Trimillos vs. FCash Global Lending, Inc.

Failure to interpose a timely objection to the admissibility of evidence constitutes a waiver of that objection, and the issue of admissibility cannot be raised for the first time on appeal — this rule applies equally to proceedings before quasi-judicial bodies like the National Privacy Commission, which are bound by rules of fair play and due process, and any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel.

Grace M. Trimillos filed a complaint with the National Privacy Commission (NPC) against FCash Global Lending, Inc., which operates the mobile application "Fast Cash," alleging violations of Republic Act No. 10173, the "Data Privacy Act of 2012" (DPA). The NPC is an independent body mandated to administer and implement the DPA and to monitor compliance with international standards for data protection, exercising quasi-judicial functions that include receiving complaints and instituting investigations. The NPC's Rules of Procedure (NPC Circular No. 16-04) govern the filing and processing of such complaints, including discovery conferences, responsive comments, and submission for resolution.

Grace M. Trimillos filed a Complaint with the National Privacy Commission (NPC) on July 26, 2019, against FCash Global Lending, Inc. (FCash), which operates the lending application "Fast Cash." Trimillos alleged that FCash accessed her phone's contact list without her authority and informed everyone on the list regarding the status of her loan. According to her complaint, the last message her co-workers and friends received stated that they were her guarantors and, if no payment was made, they would be forced to pay on her behalf. FCash even called her friends and co-workers who had nothing to do with her transactions, and Trimillos claimed her reputation was besmirched as a result.

The NPC ordered the parties to appear for a Discovery Conference on September 5, 2019, but due to FCash's absence, it was reset to October 31, 2019. On September 13, 2019, Trimillos submitted screenshots of the text messages allegedly sent by FCash and a print-out of her email correspondence with the National Telecommunications Commission. The alleged malicious text message read, in part: "Magandang Araw! Hindi kami nagkulang ng paalala sa inyo upang maayos ang inyong pagkakautang sa ISANG ONLINE LENDING COMPANY, pero nanatili kayong walang tugon at pakipag communicate. Dahil dyan[,] napagdesisyonan naming kayo ay aming isusumite sa legal proceedings ng SMALL CLAIMS sa pamamagitan ng pag babarangay sa inyo at ifile sa CIVIL COURT upang ito at mabayaran sa pamamagitan ng WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT o ang pagkuha ng inyong personal property bilang kabayaran, kung ang buong halaga ng pagkakautang ay hindi mabayaran." The message further stated that the recipient was made a "contact reference" by the borrower and was being treated as a "kasabwat" in all her transactions.

On October 1, 2019, Trimillos requested via email that the Discovery Conference be set at an earlier date, and the NPC granted the request, issuing an Order for both parties to appear on October 10, 2019. During the Discovery Conference, both parties manifested their willingness to avail themselves of the NPC's mediation proceedings, but they were unable to reach an agreement, resulting in the resumption of proceedings. Upon termination of the Discovery Conference, the NPC ordered FCash to file its responsive comment, but no responsive comment was ever filed by FCash. With no other pleadings filed, the case was submitted for resolution.

The NPC rendered a Decision on November 5, 2020, awarding Trimillos nominal damages of ₱15,000.00 and recommending the prosecution of FCash for crimes under Sections 28 and 31 of the DPA. The NPC explained that FCash gathered personal information in excess of what was necessary and processed them for purposes other than those stated in its own privacy policy, particularly when it sent messages to Trimillos' contacts. The unauthorized processing was done with malice, as the messages revealed FCash's intention to shame Trimillos and jeopardize her reputation until she settled her obligations. FCash filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the NPC denied on March 11, 2021. FCash then filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals, which reversed the NPC on the ground that the screenshots were inadmissible for failure to authenticate them under the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

• Waiver of Objection: Trimillos contended that the CA erred in finding the evidence inadmissible when FCash had already waived its right to object by refusing to participate in the proceedings before the NPC.
• Issue Raised for the First Time on Appeal: Trimillos argued that the CA should not have considered the issue of admissibility of evidence, which was only raised for the first time on appeal.
• Substantial Evidence in Administrative Proceedings: Trimillos argued that the findings of the NPC should not be casually dismissed on technicality, as strict adherence to rules of procedure is not a feature in administrative proceedings, and she was able to prove by substantial evidence that FCash violated the DPA.

