibility.
the credibility of AAA as the victim.
AAA positively identified the accused as her
(GUIDE QUESTIONS) rapist. Her account of his crimes was candid, and her
- What does circumstantial evidence mean? demeanor revealing. She could not control herself but
Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect cried in the course of her testimony whenever she was
or presumptive evidence, consists of proof of collateral made to recall her traumatic experiences at his hands.
facts and circumstances from which the existence of the Moreover, her recollections about the four rapes were
main fact may be inferred according to reason and corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Milar, who
common experience.  identified the Medico Legal Report of AAA. The
testimony of a rape victim that is consistent with the
-What are the requisites before it would be sufficient medical findings constitutes sufficient basis to conclude
to sustain a conviction? that carnal knowledge occurred. As a result, the accused
can be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim
It is sufficient to sustain a conviction if:  for as long as such testimony is credible, convincing, and
(a) there is more than one circumstance;  consistent with human nature and the normal course of
(b) the facts from which the inferences were derived things.
have been established; and 
( c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to Despite the lack of testimony on how the
warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  accused had carnal knowledge of his victim on June 25,
2005, his guilt was nonetheless shown beyond
reasonable doubt. A conviction for rape may rest on On April 29, 2014, when the case was called for the
direct as well as circumstantial evidence. Thus, an presentation of George Yap as a witness, China Bank
accused like him can be declared guilty of rape even if objected citing Section 5 of the JAR.  China Bank said
the sole witness against him was the victim who had that Yap cannot be compelled to testify in court because
been rendered unconscious at the time of the petitioner did not obtain and present George Yap’s
consummation of carnal knowledge provided sufficient judicial affidavit.
circumstantial evidence existed showing that the victim
Petitioner contended that Section 5 does not apply to
was violated, and that it was the accused and no other
Yap because it specifically excludes adverse party
who had committed the violation. To disallow such
witnesses and hostile witnesses from its application. 
showing is to obstruct the successful prosecution of a
Petitioner insists that Yap needed to be called to the
rapist who renders his victim unconscious before the
stand so that he may be qualified as a hostile witness
consummation.
pursuant to the Rules of Court.

