Civpro: Rule 24-28, Other Modes of Discovery - 05

Basil Maguigad
Eagle Ridge Development Corp. v. Cameron Granville modes of discovery, is not limited to the pre-trial stage.
3 Asset Management Rule 27 does not provide for any time frame within which the
G.R. No. 204700, November 24, 2014 |Leonen, J., discovery mode of production or inspection of documents can
be utilized. The rule only requires leave of court "upon due
For resolution is respondent Cameron Granville 3 Asset application and a showing of due cause.” Rule 27, Section 1 of
the 1997 Rules of Court, states:
Management, Inc. 's motion for reconsideration of our April
10, 2013 decision, which reversed and set aside the Court of
SECTION 1. Motion for production or inspection order —
Appeals' resolutions and ordered respondent to produce the
Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor the
Loan Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA) dated April 7,
court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party
2006, including its annexes and/or attachments, if any, in
to produce and permit the inspection and copying or
order that petitioners may inspect or photocopy the same. photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
FACTS photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged,
which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter
Petitioners Eagleridge Development Corporation, Marcelo involved in the action and which are in his possession,
N. Naval, and Crispin I. Oben filed on June 7, 2013 their custody or control[.] (Emphasis supplied)
motion to admit attached opposition.
• Respondent filed its reply and petitioners their In Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, this
motion to admin attached rejoinder. court held that since the rules are silent asto the period within
• The motion for reconsideration raises that motion which modes of discovery (in that case, written interrogatories)
was filed out of time; the production of the LSPA may still be requested, it is necessary to determine: (1) the
would violate the parol evidence; and the LSPA is a purposeof discovery; (2) whether, based on the stage of the
privilege and confidential document. proceedings and evidence presented thus far, allowing it is
proper and would facilitate the disposition of the case; and
Respondent asserts that there was no "insistent refusal" on (3) whether substantial rights of parties would be unduly
its part to present the LSPA, but that petitioners filed their prejudiced. This court further held that "[t]he use of
motion for production way out of time, even beyond the discovery is encouraged, for it operates with desirable
protracted pre-trial period from September 2005 to 2011. flexibility under the discretionary control of the trial
court."
Petitioners counter that their motion for production was not
filed out of time, and "[t]here is no proscription, under In Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. v. Reyes, this court declared that
depositions, as a mode ofdiscovery, "may be taken at any
Rule 27 or any provision of the Rules of Court, from
time after the institution of any action [as there is] no
filing motions for production, beyond the pre-trial."
prohibition against the taking of depositions after pre-
trial."
Petitioners next argue that the parol evidence rule is not
applicable to them because they were not parties tothe
"The modes of discovery are accorded a broad and liberal
deed of assignment, and "they cannot be prevented from treatment." The evident purpose of discovery procedures is "to
seeking evidence to determine the complete terms of the enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to
Deed of Assignment. obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts
before civil trials" and, thus, facilitating an amicable settlement
As to respondent’s invocation that the LSPA is or expediting the trial of the case.
privileged/confidential, petitioners counter that "it has not
been shown that the parties fall under . . . or, at the very Technicalities in pleading should be avoided in order to obtain
least . . . analogous to [any of the relationships enumerated substantial justice. In Mutuc v. Judge Agloro, this court directed
in Rule 130, Section 124] that would exempt [respondent] the bank to give Mutuc a complete statement asto how his debt
from disclosing information as to their transaction." was computed, and should he be dissatisfied with that
statement, pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, to allow
In their rejoinder, petitioners clarified that their consistent him to inspect and copy bank records supporting the items in
position was always to assail the validity of the deed of that statement. This was held to be "in consonance with the
assignment; that alternatively, they invoked the application rules on discovery and the avowed policy of the Rules of
of Article 1634 should the court uphold the validity of the Court . . . to require the parties to lay their cards on the table to
transfer of their alleged loan obligation; and that Rule 8, facilitate a settlement of the case before the trial.”
Section 2 of the Rules of Court "permits parties to set forth
alternative causes of action or defenses. We have determined that the LSPA isrelevant and material to
the issue on the validity of the deed of assignment raised by
ISSUE(S) petitioners in the court a quo, and allowing its production and
inspection by petitioners would be more in keeping with the
objectives of the discovery rules. We find no great practical
Whether or not discovery mode of production/inspection of
difficulty, and respondent continuously fails to allege any, in
document may be availed of even beyond pre-tiral upon
presenting the document for inspection and copying of
showing of good cause. (YES) petitioners. On the other hand, to deny petitioners the
opportunity to inquire into the LSPA would bar their access to
RULING relevant evidence and impair their fundamental right to due
process.
The availment of a motion for production, as one of the