Photocopy of fax document as evidence - G.R. No. 151993

G.R. No. 151993

"x x x.

We agree.

Notably, petitioner stated in all its pleadings filed that the medical report is the English translation of Dr. Hameed's report. However, the existence of the original medical report, which was written in the arabic language, was not even attached to the records and has not been proved.[25]


Moreover, the identity of the person who made the translation and whether the translator has the recognized competence in both English and the language the medical report was originally written are not established.[26] Thus, there is no clear assurance that the translated words are the accurate translation of the original medical report of Dr. Hameed.

More importantly, the alleged translated medical report was not even signed by Dr. Hameed which creates doubt as to its authenticity. The unsigned translated medical report is nothing but a self-serving document which ought to be treated as a mere scrap of paper devoid of any evidentiary value even in administrative proceedings.

Thus, based on the foregoing, the photocopy of the fax transmission of an alleged translated medical report was correctly denied consideration, since it is required that there be some proof of authenticity or reliability as condition for the admission of documents.[27]

In Uichico v. NLRC,[28] we said:

x x x It is true that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases. However, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or equity are not controlling in proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value x x x[29]

x x x."