China Bank, on the other hand, stated that petitioner’s

Ng Meng Tam v. China Banking Corp., G.R. No.
characterization of Yap’s answers to the interrogatories
214054, August 5, 2015
to parties as ambiguous and evasive is a declaration of
FACTS: what type of witness Yap is.  It theorizes that the
interrogatories to parties answered by Yap serve as the
This case stemmed from a collection suit filed by China
judicial affidavit and there is no need for Yap to be
Banking Corporation (China Bank) against Ever
qualified as a hostile witness.
Electrical Manufacturing Company Inc. (Ever), the heirs
of Go Tong, Vicente Go, George Go and petitioner Ng The RTC ruled that Section 5 did not apply to Yap since
Meng Tam sometime in December 2008.  China Bank he was an adverse witness and he did not unjustifiably
alleged that it granted Ever a loan amounting to decline to execute a judicial affidavit.
P5,532,331.63. The loan was allegedly backed by two
Issue: Whether or not Judicial Affidavit Rule will
surety agreements executed by Vicente, George and
apply on George Yap.
petitioner in its favor, each for P5,000,000.00, and dated
December 9, 1993 and May 3, 1995, respectively.  When HELD:
Ever defaulted in its payment, China Bank sent demand
letters collectively addressed to George, Vicente and The JAR primarily affects the manner by which
petitioner. The demands were unanswered. China Bank evidence is presented in court.  Section 2(a) of the JAR
filed the complaint for collection docketed as Civil Case provides that judicial affidavits are mandatorily filed by
No. 08-1028, which was raffled off to RTC Branch 62, parties to a case except in small claims cases.  These
Makati City. judicial affidavits take the place of direct testimony in
court. It provides:
On March 15, 2011, petitioner served interrogatories to
parties pursuant to Sections 1 and 6, Rule 25 of the Rules Sec. 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in
of Court to China Bank and required Mr. George C. Yap, lieu of direct testimonies. –  (a) The parties shall file
Account Officer of the Account Management Group, to with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally
answer. or by licensed courier service, not later than five days
before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the
On June 22, 2011, George Yap executed his answers to scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents,
interrogatories to parties. the following:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Petitioner again moved for the hearing of his affirmative (1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall
defenses.  Because he found Yap’s answers to the take the place of such witnesses’ direct testimonies; and
interrogatories to parties evasive and not responsive,
petitioner applied for the issuance of a subpoena duces
tecum and ad testificandum against George Yap
pursuant to Section 6, Rule 25 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
(2) The parties’ documentary or object evidence, if any, just cause to present the documents, Section 5 cannot be
which shall be attached to the judicial affidavits and made to apply to him for the reason that he is included in
marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the a group of individuals expressly exempt from the
complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and provision’s application.
so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant.
The situation created before us begs the question: if the
xxxx requested witness is the adverse party’s witness or a
hostile witness, what procedure should be followed?
Section 324  of the JAR enumerates the content of a
judicial affidavit. The JAR being silent on this point, we turn to the
provisions governing the rules on evidence covering
Under Section 10,25 parties are to be penalized if they do
hostile witnesses specially Section 12, Rule 132 of the
not conform to the provisions of the JAR. Parties are
Rules of Court which provides:
however allowed to resort to the application of a
subpoena pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Court in SEC. 12.  Party may not impeach his own witness. –
Section 5 of the JAR in certain situations.  Section Except with respect to witnesses referred to in
5 provides: paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing
a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.
Sec. 5. Subpoena. – If the government employee or
official, or the requested witness, who is neither the A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only
witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness, if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his
unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his
refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, having misled the party into calling him to the witness
documents, or other things under his control available stand.
for copying, authentication, and eventual production in
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the
court, the requesting party may avail himself of the
witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by
issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces
the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been
tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules
called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his
governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in
bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-
this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition
examined by the adverse party, but such cross-
except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shal1 be
examination must only be on the subject matter of his
understood to be ex parte.
examination-in-chief.
Section 5 of the JAR contemplates a situation where
Before a party may be qualified under Section 12, Rule
there is a (a) government employee or official or (b)
132 of the Rules of Court, the party presenting the
requested witness who is not the (1) adverse party’s
adverse party witness must comply with Section 6, Rule
witness nor (2) a hostile witness.  If this person either (a)
25 of the Rules of Court which provides:
unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or
(b) refuses without just cause to make the relevant SEC. 6.  Effect of failure to serve written
documents available to the other party and its interrogatories. – Unless thereafter allowed by the court
presentation to court, Section 5 allows the requesting for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice,
party to avail of issuance of subpoena ad a party not served with written interrogatories may not
testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in
of Court.  Thus, adverse party witnesses and hostile open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal.
witnesses being excluded they are not covered by
Section 5.  Expressio unius est exclusion alterius: the In Afulugencia v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co.,27 this
express mention of one person, thing, or consequence Court stated that “in civil cases, the procedure of calling
implies the exclusion of all others.26redarclaw the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed,
unless written interrogatories are first served upon the
Here, Yap is a requested witness who is the adverse latter.”
party’s witness.  Regardless of whether he unjustifiably
declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without
In this case, parties, with the approval of the Court, of the corporations, assented and affixed his signature on
furnished and answered interrogatories to parties the conforme portion of the letter. 
pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of Court.  They
Ssangyong forwarded to MCC Pro Forma Invoice No.
therefore complied with Section 6 of Rule 25 of the
ST2-POSTSO401 containing the terms and conditions of
Rules of Court. Before the present controversy arose, the
the transaction. MCC sent back by fax to Ssangyong the
RTC had already issued subpoenas for Yap to testify and
invoice bearing the conformity signature of Chan. 
produce documents.  He was called to the witness stand
when China Bank interposed its objection for non- Because MCC could open only a partial letter of credit,
compliance with Section 5 of the JAR. Having the order for 220MT of steel was split into two, one
established that Yap, as an adverse party witness, is not for 110MT covered by Pro Forma Invoice No. ST2-
within Section 5 of the JAR’s scope, the rules in POSTS0401-1 and another for 110MT covered by ST2-
presentation of adverse party witnesses as provided for POSTS0401-2
under the Rules of Court shall apply.  In keeping with
this Court’s decision in Afulugencia, there is no reason Then Ssangyong, through its Manila Office, informed
for the RTC not to proceed with the presentation of Yap Sanyo Seiki and Chan, by way of a fax transmittal, that it
as a witness. was ready to ship 193MT of stainless steel. Chan affixed
his signature on the fax transmittal and returned the
In sum, Section 5 of the JAR expressly excludes from its same, by fax, to Ssangyong. 
application adverse party and hostile witnesses.  For the
presentation of these types of witnesses, the provisions Ssangyong later, through its Manila Office, sent a letter
on the Rules of Court under the Revised Rules of to the Treasury Group of Sanyo Seiki that it was looking
Evidence and all other correlative rules including the forward to receiving the L/C details and a cable copy
modes of deposition and discovery rules shall apply. thereof that day. Ssangyong sent a separate letter of the
same date. Similar letters were transmitted by
G.R. No. 170633             October 17, 2007 Ssangyong Manila Office. Ssangyong sent another
facsimile letter to MCC stating that its principal in Korea
MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES
was already in a difficult situation because of the failure
CORPORATION, petitioner,
of Sanyo Seiki and MCC to open the L/C's.
vs.
SSANGYONG CORPORATION, respondents. Ssangyong received, by fax, a letter signed by Chan,
requesting an extension of time to open the L/C because
NACHURA, J.:
MCC's credit line with the bank had been fully availed
FACTS of in connection with another transaction, and MCC was
waiting for an additional credit line. On the same date,
Petitioner MCC Industrial Sales (MCC), a domestic
Ssangyong replied. However, despite Ssangyong's
corporation, is engaged in the business of importing and
letters, MCC failed to open a letter of credit and if still
wholesaling stainless steel products. One of its suppliers
unable to open, MCC will be held liable for damages. 
is the Ssangyong corporation (Ssangyong), an
international trading company. The two corporations Later, Pro Forma Invoice Nos. ST2-POSTS080-1 and
conducted business through telephone calls and ST2-POSTS080-2  were issued by Ssangyong and sent
facsimile or telecopy transmissions. Ssangyong would via fax to MCC. The invoices slightly varied the terms of
send the pro forma invoices containing the details of the the earlier pro forma invoices (ST2-POSTSO401, ST2-
steel product order to MCC; if the latter conforms POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2). As can be
thereto, its representative affixes his signature on the gleaned from the photocopies of the said invoices
faxed copy and sends it back to Ssangyong, again by fax. submitted to the court, they both bear the conformity
signature of MCC Manager Chan.
On April 13, 2000, Ssangyong Manila Office sent, by
fax a letter addressed to Gregory Chan, MCC Manager MCC finally opened an L/C covering stainless steel
to confirm MCC's and Sanyo Seiki's order of 220 metric under Pro Forma Invoice No. ST2-POSTS080-2. The
tons (MT) of hot rolled stainless steel. Chan, on behalf goods covered by the said invoice were then shipped to
and received by MCC. MCC faxed to Ssangyong a letter
requesting for adjustment but it was rejected and "electronic data message" or an "electronic
Saangyong cancelled the contracts.  document."

