Short answer. Often, yes. Section 45 of Rule 130 excepts a memorandum, report, or data compilation from the hearsay rule when made near the time of the event by someone with knowledge, kept in the regular course of business under a regular practice — shown through the testimony of the custodian, not the original preparer.

What the law says

made by writing, typing, electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity

Rule 130, Section 45 — Records of regularly conducted business activity. Read the full provision →

The problem this exception solves

A business that has operated for years may have thousands of entries — ledgers, delivery logs, invoices, digital transaction records — made by employees who have since resigned, transferred, or become impossible to locate. Requiring the party who wants to use those records to produce the specific person who typed each entry would make ordinary business records practically unusable as evidence. Section 45 addresses that by allowing records into evidence through someone who can speak to how the records were kept, rather than every individual who ever made an entry.

The conditions that have to be met

The exception is not automatic. The record must have been made at or near the time of the event it documents by a person with knowledge thereof, kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and it must have been the regular practice to make records that way. Each of these has to be established, typically through the testimony of whoever is now the custodian of the records or another witness familiar with how the business generates and keeps them.

Why the custodian, not the original clerk, can testify

What makes this exception workable is that it lets the record speak for itself once its regularity is established — the witness on the stand is testifying about the business's record-keeping system, not personally vouching for the accuracy of a specific transaction from memory. That is the whole point of the exception: it recognizes that routinely and mechanically generated business records carry their own reliability, separate from whether any one clerk who made an entry can still be found and questioned.

What it does not do

The exception admits the record; it does not automatically make its contents true beyond dispute. The opposing party can still challenge whether the record-keeping process really was regular, whether a particular entry looks altered or inconsistent, or whether the person testifying about custody actually knows enough about how the records were compiled. Meeting the foundational requirements gets the record admitted — what weight the court gives it afterward is a separate question.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.