Ever feel that texts or SMS are fleeting snippets of information that can’t do you harm? Think again. They may bring you to litigation, or worse, a prison term.
An exchange of text messages via cellular phones, otherwise known as the Short Messaging System (”SMS”), can conceivably result in a contract. A “text” contract would qualify as an electronic document which is given legal recognition under the Philippine E-Commerce law1. Applying by analogy one U.S. court ruling (Shattuck vs. Klotzbach Superior Ct., Mass., December 11, 2001 (Civ. Act No. 01-1109A), an exchange of e-mails could constitute a binding contract over real estate. An exchange of texts could be treated in the same manner.
In one actual Philippine case, a possibly less than brilliant court employee recorded for posterity and future administrative action her demands for a bribe via text messages to a litigant. This resulted in her dismissal from the service.
As held by the Supreme Court in NUEZ vs. CRUZ-APAO [A.M. No. CA-05-18-P. April 12, 2005]:
“Complainant was able to prove by his testimony in conjunction with the text messages from respondent duly presented before the Committee that the latter asked for One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) in exchange for a favorable decision of the former’s pending case with the CA. The text messages were properly admitted by the Committee since the same are now covered by Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence which provides:
“Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone conversations, text messages . . . and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.”2
Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, “Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof . . . .” In this case, complainant who was the recipient of said messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and import. Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone number reflected in complainant’s cellphone from which the messages originated was hers. xxx “
Wrongdoers are now forewarned that a text sent may be the text that damns them.
Break-ups via text are not unheard of and serves to emphasize how heartless and impersonal this medium can be. But would you like be fired via text? Is there such an employer who can be heartless enough to do this?
The answer is yes. In Australia, a man has filed suit for “unfair dismissal” raising “procedural fairness” when he was fired through a text message.3 There was a similar occurrence in the United Kingdom when 2,400 workers were laid off via text messages.4 While Article 283 of the Philippine Labor Code requires a written notice of dismissal, the E-Commerce Act provides for legal recognition to electronic documents which appears to include SMS.
Breaking up could be hard enough to do via SMS. Getting fired the same way can be worse. Both could be the only times where, for once, one would like that this recorded message be heard by the sender, “Sorry, the subscriber cannot be reached. Please try again later.”
Sources:
1 Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (Republic Act No. 8792)
2 A.M. No. 01-7-01 SC.- Re: Rules On Electronic Evidence
3 Sturgeon, Man sacked by SMS sues for unfair dismissal, 20 May 2003, silicon.com.
4 BBC News, Accident Group boss ‘gobsmacked,’ BBC, 31 May 2003.
No comments:
Post a Comment