Ssangyong filed a civil action for damages due to breach The Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 defines electronic
of contract against defendants MCC, Sanyo Seiki and data message and electronic document as follows: x x x
Gregory Chan.
"Electronic Data Message" refers to information
After Ssangyong rested its case, defendants filed a generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical
Demurrer to Evidence alleging that Ssangyong failed to or similar means. X x x
present the original copies of the pro forma invoices on
"Electronic Document" refers to information or the
which the civil action was based. In an Order, the court
representation of information, data, figures, symbols or
denied the demurrer ruling that the documentary
other modes of written expression, described or however
evidence had already admitted and their admissibility
represented, by which a right is established or an
finds support in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8792,
obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be
otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of
proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded,
2000. Considering that both testimonial and
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
documentary evidence tended to substantiate the
electronically.
material allegations in the complaint, Ssangyong's
evidence sufficed for purposes of a prima facie case. The court concluded that the terms "electronic data
message" and "electronic document," as defined
RTC ruled in favour of Ssangayong.  
under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not
On appeal, the CA affirmed trial court’s decision and include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly,
held that the Pro Forma Invoice nos. ST2-POSTS0401- a facsimile transmission cannot be considered
1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2 were admissible in evidence, as electronic evidence. It is not the functional
although they were mere facsimile printouts of MCC's equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence
steel orders. Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.

