G.R. No. L-1716; June 28, 1949
MATERIAL DISTRIBUTORS (PHIL.), INC., and HARRY LYONS, petitioners, vs. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and LOPE SARREAL, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Lope Sarreal filed a civil complaint for a money judgment against petitioners. He then filed motions under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court for the production and inspection of various books, documents, letters, and cablegrams belonging to the petitioners, alleging these were material to the case. The respondent judge granted the motions. Petitioners opposed, arguing the motions constituted a “fishing expedition,” violated Article 46 of the Code of Commerce on the confidentiality of merchant correspondence, and infringed their constitutional rights to privacy of communication and against self-incrimination. The motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in granting the motions for production and inspection of documents.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The allegations in the motions, which tracked the language of Form 11 of the Appendix of the Rules of Court, constituted a sufficient showing of “good cause” under Rule 21. The constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence (Article III, Section 1[5]) expressly allows for exceptions upon lawful order of the court, which the trial court’s order constituted. The procedure under Rule 21 is distinct from an unreasonable search and seizure; it is a civil discovery tool to bring material facts before the court. The claim of self-incrimination was unsupported. Article 46 of the Code of Commerce was deemed inapplicable or impliedly repealed by the procedural rules. The trial judge did not exceed jurisdiction or commit grave abuse of discretion.

AI Generated by Armztrong.