C.

Best Evidence Rule

The Best Evidence Rule is applicable only to documents. When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original writing itself. Not
every writing is considered a document for purposes of the best evidence rule. Documents as
evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols
or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.

If a writing is offered not to prove its contents but to prove some other fact, e.g., that the writing
exists, or that it is done on sheepskin, or the size of the paper it is written on, it is, for purposes of
evidence, only object evidence. To determine the admissibility of object evidence, the best
evidence rule does not apply. Hence, the original writing need not be presented. The existence or
condition of that writing may be proved, at once, by any other evidence, like oral testimony.

Closely related to the best evidence rule is the rule that a document or writing which is merely
'collateral' to the issue involved in the case on trial need not be produced. This is the collateral
facts rule. Thus, where the purpose of presenting a document is not to prove its contents, but
merely to give coherence to, or to make intelligible, the testimony of a witness regarding a fact
contemporaneous to the writing, the original of the document need not be presented. In this case,
the contents of the document are not sought to be proven, but are simply incidental to the fact
being testified to. Thus, the best evidence rule cannot apply.

The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry . Even a mere
photocopy of a document may be an original if it is the contents of that photocopy that are
inquired into.

When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals. Thus, the first copy and four (4)
carbon copies of a contract, all of which are identical, are all considered originals. Each of them
may be offered as proof of their contents. But if a party has lost his original document, he must
account not only for the unavailability of his copy but also for the loss, destruction or
unavailability of the rest of the original copies. Otherwise, secondary evidence of his lost original
will not be admitted. Any of the four other extant originals would still be the best available
evidence.

Secondary evidence may also be resorted to, as though the document had been lost, when the
adverse party who has custody of the original refuses, despite reasonable notice, to produce the
document. In this case, such adverse party should not later be allowed to introduce the original
for the purpose of contradicting the secondary evidence presented.

When the proper foundation for the reception of secondary evidence has been laid, the best
evidence rule insists on a preference in the type of secondary evidence that will be presented.
Thus, the Rule provides:
When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad
faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some
authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
Hence, before a party may offer the testimony of witnesses to prove the contents of a lost
original, he must first show or prove that no copy of the document exists and, in addition, that
there exists no authentic document reciting the contents of the unavailable original. This second
layer of foundations may of course be established by oral testimony, but it must be established.
CHAPTER 3
Form of Contracts
ARTICLE 1356. Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they may have been entered
into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. However, when the law
requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that a
contract be proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and indispensable. In such
cases, the right of the parties stated in the following article cannot be exercised. (1278a)
ARTICLE 1357. If the law requires a document or other special form, as in the acts and contracts
enumerated in the following article, the contracting parties may compel each other to observe
that form, once the contract has been perfected. This right may be exercised simultaneously with
the action upon the contract. (1279a)
ARTICLE 1358. The following must appear in a public document:
(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or
extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest
therein are governed by articles 1403, No. 2, and 1405;
(2) The cession, repudiation or renunciation of hereditary rights or of those of the conjugal
partnership of gains;
(3) The power to administer property, or any other power which has for its object an act
appearing or which should appear in a public document, or should prejudice a third person;
(4) The cession of actions or rights proceeding from an act appearing in a public document.
All other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos must appear in
writing, even a private one. But sales of goods, chattels or things in action are governed by
articles 1403, No. 2 and 1405. (1280a)
D. Parol Evidence Rule
The Parol Evidence Rule applies only to contractual documents.58 However, it does not apply
where at least one party to the suit is not a party – nor a privy to a party – to the written
instrument and does not base his claim, nor assert a right arising from the instrument or
established therein. Thus, a total stranger to the writing is not bound by its terms and is allowed
to introduce extrinsic – or parol – evidence against the efficacy of the writing.[59]
In order that parol evidence may be admissible, the exceptional situation, including the fact of a
subsequent agreement, must be put in issue in the pleading. Otherwise, no parol evidence can be
admissible. When the defendant invokes such exceptional situations in his answer, such facts are
sufficiently put in issue as to allow the presentation of parol evidence. However, if, when
presented, the parol evidence is not objected to, such objection is deemed waived.
G. Authentication And Proof Of Documents

For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private. Public
documents need not be authenticated; private documents have to be authenticated to be
admissible in evidence.