GUIDE QUESTION: Whether the original facsimile Since a facsimile transmission is not an "electronic data
transmissions are “electronic data messages” or message" or an "electronic document," and cannot be
“electronic documents” within the context of the considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with
Electronic Commerce Act? greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax transmission
not electronic evidence. In the present case, therefore,
HELD: 
Pro Forma Invoice Nos. ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-
R.A. No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic POSTS0401-2, which are mere photocopies of the
Commerce Act of 2000, considers an electronic data original fax transmittals, are not electronic evidence,
message or an electronic document as the functional contrary to the position of both the trial and the appellate
equivalent of a written document for evidentiary courts.
purposes. The Rules on Electronic Evidence regards an
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION,
electronic document as admissible in evidence if it
Petitioner, vs.
complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by
the Rules of Court and related laws, and is authenticated HON. RAMON G. CODILLA, JR., Presiding Judge,
in the manner prescribed by the said Rules. An RTC of Cebu, Br. 19, BANGPAI SHIPPING
electronic document is also the equivalent of an original COMPANY, and WALLEM SHIPPING,
document under the Best Evidence Rule, if it is a INCORPORATED, Respondents.
printout or output readable by sight or other means,
 G.R. No. 170491; April 4, 2007
shown to reflect the data accurately. 
Facts:
Thus, to be admissible in evidence as an electronic
data message or to be considered as the functional M/V Dibena Win, a vessel of foreign registry owned and
equivalent of an original document under the Best operated by private respondent Bangpai Shipping, Co.,
Evidence Rule, the writing must foremost be an allegedly bumped and damaged petitioner’s Power
Barge 209 which was then moored at the Cebu produced electronically. Rather, petitioner maintains that
International Port. Thus, petitioner filed before the Cebu an “electronic document” can also refer to other modes
RTC a complaint for damages against private respondent of written expression that is produced electronically,
Bangpai Shipping Co., for the alleged damages caused such as photocopies, as included in the section’s catch-
on petitioner’s power barges. all proviso: “any print-out or output, readable by sight or
other means”.
Petitioner, after adducing evidence during the trial of the
case, filed a formal offer of evidence before the lower Issue:
court. Consequently, private respondents
Whether or not the photocopies are indeed electronic
Bangpai Shipping Co. and Wallem Shipping, Inc. filed
documents as contemplated in Republic Act No. 8792 or
their respective objections to petitioner’s formal offer of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the
evidence.
Electronic Commerce Act, as well as the Rules on
Public respondent judge later issued the assailed order Electronic Evidence?
denying the admission and excluding from the records
RULING: NO. Section 1 of Rule 2 of the Rules on
petitioner’s Exhibits and its sub-markings. The Court
Electronic Evidence as follows:
finds merit in the objections raised and the motion to
strike out filed respectively by the defendants. The "(h) "Electronic document" refers to information or the
record shows that the plaintiff has been given every representation of information, data, figures, symbols or
opportunity to present the originals of the Xerox or other models of written expression, described or
photocopies of the documents it offered. It never however represented, by which a right is established or
produced the originals. The plaintiff attempted to justify an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be
the admission of the photocopies by contending that “the proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded,
photocopies offered are equivalent to the original of the transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
document” on the basis of the Electronic Evidence. The electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and
information in those Xerox or photocopies was not any printout, readable by sight or other means which
received, recorded, retrieved or produced electronically. accurately reflects the electronic data message or
Moreover, such electronic evidence must be electronic document. For the purpose of these Rules, the
authenticated, which the plaintiff failed to do. Finally, term "electronic document" may be used interchangeably
the required Affidavit to prove the admissibility and with "electronic data message".
evidentiary weight of the alleged electronic evidence
was not executed, much less presented in evidence. The
Xerox or photocopies offered should, therefore, be On the other hand, an "electronic document" refers to
stricken off the record. Aside from their being not information or the representation of information, data,
properly identified by any competent witness, the loss of figures, symbols or other models of written expression,
the principals thereof was not established by any described or however represented, by which a right is
competent proof. established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a
The focal point of this entire controversy is petitioner’s fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received,
obstinate contention that the photocopies it offered as recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
formal evidence before the trial court are the functional produced electronically.It includes digitally signed
equivalent of their original based on its inimitable documents and any printout, readable by sight or other
interpretation of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. means which accurately reflects the electronic data
message or electronic document.
Petitioner insists that, contrary to the rulings of both the
trial court and the appellate court, the photocopies it
presented as documentary evidence actually constitute The rules use the word "information" to define an
electronic evidence based on its own premise that an electronic document received, recorded, transmitted,
“electronic document” as defined under Section 1(h), stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically.
Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence is not limited This would suggest that an electronic document is
to information that is received, recorded, retrieved or relevant only in terms of the information contained
therein, similar to any other document which is the robbers as well. On hearing the shots, PO2 Gregorio
presented in evidence as proof of its contents. However, came around and fired at an armed man running towards
what differentiates an electronic document from a paper- Pillar Village. He saw another man coming out from a
based document is the manner by which the information Jollibee outlet, who fired at him. The men escaped then
is processed; clearly, the information contained in an PO2 Gregorio radioed for help. When he returned to the
electronic document is received, recorded, transmitted, mobile car, he realized that Enojas had fled. Suspecting
stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. that Enojas was involved in the attempted robbery, the
police searched his abandoned taxi and found a mobile
phone Enojas apparently left behind.
A perusal of the information contained in the
The police monitored the messages in Enojas’
photocopies submitted by petitioner will reveal that not
mobile phone, and posing as Enojas, communicated with
all of the contents therein, such as the signatures of the
the other suspects in the attempted robbery. Thereafter,
persons who purportedly signed the documents, may be
they conduct an entrapment operation resulting in the
recorded or produced electronically. By no stretch of the
arrest of Santos, Jalandoni, then Enojas and Gomez. The
imagination can a person’s signature affixed manually be
prosecution presented the transcripts of the mobile phone
considered as information electronically received,
text messages between Enojas and some of his co-
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
accused.
produced. Hence, the argument of petitioner that since
these paper printouts were produced through an RTC found all accused guilty of murder
electronic process, then these photocopies are electronic qualified by evident premeditation and use of armed men
documents as defined in the Rules on Electronic with the special aggravating circumstance of use of
Evidence is obviously an erroneous, if not preposterous, unlicensed firearms. The CA affirmed this decision. 
interpretation of the law. Having thus declared that the
offered photocopies are not tantamount to electronic
documents, it is consequential that the same may not be GUIDE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
considered as the functional equivalent of their original
as decreed in the law. 1. Are text messages admissible in evidence? 

