Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

MCC Industrial Sales v.

Ssanyong Corporation
Under the existing Rules, there is a need to determine WON the fax transmission is an
electronic document or a paper document. Such is necessary because the rules on
admissibility of a printout or output is different under the Rules on Electronic Evidence
and the Rules of Evidence under the Rules of Court. As in the case at bar, the fax
transmissions are not considered as electronic evidence. Hence, it must comply with the
BER before a secondary evidence may be admitted.

Under the proposed amendments, the definition of what is an original document was
expanded. It now covers electronics documents or electronic data messages. Therefore,
there is no need to distinguish whether a document is electronic or paper-based as the
proposed amendments now cover electronic evidence.

In addition, under the proposed amendments, a duplicate is admissible to the same

extent as an original, as a general rule. It seems that if this case is decided upon under
the proposed amendments, photocopies of the faxed transmission is a duplicate as it is a
counterpart produced by the same impression as the original. Therefor, there is no need
to comply with the rules on secondary evidence because a photocopy is now accepted
as an original document.