There are only three types of public documents, viz.: (1) the written official acts or records of
official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals and public officers, whether
of the Philippines or of a foreign country, e.g., transfer certificate of title, the Official Gazette,
entries in the book of entries of judgments; (2) documents acknowledged before a notary public
except last wills and testaments; (3) public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents
required by law to be entered therein, e.g., certified true copies of birth certificates or of death
certificates issued by the local civil registrar.

All other writings are private and thus ought to be authenticated. Their due execution and
genuineness must be proved either (1) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(2) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Note that the
opinion of an ordinary witness regarding the handwriting of a person is admissible under Rule
130, Sec. 50, as an exception to the opinion rule provided the witness is shown to have sufficient
familiarity with the handwriting.

The last paragraph of Rule 132, Sec. 20 states that 'Any other private document need only be
identified as that which it is claimed to be.' This provision should be taken in relation to the first
paragraph which reads: 'Before any private document offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its due execution and genuineness must be proved.' If it is offered as a genuine writing,
it must be proved to be genuine. If it is offered as a forgery, it must be proved to be a forgery. If
a private writing is offered not as an authentic document, it need only be identified as that which
the offeror claims it to be. Thus, if an anonymous letter a party has received is relevant to the
issues in a case, he need not authenticate it since he cannot possibly do that anyway. He only has
to identify it as the anonymous letter he had received. The authenticity of the document is
immaterial for he is not offering it as authentic. An ancient document, although private in nature,
needs no authentication either; provided, it appears to be more than thirty years old, is produced
from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any
alteration or circumstances of suspicion. Of course, also, if the authenticity of a private document
is judicially admitted by the other, a party need not authenticate it.
Not all public documents have the same probative value. Documents consisting of entries in
public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated. Hence, the entries made by the clerk of court in the book of entries of
judgments are prima facie evidence of the entered facts; the clerk of court need not be called to
attest to the truth thereof. Such evidence of course are only prima facie, i.e., good until rebutted
by reliable contradictory evidence.