13. People v. Enojas, G.R. No. 204894, March 10, YES. As to the admissibility of the text messages, the
2014  RTC admitted them in conformity with the Court’s
earlier Resolution applying the Rules on Electronic
Evidence to criminal actions. 
FACTS: 2. How do you prove the authenticity of text
messages? 
In 2006, PO2 Gregorio and PO2 Pangilinan were
patrolling the vicinity of Toyota Alabang and SM Text messages are to be proved by the testimony of a
Southmall when they spotted a taxi suspiciously parked person who was a party to the same or has personal
in front of the Aguila Auto Glass shop near an knowledge of them. Here, PO3 Cambi, posing as the
intersection. The officers approached the taxi and asked accused Enojas, exchanged text messages with the other
Enojas, the driver, for his documents. Considering the accused in order to identify and entrap them. As the
doubts regarding the veracity of his document, they recipient of those messages sent from and to the mobile
asked him to come with them to the police station. phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had personal
Enojas complied and went with the officers leaving his knowledge of such messages and was competent to
taxi behind.  testify on them.
The police mobile stopped in a 7-11 Convenient Stor and ( FULL TEXT: As to the admissibility of the text
PO2 Pangilinan went down to relieve himself there. As messages, the RTC admitted them in conformity with the
he approached the store’s door, he came upon 2 Court’s earlier Resolution applying the Rules on
suspected robbers and shot it out with them. After the Electronic Evidence to criminal actions.15 Text messages
encounter, PO2 Pangilinan died while shooting one of are to be proved by the testimony of a person who was a
party to the same or has personal knowledge of shall be awarded custody of the children. The CA found
them.16 Here, PO3 Cambi, posing as the accused Enojas, that under the provisions of RA9262, BBB had subjected
exchanged text messages with the other accused in order AAA and their children to psychological, emotional and
to identify and entrap them. As the recipient of those economic abuses. BBB displayed acts of marital
messages sent from and to the mobile phone in his infidelity which exposed AAA to public ridicule causing
possession, PO3 Cambi had personal knowledge of such her emotional and psychological distress. While BBB
messages and was competent to testify on them. alleged that FFF was only a professional colleague, he
continued to have public appearances with her which did
The accused lament that they were arrested without a
not help to dispel AAA’s accusation that the two had an
valid warrant of arrest.1âwphi1 But, assuming that this
extra-marital relation. BBB filed a Manifestation and
was so, it cannot be a ground for acquitting them of the
Motion to Render Judgment Based on a MOA alleging
crime charged but for rejecting any evidence that may
that he and AAA had entered into
have been taken from them after an unauthorized search
a compromise regarding the custody, exercise of parental
as an incident of an unlawful arrest, a point that is not in
authority over, and support of DDD and EEE: that BBB
issue here. At any rate, a crime had been committed—
shall have the custody over both children.
the killing of PO2 Pangilinan—and the investigating
police officers had personal knowledge of facts GQ: What is the effect of a party admitted
indicating that the persons they were to arrest had authorship of the text messages?
committed it.17 The text messages to and from the mobile
RULING:
phone left at the scene by accused Enojas provided
strong leads on the participation and identities of the Any question as to the admissibility of text messages as
accused. Indeed, the police caught them in an evidence is rendered moot and academic if the party
entrapment using this knowledge.) raising such issue admits authorship of the subject
messages.