• Inadmissibility of Unauthenticated Evidence: FCash argued that unauthenticated electronic evidence is both inadmissible and without probative value, and even assuming it may be admitted, it cannot be accorded evidentiary weight for failure to observe the Rule on Electronic Evidence for authentication.
• Inapplicability of Formal Offer Rules: FCash averred that the NPC Rules of Procedure do not provide for formal offer of evidence; thus, the rule that objections to admissibility should be made after offer cannot apply.
• No Waiver of Objection: FCash claimed that its first opportunity to raise objection was upon receipt of the NPC Decision admitting the unauthenticated electronic evidence, to which it promptly filed a Motion for Reconsideration; accordingly, there was no waiver of objection.

• Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: Whether the CA erred in finding that the evidence presented by Trimillos was inadmissible for failure to comply with the authentication requirements under the Rule on Electronic Evidence.

• Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: Yes. The CA erred in reversing the NPC decision on the ground of inadmissible evidence. FCash failed to make a timely objection to the admissibility of the screenshots before the NPC, and the issue of admissibility was raised for the first time only in the Petition for Review before the CA. The failure to interpose a timely objection constitutes a waiver, and any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel.

• Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: The Court applied the settled rule that failure to interpose a timely objection to evidence shall be considered a waiver of the objection. Citing Lorenzana vs. Lelina, the Court noted that objection to evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered, and when a party fails to interpose a timely objection, such objection is considered waived even if the evidence is inadmissible by nature. The Court also cited Ang vs. Court of Appeals, which held that an objection on the ground of lack of authentication of an electronic document is deemed waived if not raised at the time of formal offer. The Court found that the screenshots of the text message were already submitted by Trimillos to the NPC before the Discovery Conference, and despite the availability of the evidence for examination, FCash failed to raise any objection. FCash also failed to file a responsive comment where it could have raised its objections, and its Motion for Reconsideration before the NPC likewise failed to raise any objection to admissibility. The issue was only advanced for the first time in the Petition for Review before the CA. The Court further held that basic considerations of fairness and due process require that arguments or issues not raised in the original proceedings cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, whether the decision originated from a regular court or an administrative agency or quasi-judicial body. Quasi-judicial bodies like the NPC are bound by rules of fair play and due process, and parties are expected to raise all their objections and defenses at the earliest opportunity. The Court distinguished Cadajas vs. People, noting that while that case involved properly authenticated evidence, the same case also recognized that inadmissible evidence may be admitted if not challenged at the proper time and such issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court concluded that the CA was barred by estoppel from reviewing the admissibility of the evidence, and the question of the probative value of the text message invites a re-determination of questions of fact not within the province of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

• Waiver of Objection to Admissibility of Evidence — The failure to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time it is formally offered constitutes a waiver of that objection, even if the evidence is inadmissible by nature and would have been rejected if challenged at the proper time. Grounds for objections not raised at the proper time are considered waived, and even on appeal, the appellate court may not consider any other ground of objection except those raised at the proper time. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that FCash's failure to object to the screenshots before the NPC, despite having the opportunity to do so during the Discovery Conference and in its responsive comment, constituted a waiver.

• Issues Raised for the First Time on Appeal Barred by Estoppel — Arguments or issues not raised in the original proceedings cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, whether the decision elevated for review originated from a regular court or an administrative agency or quasi-judicial body. Quasi-judicial bodies are bound by rules of fair play and due process, and parties are expected to raise all their objections and defenses at the earliest opportunity. The Court applied this doctrine to bar FCash from raising the admissibility issue for the first time in its Petition for Review before the CA.