But "All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave
rise to their execution and of the date of the latter." Thus, a certified true copy of a death
certificate issued by the local civil registrar – although a public document – is proof only of the
fact which gave rise to its execution, i.e., the fact of death and the date of that fact. The death
certificate is not evidence of the cause of death, which ought to be proved by competent
evidence.
SECTION 4
Common Carriers (n)
SUBSECTION 1
General Provisions
SUBSECTION 2
Vigilance Over Goods
ARTICLE 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of
the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.
ARTICLE 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding
article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence as required in article 1733.
ARTICLE 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the
goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for
transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the
consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions
of article 1738.
ARTICLE 1737. The common carrier’s duty to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over the goods remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or
stored in transit, unless the shipper or owner has made use of the right of stoppage in transitu.
ARTICLE 1738. The extraordinary liability of the common carrier continues to be operative
even during the time the goods are stored in a warehouse of the carrier at the place of destination,
until the consignee has been advised of the arrival of the goods and has had reasonable
opportunity thereafter to remove them or otherwise dispose of them.
ARTICLE 1739. In order that the common carrier may be exempted from responsibility, the
natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. However, the common
carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize loss before, during and after the
occurrence of flood, storm or other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may be
exempted from liability for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. The same duty is
incumbent upon the common carrier in case of an act of the public enemy referred to in article
1734, No. 2.
ARTICLE 1740. If the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting the goods, a
natural disaster shall not free such carrier from responsibility.
ARTICLE 1741. If the shipper or owner merely contributed to the loss, destruction or
deterioration of the goods, the proximate cause thereof being the negligence of the common
carrier, the latter shall be liable in damages, which however, shall be equitably reduced.
ARTICLE 1742. Even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods should be caused by
the character of the goods, or the faulty nature of the packing or of the containers, the common
carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss.
ARTICLE 1743. If through the order of public authority the goods are seized or destroyed, the
common carrier is not responsible, provided said public authority had power to issue the order.
ARTICLE 1744. A stipulation between the common carrier and the shipper or owner limiting the
liability of the former for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods to a degree less than
extraordinary diligence shall be valid, provided it be:
(1) In writing, signed by the shipper or owner;
(2) Supported by a valuable consideration other than the service rendered by the common carrier;
and
(3) Reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy.
ARTICLE 1745. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable,
unjust and contrary to public policy:
(1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper;
(2) That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of the
goods;
(3) That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of the goods;
(4) That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less than that of a good father of
a family, or of a man of ordinary prudence in the vigilance over the movables transported;
(5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its
employees;
(6) That the common carrier’s liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not
act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force, is dispensed with or diminished;
(7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods
on account of the defective condition of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used
in the contract of carriage.
ARTICLE 1746. An agreement limiting the common carrier’s liability may be annulled by the
shipper or owner if the common carrier refused to carry the goods unless the former agreed to
such stipulation.
ARTICLE 1747. If the common carrier, without just cause, delays the transportation of the goods
or changes the stipulated or usual route, the contract limiting the common carrier’s liability
cannot be availed of in case of the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods.
ARTICLE 1748. An agreement limiting the common carrier’s liability for delay on account of
strikes or riots is valid.
ARTICLE 1749. A stipulation that the common carrier’s liability is limited to the value of the
goods appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value, is
binding.
ARTICLE 1750. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or shipper for the
loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is valid, if it is reasonable and just under the
circumstances, and has been fairly and freely agreed upon.
ARTICLE 1751. The fact that the common carrier has no competitor along the line or route, or a
part thereof, to which the contract refers shall be taken into consideration on the question of
whether or not a stipulation limiting the common carrier’s liability is reasonable, just and in
consonance with public policy.
ARTICLE 1752. Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in
the vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent
in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration.
ARTICLE 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the
liability of the common carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration.
ARTICLE 1754. The provisions of articles 1733 to 1753 shall apply to the passenger’s baggage
which is not in his personal custody or in that of his employee. As to other baggage, the rules in
articles 1998 and 2000 to 2003 concerning the responsibility of hotel-keepers shall be applicable.
SUBSECTION 3
Safety of Passengers

Electronic Commerce Act (Republic Act No. 8792)