BBB v AAA CASE DIGEST [G.R. No. 193225, BBB argues that the RTC and the CA erred in admitting
February 9, 2015, REYES, J.] as evidence the text messages which were sent by him
and FFF to AAA since they were unauthenticated.
 FACTS: BBB and AAA allege that they started to date
However, BBB himself effectively admitted in the
seriously only in 1996. AAA was then a medical student
pleadings filed with this Court and the CA that he indeed
and was raising her first child borne from a previous
sent the text messages attributed to him by AAA. The
relationship, named CCC, a boy. During their
Appellant’s Brief30 filed before the CA stated in part
relationship, AAA bore two more children namely, DDD
that:
(born on December 11, 1997) and EEE (born on October
19, 2000). BBB and AAA married in civil rights to
legalize their relationship. The birth certificates of the
children, including CCC’s, was amended to change their [AAA] conveniently chose to leave out the initiatory
civil status to legitimated by virtue of the said marriage. messages to which [BBB] replied to. It is totally
Later on, their relationship turn sour and they decided to obvious that the alleged messages from [BBB] are only
live separately. Citing economic and psychological messages that are in response to an ongoing verbal or
abuse, AAA filed an application for the issuance of a virtual tussle and the adamant refusal of [AAA] to bring
Temporary Protection Order with a request to make the the children home despite the entreaties of [BBB]. Be it
same permanent after due hearing, before the RTC. noted that [BBB], for the past several months leading up
Finding good ground in AAA’s application, the RTC to their separation, and up to the time that the instant
issued a TPO. The TPO was thereafter, made permanent case has been filed, continuously endured the extreme
by virtue of a Decision of the RTC dated August 14, mood swings, malicious accusations, haranguing,
2007. curses, insults, and even violence from
[AAA].  (Emphasis and underscoring in the original and
31
BBB appealed before the CA. CA affirmed RTC’s
italics ours)
decision but ordered the remand of the case for the latter
to determine in the proper proceedings to determine who
 of a fuel leak from the wall of its Basement 2, the flow
Further, in the instant petition, BBB repleads that: became uncontrollable which caused the residents of the
Condominium to abandon their respective units on July
23,2010 and the condo’s power to shutdown.

[I]t is utterly apparent that the alleged messages from

[BBB] are only messages that are in response to an
FPIC initially disowned any leak from its oil  pipeline. 
ongoing verbal or virtual tussle between the parties. 32
However,when the University of the Philippine –
National Institute  of  Geological Science (UP- NIGS),
In the above-quoted portions of the pleadings, BBB which the City of Makati invited to determine the source
attempted to justify why he sent the messages to AAA. of the fuel, found a leak in FPIC’s White Oil Pipeline
However, in doing so, he, in effect, admitted authorship (WOPL) about 86 meters from West Tower.FPIC, then
of the messages which AAA adduced as evidence. It is admitted that indeed the source of the fuel leak is the
likewise noted that BBB did not deny ownership of the WOPL bu placed the blame on the construction activities
cellphone number from which the text messages were on the roads surrounding the West Tower.
sent.

Hence, while at first glance, it would seem that the issue Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan
of admissibility of the text messages requires an
West Tower Corp. filed a Petition for the Issuance of
interpretation of the rules of evidence, this Court does
Writ of Kalikasan, on behalf of the residents of West
not find the same to be necessary. While BBB had
Tower, in representation of the surrounding communities
admitted authorship of the text messages, he pleads for
of Brgy. Bangkal, Makati City and joined by civil
this Court to consider those messages as inadmissible for
society and several people’s organization, NGOS  and 
allegedly being unauthenticated. BBB’s arguments are
public  interest groups.
unbearably self-contradictory and he cannot be allowed
to take refuge under technical rules of procedure to assail
what is already apparent.
They prayed that respondent FPIC and its BOD and
officers and First  Gen Corp. (FGC) be directed to:
West Tower Condominium Corporation v. First 1. Permanently cease and decease from commiting
Philippine Industrial Corporation et al. acts of negligence in the performance of their
functions as a common carrier.
G.R. No. 194239 June 16, 2015
2. Prohibit FPIC from opening the pipeline, until
Nature of the Action: Petition for the issuance of Writ
checked and replaced, and be temporarily
of Kalikasan
restrained fr. Operating the pipeline until the
final resolution of the case.

FACTS: 3. Continue to check the structural integrity of

WOPL.
FPIC operates two pipelines: (1) the WOPL - White Oil
Pipepline System which covers a 117- km stretch from 4. Rehabilitate and restore the environment and the
Batangas to the Pandacan Terminal in Manila and (2) the affected areas
BOPL – Black Oil Pipeline System which extends 105
5. Open a special trust fund to answer for similar
km from Batangas to a depot in Sucat, Paranaque.
contigencies in the future.

