Rule 29 Section 3 G.R. No. 164805

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

[G.R. No.

164805 April 30, 2008]


Solid Bank Corporation, now known as Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company, petitioner
vs.
Gateway Electronics Corporation, Jaime M. Hidalgo and Israel
Maducdoc, respondents

Facts: Gateway obtained from Solid Bank four (4) currency denominated
loans covered by a promissory note. To secure the loans, Gateway assigned
to Solidbank the proceeds of its Back-end Services Agreement dated June
25, 2000 with Alliance Semiconductor Corporation (Alliance). Gateway
failed to comply with its obligations, thus, Solid Bank filed a complaint for
collection of sum of money.
Solid Bank filed a iled a Motion for Production and Inspection of
Documents on the basis of an information received from Alliance, that
Gateway has already received from Alliance the proceeds/payment of the
Back-end Services Agreement. The trial court issued an Order dated January
30, 2001 granting the motion for production and inspection of documents.
When Gateway was finally able to present the invoices representing the
billinfs sent by Gateway to Alliance in relation to the Back-end Services
Agreement, Solid Bank was not satisfied with the documents produced and
filed a Motion to cite Gateway for Contempt.
The motion was denied by the trial court, however, citing Section 3(a), Rule
29 of the Rules of Court, the court ordered that matters regarding the
contents of the documents sought to be produced but which were not
otherwise produced by GEC, shall be taken to be established in accordance
with plaintiff’s claim. This measure was taken by the court for failure of
Gateway to show diligent efforts to produce by documents.
Issue: Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in
holding that the matters subject of the documents sought to be produced but
which were not produced by Gateway shall be deemed established in
accordance with Solidbank’s claim
Ruling: Yes. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing
the aforesaid Order. Gateway and its officers can only be held liable for
unjust refusal to comply with the modes of discovery if it is shown that the
documents sought to be produced were specifically described, material to the
action and in the possession, custody or control of Gateway. However, the
documents sought by Solid Bank from Gateway were not particularly
described.
Neither can it be said that Gateway did not exert effort in complying with
the order for production and inspection of documents since it presented the
invoices representing the billings sent by Gateway to Alliance in relation to
the Back-end Services Agreement. Good faith effort to produce the required
documents must be accorded to Gateway, absent a finding that it acted
willfully, in bad faith or was at fault in failing to produce the documents
sought to be produced.
It would have been in the best interest of both parties if Solid Bank instead
filed a new motion for Production and Inspection of Documents in
accordance with the Rules and it would have saved them valuable time and
effort.

You might also like