GR 40759; (December, 1933) (Digest)
G.R. No. 40759 , December 20, 1933
Lime Corporation of the Philippines, et al., petitioners, vs. Manuel V. Moran, as Judge of the Third Sala of the Court First Instance of Manila, and A. De Marcaida Y Cia, S. En C., respondents.
FACTS
Respondent A. De Marcaida Y Cia filed a complaint for rescission of contract, accounting, and damages against petitioners. Before trial, the trial court ordered the taking of depositions and issued a subpoena duces tecum requiring the corporate petitioner’s secretary-treasurer to produce specified books and records. After a dispute arose over the scope of inspection, the trial court (Judge Diaz, later Judge Moran) issued an order directing petitioners to produce at the depositions “such part of the records of the Lime Corporation of the Philippines as will show the source and disposition of all transactions of said corporation with any and all of the other defendants… either in the nature of money borrowed or credits extended or merchandise sold or delivered, together with the corresponding supporting vouchers.” Petitioners sought to prohibit the enforcement of this order, arguing it was an impermissible “fishing expedition.”
ISSUE
Whether the trial court’s order, issued in connection with a deposition and subpoena duces tecum, requiring the production of documents from an adverse party, is valid, considering the specificity of the description and the materiality of the documents sought.
RULING
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that a remedy analogous to a bill of discovery exists in Philippine jurisprudence under Sections 355 and 402 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorize the taking of depositions of a party and the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. The Court ruled that the remedy applies only to relevant documents that are sufficiently described and within the opponent’s possession or control. The test for the trial court is one of reasonableness and practicability. The order cannot be used to secure irrelevant documents or as a “fishing expedition.” In this case, the trial judges found the documents material to demonstrate an alleged conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff. The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion, as the description was reasonably specific and the documents were material to the issues in the case. The preliminary injunction was dissolved.
AI Generated by Armztrong.