Facts:
Emmanuel
B. Aznar (Aznar) is a holder of a Preferred Master Credit Card (Mastercard)
bearing number 5423-3920-0786-7012 issued by Citibank with a credit limit of
PhP50,000.00. As he and his wife, Zoraida, planned to take their two
grandchildren, Melissa and Richard Beane, on an Asian tour, Aznar made a total
advance deposit of PhP485,000.00 with Citibank with the intention of increasing
his credit limit to PhP635,000.00.
With
the use of his Mastercard, Aznar purchased plane tickets to Kuala Lumpur for
his group worth PhP237,000.00. On July 17, 1994, Aznar, his wife and
grandchildren left Cebu for the said destination.
Aznar
claims that when he presented his Mastercard in some establishments in
Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, the same was not honored. And when he tried
to use the same in Ingtan Tour and Travel Agency (Ingtan Agency) in Indonesia
to purchase plane tickets to Bali, it was again dishonored for the reason that
his card was blacklisted by Citibank. Such dishonor forced him to buy the
tickets in cash. He further claims that his humiliation caused by the denial of
his card was aggravated when Ingtan Agency spoke of swindlers trying to use
blacklisted cards. Aznar and his group returned to the Philippines on August
10, 1994.
On
August 26, 1994, Aznar filed a complaint for damages against Citibank, docketed
as Civil Case No. CEB-16474 and raffled to RTC Branch 20, Cebu City, claiming
that Citibank fraudulently or with gross negligence blacklisted his Mastercard
which forced him, his wife and grandchildren to abort important tour
destinations and prevented them from buying certain items in their tour. He
further claimed that he suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded
feelings, besmirched reputation and social humiliation due to the wrongful
blacklisting of his card. To prove that Citibank blacklisted his Mastercard,
Aznar presented a computer print-out, denominated as ON-LINE AUTHORIZATIONS
FOREIGN ACCOUNT ACTIVITY REPORT, issued to him by Ingtan Agency (Exh.
"G") with the signature of one Victrina Elnado Nubi (Nubi) which
shows that his card in question was "DECL OVERLIMIT" or declared over
the limit.
Citibank
denied the allegation that it blacklisted Aznar’s card. It also contended that
under the terms and conditions governing the issuance and use of its credit
cards, Citibank is exempt from any liability for the dishonor of its cards by
any merchant affiliate, and that its liability for any action or incident which
may be brought against it in relation to the issuance and use of its credit
cards is limited to PhP1,000.00 or the actual damage proven whichever is
lesser.
To
prove that they did not blacklist Aznar’s card, Citibank’s Credit Card
Department Head, Dennis Flores, presented Warning Cancellation Bulletins which
contained the list of its canceled cards covering the period of Aznar’s trip.
On
May 29, 1998, RTC Branch 20, Cebu City, through Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos,
rendered its decision dismissing Aznar’s complaint for lack of merit. The trial
court held that as between the computer print-out presented by Aznar and the
Warning Cancellation Bulletins presented by Citibank, the latter had more
weight as their due execution and authenticity were duly established by
Citibank.
Issue:
Whether
the lower court is correct in saying that the list of cancelled card presented
by Citibank has more weight than what Aznar presented under the Rules on
Electronic Evidence?
Held:
It
is basic that in civil cases, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to
establish his case based on a preponderance of evidence. The party that alleges
a fact also has the burden of proving it.
In
the complaint Aznar filed before the RTC, he claimed that Citibank blacklisted
his Mastercard which caused its dishonor in several establishments in Malaysia,
Singapore, and Indonesia, particularly in Ingtan Agency in Indonesia where he
was humiliated when its staff insinuated that he could be a swindler trying to
use a blacklisted card.
Aznar
puts much weight on the ON-LINE AUTHORIZATION FOREIGN ACCOUNT ACTIVITY REPORT,
a computer print-out handed to Aznar by Ingtan Agency, marked as Exh.
"G", to prove that his Mastercard was dishonored for being
blacklisted. On said print-out appears the words "DECL OVERLIMIT"
opposite Account No. 5423-3920-0786-7012.
As
correctly pointed out by the RTC and the CA, however, such exhibit cannot be
considered admissible as its authenticity and due execution were not
sufficiently established by petitioner.
The
prevailing rule at the time of the promulgation of the RTC Decision is Section
20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. It provides that whenever any private
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either by (a) anyone who saw the document executed
or written; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker.
Aznar,
who testified on the authenticity of Exh. "G," did not actually see
the document executed or written, neither was he able to provide evidence on
the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of Nubi, who handed to him said
computer print-out.
Even
if examined under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which took effect on August
1, 2001, and which is being invoked by Aznar in this case, the authentication
of Exh. "G" would still be found wanting.
Pertinent
sections of Rule 5 read:
Section
1. Burden of proving authenticity. – The person seeking to introduce an
electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its
authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule.
Section
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
(c)
by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of
the judge.
Indeed,
Aznar failed to demonstrate how the information reflected on the print-out was
generated and how the said information could be relied upon as true.
Petition
denied.
_______________________
Full text of the case available at: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_164273_2007.html
No comments:
Post a Comment