6. Make periodic reports on ther findings and

A leakage in one of these pipelines was suspected after replacement the WOPL.
the residents of West Tower Condominium started to
KEYWORD/S: P2C ROM
smell gas within the condominium. From the discovery
Issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan with Temporary In the meantime, petitioners also filed a civil and
Environment Protection order (TEPO) criminal case against respondents as rising from the
same incident or leakage from the WOPL (RTC – Br. 58
The Court issued the Writ of Kalikasan with a TEPO
in Makati City).
requiring the respondents to file their respective verified
returns. The TEPO injoined FPIC and FGC to: Report and Recommendation of Court of Appeals

To expedite the resolution of the controversy, the Court

remanded the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). As to
the merits of the case, the CA submitted the following
1. Cease and Desist from operating the WOPL recommendations:
until further orders.
1. That the people’s org., NGOs, and public
2. Check the strucural integrity of WOPL and interest groups that indicated their intention to
prevent any untoard incident that may result join the petition and submitteed proof of
from any leak. juridical personality be allowed to be
3. Make a report thereon within 60 days from formally impleaded as petitioners.
receipt thereof. 2. Ordered FPIC to submit a certification from
DOE Secretary that the WOPL is already safe
for commercial operation.
Respondent FPIC prays for the dismissal of the petition
and the denial  of the privilege of WOK based on the ff. 3. The petitioner’s prayer for the creation of special
the grounds: trust fund was denied for lack of sufficient basis.

4. FGC be not held as solidarily laible under

TEPO, and

1. Petitioners had no legal capacity to institute the 5. Without prejudice to the outcome of civil and
petition criminal case against respondents, the individual
directors and officer of FPIC and FGC be not
2. There is no allegation that the environmental held liable in their individual capacities.
damage affected the inhabitants of 2 or more
cities or provinces;

3. Continued operation of the pipeline should be The Court, then issued a Resolution adopting the
allowed in the interest of in maintaining recommendation of the CA and ordered FPIC to secure
adequate petroleum supply to the public; and certification from the DOE Secretary before WOPL
resume its operation.
4. That petition contains no allegation that the
directors and officers acted in such manner as to
allow the piercing the corporate veil. The petitioners, in a Motion for Reconsideration with
a Motion for Clarification emphasized that CA found
FPIC’s tst to be  insufficient  and inconclusive to
Respondents FGC contended that they neither own nor establish the structural integrity of WOPL for continued
operate pipelines and has no capability, power or operation. Furthermore, petitioners point out that DOE is
responsibility over the pipelines. biased and incapable of determining the WOPL’s
integrity.

On April 15, 2010, the court conducted ocular inspection

and discovered 2 additional leaks on FPIC pipeline. Respondents FPIC for their part, maitain that DOE has
the techincal competence and expertise and further
alleged that DOE is the agency empowered to regulate RULING:
the transportation and distribution  of petroleum
The Supreme Court adopted the recommendations of the
products, and to regulate and monitor downstream oil
CA with modifications as discussed below:
industry activities, including distribution “product 
distribution”  through piprline.

In compliance with the Court’s resolution,  the  DOE  1. YES

Secretary  issued the certification that WOPL is safe to Petitioners as Real Parties-in- Interest
resume commercial operatios.
As defined, a real party-in-interest is the party who
Subject to monitoring or inspection requirements, and stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
imposing several conditions that FPIC must comply. suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Generally, every action must be prosecuted or defended
in the name of the real parties-in-interest. In other words,
The Court is fully cognizant of the WOPL’s value in the action must be brought by the person who, by
commerce and the adverse effects of a prolonged closure substantive law, possesses the right sought to be
thereof. Nevertheless, there is a need to ensure that it is enforced. Alternatively, one who has no right or interest
sound for continued operation, since it carries pose a to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as
significant hazard to the surrounding population and the party-plaintiff-in-action for it is jurisprudentially
enivronment. ordained that

every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name

Secretary Carlos Jericho L. Petilla of the DOE submitted
of the real party-in-interest.
a letter recommending activities and timetable for the
reumption of the WOPL operations. Then, the Court
required the parties to submit their comment on Sec.
Petilla’s letter. The following issues arise during the
preliminary conference: a. Residents of West Tower and Barangay Bangkal

Petitioners who are affected residents of West Tower

and Barangay Bangkal have the requisite concern to be
ISSUE/S: real parties-in-interest to pursue the instant petition.
1. Whether or not the petitioner West Tower Corp.
has legal capacity to represent the other
petitioners and whether the other petitioners, In the case at bar, there can be no quibble that the oil
apart from the residents of West Tower and leak from the WOPL affected all the condominium unit
Barangay Bangkal, are real parties-in-interest; owners and residents of West Tower as, in fact, all had
to evacuate their units at the wee hours in the morning of
2. Whether or not a Permanent Environmental July 23, 2010, when the condominium’s electrical power
Protection Order (PEPO) should be issued to was shut down. There can also be no denying that West
FPIC; and Tower Corp. represents the common interest of its unit
3. Whether or not a a special trust fund should be owners and residents, and has the legal standing to file
opened by respondents to answer fro future and pursue the instant petition.
similar contingencies;and