On 14 June 2000, President Joseph E. Estrada signed into law R.A. 8792 "An Act Providing For
The Recognition And Use of Electronic Commercial And Non-Commercial Transactions,
Penalties For Unlawful Use Thereof, And Other Purposes, also known as the "Electronic
Commerce Act."
In its Declaration of Policy (Section 2), it is declared that "The State recognizes the vital role of
information and communications technology (ICI) in nation building. The Objective and Sphare
of Application of the new law are as hereunder stated:
Sec. 3. Objective - This Act aims to facilitate domestic and international dealings, transactions,
arrangements, agreements, contracts and exchanges and storage of information through the
utilization of electronic, optical and similar medium, mode, instrumentality and technology to
recognize the authenticity and reliability of electronic data messages or electronic documents
related to such activities and to promote the universal use of electronic transactions in the
government and by the general public. Sec. 4. Sphere of Application - This Act shall apply to
any kind of electronic data message and electronic document used in the context of commercial
and non-commercial activities to include domestic and international dealings, transactions,
arrangements, agreements, contracts and exchanges and storage of information.
The new law defines in Section 5 thereof what constitutes "electronic data message", "electronic
signature" and "electronic document", as follows:
c) "Electronic data message" refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by
electronic, optical or similar means.
e) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic
form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the
electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedures employed or
adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating
or approving an electronic data message or electronic document.
f) "Electronic document" refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a
right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed,
which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically.
A) Legal Recognition / Admissibility As Evidence
The new law gives legal recognition to electronic data messages, electronic documents and
electronic signatures.
Thus, Section 6, 7 and 8 provides:
Sec. 6. Legal Recognition of Electronic Data Message - Information shall not be denied validity
or enforceability solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic data message
purporting to give rise to such legal effect, or that it is merely incorporated by reference in that
electronic data message.
Sec. 7. Legal Recognition of Electronic Documents - Electronic documents shall have the legal
effect, validity or enforceability as any other document or legal writing, and
(a) Where the law requires a document to be in writing, that requirement is met by an electronic
document if the said electronic document maintains its integrity and reliability and can be
authenticated so as to be usable for subsequent reference, in that -
i) The electronic document has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the addition of any
endorsement and any authorized change, or any change which arises in the normal course of
communication, storage and display; and
ii) The electronic document is reliable in the light of the purpose for which it was generated and
in the light of all relevant circumstances.
(b) Paragraph (a) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an obligation or
whether the law simply provides consequences for the document not being presented or retained
in its original form. (c)Where the law requires that a document be presented or retained in its
original form, that requirement is met by an electronic document if -
i) There exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the document from the time when it was
first generated in its final form; and
ii) That document is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented:
Provided, That no provision of this Act shall apply to vary any and all requirements of existing
laws on formalities required in the execution of documents for their validity.
For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document shall be the functional equivalent of a written
document under existing laws.
This Act does not modify any statutory rule relating to the admissibility of electronic data
messages or electronic documents, except the rules relating to authentication and best evidence.
Sec. 8. Legal Recognition of Electronic Signatures - An electronic signature on the electronic
documents shall be equivalent to the signature of a person on a written document if the signature
is an electronic signature and proved by showing that a prescribed procedure, not alterable by the
parties interested in the electronic document, existed under which -
a) A method is used to identify the party sought to be bound and to indicate said party’s access to
the electronic document necessary for his consent or approval through the electronic signature;
b) Said method is reliable and appropriate for the purpose for which the electronic document was
generated or communicated, in the light of all circumstances, including any relevant agreement;
c) It is necessary for the party sought to be bound, in order to proceed further with the
transaction, to have executed or provided the electronic signature; and d) The other party is
authorized and enabled to verify the electronic signature and to make the decision to proceed
with the transaction authenticated by the same.
The foregoing provisions put at rest the legal debate on whether or not Philippine Courts will
accept electronic contracts or documents as evidence.
The Rules of Court (Rules 128-134) govern court procedures and processes. Rule 130, at Section
2 of the same, provides that documentary evidence are "those which consist of writings or any
material containing letters, words, figures, symbols, or other modes of written expressions
offered as proof of its contents." Are electronically generated data or documents covered under
the said Rules?