• "In order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of evidence must be made at the proper time, and the grounds specified. Objection to evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered. In case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made. And when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived." — This passage from Lorenzana v. Lelina, quoted by the Court, states the canonical formulation of the waiver doctrine for objections to admissibility of evidence, which formed the basis for reinstating the NPC decision.

• "In any case, it bears pointing out that petitioner failed to raise his objection to the admissibility of the photos during the proceedings in the RTC. Basic is the rule that in order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of evidence must be made at the proper time, and the grounds therefore be specified. ... When a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived. This is true even if by its nature the evidence is inadmissible and would have surely been rejected if it had been challenged at the proper time." — This passage from Cadajas v. People, quoted by the Court, recognizes that even inadmissible evidence may be admitted if not challenged at the proper time, directly supporting the Court's conclusion that FCash's failure to object before the NPC waived its right to challenge admissibility.

• "As a complimentary principle, it is well-settled that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule. Any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel." — This passage from Cadajas v. People, quoted by the Court, articulates the complementary principle that issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, which the Court applied to bar FCash's admissibility challenge before the CA.

• Lorenzana vs. Lelina, 793 Phil. 271 (2016) — Controlling precedent on the waiver doctrine for objections to admissibility of evidence; the Court quoted extensively from this case to establish that failure to timely object constitutes waiver and that grounds not raised at the proper time cannot be considered on appeal.

• Ang vs. Court of Appeals, 632 Phil. 609 (2010) — Followed; held that an objection to the admissibility of an electronic document on the ground of lack of authentication is deemed waived if not raised at the time of formal offer, directly supporting the Court's ruling on the screenshots.

• Cadajas vs. People, 915 Phil. 220 (2021) — Distinguished and followed; while the CA cited this case for the proposition that evidence must be authenticated, the Court noted that the same case also recognized that inadmissible evidence may be admitted if not challenged at the proper time and that issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

• People vs. Bisda, 454 Phil. 194 (2003) — Cited for the proposition that any objection to admissibility should be made upon offer of the evidence or as soon thereafter as the ground becomes apparent; otherwise, the opposing party is regarded to have waived its objection.

• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 402 Phil. 498 (2001) — Cited in support of the waiver doctrine for objections to admissibility of evidence.

• Horca vs. People, 914 Phil. 85 (2021) — Cited for the proposition that quasi-judicial bodies are bound by rules of fair play and due process, and any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel.

• Times Transportation Co. Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 538 Phil. 285 (2006) — Cited for the principle that the Court cannot substitute its discretion over the factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies, whose decisions are afforded respect and conclusiveness owing to their expertise.

• Section 28, Republic Act No. 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012) — Penalizes the processing of personal information for unauthorized purposes with imprisonment of one year and six months to five years and a fine of ₱500,000.00 to ₱1,000,000.00. The NPC recommended prosecution of FCash under this provision for processing Trimillos' personal information for purposes not authorized by her.

• Section 31, Republic Act No. 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012) — Penalizes malicious disclosure of unwarranted or false information relative to personal information with imprisonment of one year and six months to five years and a fine of ₱500,000.00 to ₱1,000,000.00. The NPC recommended prosecution of FCash under this provision for sending messages to Trimillos' contacts with malice and bad faith.

• Rule 3, Section 2, Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC) — Provides that an electronic document is admissible if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the Rules. The Court acknowledged that Trimillos' screenshots failed to comply with these authentication requirements but held that FCash's failure to timely object constituted a waiver.

• Rule 5, Sections 1 and 2, Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC) — Imposes the burden of proving authenticity on the person seeking to introduce an electronic document and prescribes the means of authentication, including digital signatures, security procedures, or other evidence showing integrity and reliability. The Court noted that while there was a ground to question admissibility, FCash failed to make a timely objection.

• NPC Circular No. 16-04, Rules of Procedure of the National Privacy Commission — Governs the filing and processing of complaints before the NPC, including discovery conferences, responsive comments, and submission for resolution. The Court outlined these procedures to establish that FCash had ample opportunity to object to the evidence before the NPC.

• Caguioa (Chairperson), Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred.
• Singh, J., on leave.