4. Whether or not the Directors and Officers of

FPIC and FGC may be held liable under the b. Organizations that indicated their intention to
environmental protection order. join the petition and submitted proof of juridical
personality
 Lastly, any delay in the reopening of the WOPL, if said
delay is for the purpose of making sure that the pipeline
This is so considering that the filing of a petition for the
is commercially viable, is  better than hastily allowing its
issuance of a writ of kalikasan under Sec. 1, Rule 7 of
reopening without an extensive check   on its structural
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases does
integrity when experience shows that there were and
not require that a petitioner be directly affected by an
may still be flaws in the pipeline. Even the DOE, the
environmental disaster. The rule clearly allows juridical
agency tasked to oversee the supply and distribution of
persons to file the petition on behalf of persons whose
petroleum in the country, is well aware of this and even
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
recommended the checking of the patched portions of
is violated, or threatened with violation.
the pipeline, among others. In this regard, the Court
deems   it best to take the necessary safeguards, which
are not similar to applying the precautionary principle as
previously explained, in order   to prevent a similar
2. NO incident from happening in the future.
To recall, petitioners’ persistent plea is for the
conversion of the November 19, 2010 TEPO into a
Permanent Environmental Protection Order (PEPO)
pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases. For its part, respondent  FPIC  3. NO
asserts  that  regular testing, as well as the measures that
A reading of the petition and the motion for partial
are already in place, will sufficiently address any
reconsideration readily reveals that the prayer is for the
concern of oil leaks from the WOPL.
creation of a trust fund for similar future contingencies.
This is clearly outside the limited purpose of a special
trust fund under the Rules of Procedure for
The CA, however, observed that all of these tests and Environmental Cases, which is to rehabilitate or restore
measures are inconclusive and insufficient for purposes the  environment that has presumably already suffered.
of leak detection and pipeline integrity maintenance. Hence, the Court affirms with concurrence the
Hence, considering the necessary caution and level of observation of the  appellate  court  that the prayer is but
assurance required to ensure that the WOPL system is a claim for damages, which is prohibited by the Rules  of
free from leaks and is safe for commercial operation, the Procedure for Environmental Cases. As such, the Court
CA recommended that FPIC obtain from the DOE a is of the considered view that the creation of a special
certification that the WOPL is already safe for trust fund is misplaced.
commercial operation.

The precautionary principle only applies when the link

between the cause, that is the human activity sought to
be inhibited, and the effect, that is the damage to the 4. NO
environment, cannot be established with full scientific
On the last issue of the liability of FPIC, FGC and their
certainty. Here, however, such absence of a link is not 
respective directors and officers, the CA found FGC not 
an  issue. Detecting the existence of a leak or the
liable  under  the  TEPO  and, without prejudice to the
presence of defects in the WOPL, which is the issue in
outcome of the civil case (Civil Case No. 11-256, RTC,
the case at bar, is different from  determining whether
Branch 58 in Makati City) and criminal complaint
the spillage of hazardous materials into the surroundings
(Complaint-Affidavit for Reckless Imprudence, Office
will cause environmental damage or will harm human
of the Provincial Prosecutor of Makati City) filed against
health or that of other organisms. As a matter of fact, 
them, the individual directors
the petroleum  leak and the harm that it caused to the
environment and to  the  residents of the affected areas is
not even questioned by FPIC. and officers of FPIC and FGC are not liable in their
individual capacities.
The Court will refrain from ruling on the finding of the
CA that the individual directors and officers of FPIC and
FGC are not liable due to  the explicit rule in the Rules
of Procedure for Environmental cases that in a petition
for a writ of kalikasan, the Court cannot grant the award
of damages to individual petitioners under Rule 7, Sec.
15(e) of  the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases. As duly noted by the CA, the civil case and
criminal complaint filed by petitioners against
respondents are the proper proceedings to ventilate and
determine the individual liability of respondents, if any,
on their exercise of corporate powers and the
management of FPIC relative to the dire environmental
impact of the dumping  of petroleum products stemming
from the leak  in the WOPL in Barangay Bangkal,
Makati City.

Hence, the Court will not rule on the alleged liability on

the part of the FPIC and FGC officials which can,
however, be properly resolved in the civil and criminal
cases now pending against them.

GUIDE QS:

WHAT IS THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE?

- Section 1, Rule 20 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the

Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, on the
Precautionary Principle, provides that "[ w ]hen
there is lack of full scientific certainty in establishing
a causal link between human activity and
environmental effect, the court shall apply the
precautionary principle in resolving the case before
it."

WHEN DOES IT APPLY?

-The precautionary principle only applies when the

link between the cause, that is the human activity
sought to be inhibited, and the effect, that is the
damage to the environment, cannot be established
with full scientific certainty.