01/01/2026
Doctrine: FAILURE TO TIMELY OBJECT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT AMOUNTS TO THE PARTY’s WAIVER OF ONE’s RIGHT TO OBJECT THERETO NO MATTER HOW MERITORIOUS THE OBJECTIONABLE GROUND CAN BE UPON APPEAL IN DEFERENCE TO DUE PROCESS, JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY
In Trimillos vs. Fcash (GR No. 271360), the Supreme Court reinstated National Privacy Commission (NPC)’s adjudication imposing Php15,000.00 as nominal damages against the latter in favor of the former due to the latter’s unauthorized access of the former’s contact lists and allegedly sending them text and email correspondences as contact references regarding the former’s unsettled loan obligations. However, these correspondences were never authenticated through identification and affidavits by the recipient persons. Notwithstanding, when Trimillos was favored by the NPC, Fcash appealed and successfully sought refuge from the Court of Appeals due to Trimillos’ failure to authenticate these correspondences in accordance with the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
Observation: The Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, July 17, 2001) specifically covered the NPC as quasi-judicial body adjudicating a civil matter, as it provides: Section 2. Cases covered. – These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.
Meanwhile, NPC’s 2021 RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE NATIONAL PRIVACY COMMISSION, AS AMENDED made mention of the Rules of Evidence as a footnote insofar as electronic signature is concerned, however, there is no mention of Rules on Electronic Evidence’s applicability in its proceedings. The Rules on Evidence are easily remembered to litigants when directly coming to judicial court’s refuge.
However, in most case, especially when coming to quasi-judicial body’s succor, despite the Rules’ express provision on applicability, the said Rules slipped to mind because mainly the quasi-judicial body such as NPC has their own rules and guidelines to follow imposed upon parties.
Caveat emptor: This post is not substitute to a legal advice suitably fitting one’s unique circumstance for it merely discusses the legal implications. Instead, the foregoing is publicly intended for academic discussion and discourse. For a thorough advice and discussion about one’s legal circumstance, one may leave a message.