The Supreme Court, in a sedition case (People vs. Burgos, 200 SCRA 67), had occasion to rule
on whether evidence submitted in electronic form could be admissible as evidence. Burgos
argued that the evidence – contained in diskettes – which the military had sought to introduce
against him could not be admissible as the military could have tampered with it. The judge in the
lower court agreed with him and disallowed the presentation of the evidence. In the Supreme
Court, the lower court was reversed and was directed to admit the evidence. But instead of
ruling, however, on whether an electronic –generated evidence was admissible or not, it relied on
the presumption of regularity in the performance of public service. It allowed the introduction of
the evidence on the ground that there was no showing that the military had tampered with the
diskette. Thus, the issue of electronically generated documents/data as evidence was not squarely
decided upon.
The new law now expressly provides that for evidentiary purposes, an electronic document shall
be the functional equivalent of a written document under existing laws. Under this principle of
"functional equivalent" any electronic data message, document or signature, which is the
functional equivalent of a written document or original signature, it is now clearly admissible as
evidence. The operative words for admissibility are "integrity", "reliability" and "can be
authenticated". Thus, Sections 10 and 11 of the new law provides:
Sec. 10. Original Documents - (1) Where the law requires information to be presented or retained
in its original form, that requirement is met by an electronic data message or electronic document
if:
a) the integrity of the information from the time when it was first generated in its final form, as
an electronic data message or electronic document is shown by evidence aliunde or otherwise;
and b) where it is required that information be presented, that the information is capable of being
displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an obligation or
whether the law simply provides consequences for the information not being presented or
retained in its original form.
(3) For the purposes of subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1):
a) the criteria for assessing integrity shall be whether the information has remained complete and
unaltered, apart from the addition of any endorsement and any change which arises in the normal
course of communication, storage and display; and
b) the standard of reliability required shall be assessed in the light of the purpose for which the
information was generated and in the light of all the relevant circumstances.
Sec. 11. Authentication of Electronic Data Messages and Electronic Documents - Until the
Supreme Court by appropriate rules shall have so provided, electronic documents, electronic data
messages and electronic signatures, shall be authenticated by demonstrating, substantiating and
validating a claimed identity of a user, device, or another entity in an information or
communication system, among other ways.
The new law further provides in Section 12 thereof that electronic messages and electronic
documents are admissible and have evidential weight. Thus:
Sec. 14. Admissibility and Evidential Weight of Electronic Data Messages or Electronic
Documents - In any legal proceedings, nothing in the application of the rules on evidence shall
deny the admissibility of an electronic data message or electronic document in evidence -
a. On the sole ground that it is in electronic form; or
b. On the ground that it is not in the standard written form, and the electronic data message or
electronic document meeting, and complying with the requirements under Sections 6 or 7 hereof
shall be the best evidence of the agreement and transaction contained therein.
In assessing the evidential weight of an electronic data message or electronic document, the
reliability of the manner in which it was generated, stored or communicated, the reliability of the
manner in which its originator was identified, and other relevant factors shall be given due
regard.
(a) Carriage Of Goods
With reference to electronic commerce in carriage of goods, the new law provides in Section 26
thereof that "where the law requires that any action (in connection with a contract of carriage of
goods) be carried out in writing or by using a paper document, that requirement is met if the
action is carried out by using one or more electronic data or electronic documents." Thus,
electronic messages or electronic documents may be used as "functional equivalents" of written
or paper documents in connection with the following instances:
a)
i) furnishing the marks, number, quantity or weight of goods;
ii) stating or declaring the nature or value of goods;
iii) issuing a receipt for goods;
iv) confirming that goods have been loaded;
b)
i) notifying a person of terms and conditions of the contract
ii) giving instructions to a carrier;
c)
i) claiming delivery of goods;
ii) authorizing release of goods;
iii) giving notice of loss, or damage to goods;
d) giving any other notice or statement in connection with the performance of the contract;
e) undertaking to deliver goods to a named person or a person authorized to claim delivery;
f) granting, acquiring, renouncing surrendering, transferring or negotiating rights in goods;
g) acquiring or transferring rights and obligations under the contract.
(b) Electronic Transactions In Government
The new law mandates in Section 27 thereof that Government, within two (2) years from the date
of effectivity of the Act, must accept/use electronic data messages, electronic documents and
electronic signatures. Thus:
SEC. 27. Government Use of Electronic Data Messages, Electronic Documents and Electronic
Signatures. – Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, within two (2) years from the date of the
effectivity of this Act, all departments, bureaus, offices and agencies of the government, as well
as all government-owned and controlled corporations, that pursuant to law require or accept the
filing of documents, require that documents be created, or retained and/or submitted, issue
