G.R. No. 223274. June 19, 2019 .* RCBC BANKARD SERVICES petitioner, vs. MOISES ORACION, JR. and EMILY ** L. ORACION, respondents. CORPORATION, Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Estoppel; Estoppel bars a party from raising issues, which have not been raised in the proceedings before the lower courts, for the first time on appeal .- Procedurally, petitioner cannot adopt a new theory in its appeal before the Court and abandon its theory in its appeal before the RTC. Pursuant to Section 15, Rule 44 of the Rules, petitioner may include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and is within the issues framed by the parties. In the Memorandum for Appellant which it filed before the RTC, petitioner did not raise the Rules on Electronic Evidence to justify that the so-called "duplicate original copies" of the SOAs and Credit History Inquiry are electronic documents. Rather, it insisted that they were duplicate original copies, being computer-generated reports, and not mere photocopies or substitutionary evidence, as found by the MeTC. As observed by the RTC, petitioner even tried to rectify the attachments (annexes) to its complaint, by filing a Manifestation dated August 9, 2012 wherein it attached copies of the said annexes. Unfortunately, as observed by the RTC, the attachments to the said Manifestation "are merely photocopies of the annexes attached to the complaint, but with a mere addition of stamp marks * SECOND DIVISION. ** Also stated as "Emy" in some parts of the Records. 220 220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED RCBC Bankard Services Corporation vs. Oracion, Jr.
bearing the same inscription as the first stamp marks" that were placed in the annexes to the complaint. Because petitioner has not raised the electronic document argument before the RTC, it may no longer be raised nor ruled upon on appeal. Even in the complaint, petitioner never intimated that it intended the annexes to be considered as electronic documents as defined in the Rules on Electronic Evidence. If such were petitioner's intention, then it would have laid down in the complaint the basis for their introduction and admission as electronic documents. Also, estoppel bars a party from raising issues, which have not been raised in the proceedings before the lower courts, for the first time on appeal. Clearly, petitioner, by its acts and representations, is now estopped to claim that the annexes to its complaint are not duplicate original copies but electronic documents. It is too late in the day for petitioner to switch theories. Same; Evidence; Admissibility of Evidence; Rules on Electronic Evidence; Electronic Documents; According to Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, "[a]n electronic document is admissible in evidence 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 these Rules."-For the Court to consider an electronic document as evidence, it must pass the test of admissibility. According to Section 2,