ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE RULES

                 Facsimile or Fax Transmission: In Garvida v. Sales, Jr.,( G.R. No. 124893, April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 767) the Supreme Court found inadmissible in evidence the filing of pleadings through fax machines and ruled that:

          

A facsimile or fax transmission is a process involving the transmission and reproduction of printed and graphic matter by scanning an original copy, one elemental area at a time, and representing the shade or tone of each area by a specified amount of electric current. The current is transmitted as a signal over regular telephone lines or via microwave relay and is used by the receiver to reproduce an image of the elemental area in the proper position and the correct shade. The receiver is equipped with a stylus or other device that produces a printed record on paper referred to as a facsimile. x x x  A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original. Without the original, there is no way of determining on its face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally signed by the party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading. x x x (Id. at 779. (Citations omitted.)

         

         Moreover, a facsimile transmission is not considered as an electronic evidence under the Electronic Commerce Act.  In MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, (G.R. No. 170633, October 17, 2007, 536 SCRA 408.) the Supreme Courtdetermined the question of whether the original facsimile transmissions are "electronic data messages" or "electronic documents" within the context of the Electronic Commerce Act, and it said:

       

      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 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. (ELLERY MARCH G. TORRES VS. PHIL. AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 193531, DECEMBER 14, 2011, PERALTA, J.).