permits, licenses or certificates or registration or approval, or provide for the method and manner
of payment or settlement of fees and other obligations to the government, shall-
a) accept the creation, filing or retention of such documents in the form of electronic data
messages or electronic documents;
b) issue permits, licenses, or approval in the form of electronic data messages or electronic
documents;
c) require and/or accept payments, and issue receipts acknowledging such payments, through
systems using electronic data messages or electronic documents; or
d) transact the government business and/or perform governmental functions using electronic data
messages or electronic documents, and for the purpose, are authorized to adopt and promulgate,
after appropriate public hearing and with due publication in newspapers of general circulation,
the appropriate rules, regulations, or guidelines, to among others, specify-
o the manner and format in which such electronic data messages or electronic documents
shall be filed, created, retained or issued;
o where and when such electronic data messages or electronic documents have to be
signed, the use of an electronic signature, the type of electronic signature required;
o the format or an electronic data message or electronic document and the manner the
electronic signature shall be affixed to the electronic data message or electronic
document;
o the control processes and procedures as appropriate to ensure adequate integrity, security
and confidentiality of electronic data messages or electronic documents or records or
payments;
o other attributes requires of electronic data messages or electronic documents or payment;
and
o the full or limited use of the documents and papers for compliance with the government
requirements: Provided, That this Act shall by itself mandate any department of the
government, organ of state or statutory corporation to accept or issue any document in the
form of electronic data messages or electronic documents upon the adoption,
promulgation and publication of the appropriate rules, regulations, or guidelines.
(c) Confidentiality
Section 32 of the new law underscores the obligation for confidentiality. Thus:
Section 32. Obligation of Confidentiality. – Except for the purposes authorized under this Act,
any person who obtained access to any electronic key, electronic data message or electronic
document, book, register, correspondence, information, or other material pursuant to any powers
conferred under this Act, shall not convey to or share the same with any other person.
(d) Illegal Activities / Penalties
To protect internet users, consumers and owners of computer systems / servers and copyright
owners, the new law defines what constitutes illegal activities and provides penalties thereof.
Thus:
SEC. 33. Penalties. – The following Acts shall be penalized by fine and/or imprisonment, as
follows:
a. Hacking or cracking which refers to unauthorized access into or interference in a
computer system/server or information and communication system; or any access
in order to corrupt, alter, steal, or destroy using a computer or other similar
 information and communication devices, without the knowledge and consent of
the owner of the computer or information and communications system, including
the introduction of computer viruses and the like, resulting in the corruption,
destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic data messages or electronic
documents shall be punished by a minimum fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a
mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years;
b. Piracy or the unauthorized copying, reproduction, dissemination, distribution,
importation, use, removal, alteration, substitution, modification, storage,
uploading, downloading, communication, making available to the public, or
broadcasting of protected material, electronic signature or copyrighted works
including legally protected sound recording or phonograms or information
material on protected works, through the use of telecommunication networks,
such as, but not limited to, the internet, in a manner that infringes intellectual
property rights shall be punished by a minimum fine of One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a
mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years;
c. Violation of the Consumer Act or Republic Act No. 7394 and other relevant or
pertinent laws through transactions covered by or using electronic data messages
or electronic documents, shall be penalized with the same penalties as provided in
those laws;
d. Other violations of the provisions of this Act, shall be penalized with a maximum
penalty of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) or six (6) years imprisonment.
Conclusion
The web may not be an overnight substitute for our shopping malls, which still shall remain in
the near term as the favorite air conditioned recreation park of Filipinos young and old alike.
"Malling" is, and shall for a long time, still be a favorite "bonding" activity. Yet, as traditional
companies shift to Internet related activities in their strategy and business plans, on-line malling
for Filipino consumers may become more accepted, sooner than expected.
It is hoped that by then, our laws would be sufficient enough and adopt fast enough to protect
consumers who shop on the web.
Sources
1. Lawyers in the Networld, M. Ethan Katsh
(http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue/katsh.html)
2. Internet / E-Commerce, Henry M. Blodget, 22 June 1999.
3. Merril Lynch (In-depth Report) "Internet in the Philippines-caught in the web" 23 March
2000, at p. 4.
4. Ibid, at p. 6
5. e-primer (An Introduction to E-Commerce) January 2000, E.C. Lallana, R.S. Quimbao and
Z.B. Andam)
6. "Electronic Commerce and Consumers", Heathes Rome, International Business Lawyer,
April 1998 at pp. 169-175.

Republic Act No. 11967: Internet Transactions Act of 2023

https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/technology-media-telecommunications_1/philippines-internet-
transactions-act-of-2023-enacted-into-law