Short answer. Under Rule 132, Section 25, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original or a specific part of it, and it must carry the attesting officer's official seal — or, if the officer is a court clerk with a seal, that court's seal instead.
What the law says
the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be
Rule 132, Section 25 — What attestation of copy must state. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he or she be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
Rule 132, Section 25 — What attestation of copy must state. Read the full provision →
The substance the attestation must contain
Section 25 requires that the attestation on a copy offered as evidence state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof. The phrase 'in substance' signals that no exact wording is mandated — what matters is that the attestation actually communicates that the person attesting is vouching for the copy's correctness against the original, whether the full document or just the relevant part.
Why the seal requirement is not optional decoration
The attestation must carry the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or, where the attesting person is a court clerk who has a seal, the seal of such court. A seal is the marker that ties the attestation to an actual office rather than to an individual's private assurance — it is what lets a court and the opposing party trust that the certification came from someone with the authority and duty to make it, not merely someone who happened to have access to the original.
What happens without a proper seal
A copy attested by someone without the seal the rule calls for, where a seal exists for that office, does not automatically qualify as a properly attested copy under this section. Since the whole benefit of an attested copy is that it can be offered without the trouble of producing the original or calling witnesses to authenticate it, a defect in the attestation itself — missing seal, or a statement that does not actually assert correctness — can undercut that shortcut and force a party back to proving the document some other way.
Practical takeaway for anyone submitting certified copies
Before relying on a certified true copy in a Philippine proceeding, check that the certifying officer had the authority to attest, that the certification affirmatively states the copy's correctness against the original, and that the required seal is actually present. These are not formalities that a court will overlook simply because everyone understands what the document was meant to certify — the rule ties the copy's evidentiary shortcut directly to getting these specifics right.
Related provisions
- Rule 132, Section 25 — What attestation of copy must state
- Rule 132, Section 24 — Proof of official record
- Rule 132, Section 26 — Irremovability of public record