G.R. No. L-28998, August 31, 1970
Emeterio Orbe, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Hon. Enrique B. Inting, in his capacity as Judge, City Court, Branch II; Florentina Balcita and Panfilo Balcita, Respondents-Appellees.

FACTS

On July 5, 1967, private respondents Florentina and Panfilo Balcita, owners of “Ine’s Store,” filed a collection case against petitioner Emeterio Orbe before the respondent City Court of Davao for merchandise worth P3,112.70 purchased on a cash basis. The indebtedness was evidenced by three dishonored checks totaling P2,183.50 and a purchase order for P928.50, all issued by Orbe. In his answer, Orbe admitted issuing the checks but claimed he did so only to accommodate unnamed persons who were the actual buyers and debtors. After several postponements, the trial was set for September 22, 1967. On September 15, 1967, Orbe filed a motion under Rule 27, Section 1(a) of the Rules of Court for the production and copying of all documents, particularly invoices, evidencing the sale. The respondents opposed, attaching true copies of the checks and purchase order. The respondent City Court denied the motion on September 21, 1967, ruling no good cause was shown. To forestall the trial, Orbe filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance of Davao on September 22, 1967, seeking to annul the denial and restrain the trial. The lower court denied a preliminary injunction on September 27, 1967, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge, and subsequently dismissed the petition on October 12, 1967. Orbe appealed. The trial in the collection case proceeded on September 23, 1967, with respondents presenting their evidence, while Orbe failed to present his evidence after securing continuances. The City Court rendered judgment in favor of respondents on January 17, 1968, which Orbe appealed to the Court of First Instance.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent City Court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for production or inspection of documents.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal order, ruling that no error of law or grave abuse of discretion was committed. The purpose of Rule 27 is to furnish litigants a speedy and summary mode of obtaining evidence necessary for the immediate resolution of a controversy. An application for production must describe the documents with certainty and state positively: (1) their existence; (2) their possession or control by the adverse party; (3) the information wanted; and (4) that the entries are material and necessary to determine the issues. Petitioner failed to meet these requirements. Respondents had already furnished true copies of the checks and purchase order, and no good cause was shown for producing the invoices. The materiality and necessity of the documents were not established, and petitioner could have addressed any discrepancies regarding the invoices at the trial itself. The appeal was deemed a frivolous dilatory tactic. The Supreme Court condemned such conduct as a misuse of certiorari and imposed treble costs on petitioner’s counsel, with the decision to be noted in the counsel’s personal record.