G.R. No. 204700 : November 24 2014
FACTS: For resolution is respondent Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc.’s motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s decision, which reversed and set aside the CA’s resolutions and ordered respondent to produce the Loan Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA) dated April 7, 2006, including its annexes and/or attachments, if any, in order that petitioners may inspect or photocopy the same. The motion for reconsideration raises the following points: (1) The motion for production was filed out of time; (2) The production of the LSPA would violate the parol evidence rule; and (3) The LSPA is a privileged and confidential document under the Special Purpose Vehicle Act . Petitioners Eagleridge Development Corporation, Marcelo N. Naval, and Crispin I. Oben filed on June 7, 2013 their motion to admit attached opposition. Subsequently, respondent filed its reply and petitioners their motion to admit attached rejoinder.
ISSUE: Whether or not the discovery mode of production/inspection of document may be availed of even beyond the pre-trial upon a showing of good cause? Yes.
HELD: YES. The discovery mode of production/inspection of document may be availed of even beyond the pre-trial upon a showing of good cause. The availment of a motion for production, as one of the modes of discovery, is not limited to the pre-trial stage. Rule 27 does not provide for any time frame within which the discovery mode of production or inspection of documents can be utilized. The rule only requires leave of court “upon due application and a showing of due cause.” Rule 27, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Court. The LSPA is relevant and material to the issue on the validity of the deed of assignment raised by 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 difficulty, and respondent continuously fails to allege any, in presenting the document for inspection and copying of petitioners. On the other hand, to deny petitioners the opportunity to inquire into the LSPA would bar their access to relevant evidence and impair their fundamental right to due process.