5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    1/25

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT 

    Manila

    THIRD DIVISION

    R. No. 182738 February 24, 2014 

    APITOL HILLS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC. and

    ABLO B. ROMAN, JR., Petitioners,

    .

    ANUEL O. SANCHEZ, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    ERALTA,  J.: 

    efore Us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule

    5 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 13, 2008

    ecision1 and April 28, 2008 Resolution2 of the Court of

    ppeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 100911, which affirmed th

    ptember 3, 2007 Resolution3 of the Quezon City Region

    rial Court (RTC), Branch 226.

    he relevant facts are as follows:

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt1

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    2/25

    n July 1, 2002, respondent Manuel O. Sanchez

    espondent), a stockholder of petitioner Capitol Hills Gol

    Country Club, Inc. (Corporation) filed a petition for the

    ullification of the annual meeting of stockholders of May1, 2002 and the special meeting of stockholders of April

    3, 2002.4 Petitioners, along with their co-defendants, filen Answer with Counterclaims5 and, thereafter, a Motion

    r Preliminary Hearing of Defendants’ Affirmative

    efenses,6 which was denied on August 9, 20027 by Hon.

    polinario D. Bruselas, Jr., then Presiding Judge of the RTC

    Quezon City, Branch 93, now a member of the Court ofppeals.

    n August 12, 2002, respondent filed a Motion for

    oduction and Inspection of Documents, which the court

    anted in an Order dated September 10, 2002 directing,us:

    n motion of the plaintiff, without objection from the

    efendants, and pursuant to Rule 3 of the Interim Rules of

    ocedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies, inlation to Rule 27 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, th

    efendants are ordered to produce and make available for

    spection and photocopying by the plaintiff the following

    ocuments:

    1. The list of stockholders of record as of March2002;

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt4

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    3/25

    2. All proxies, whether validated or not, which

    have been received by the defendants;

    3. The specimen signatures of all stockholders as

    contained in the Stock and Transfer Book or on

    the stub of the stock certificate; and

    4. The tape recording of the stockholders’ meetinon April 23, 2002 and May 21, 2002.

    he production, inspection and photocopying must be

    ndertaken in the office premises of defendant corporatio

    ithin reasonable business hours of a business day beforee pre-trial with costs to be shouldered by the plaintiff.

    O ORDERED.8 

    etitioners filed a motion for reconsideration9 (MR) of theugust 9, 2002 Order, which denied their motion for

    eliminary hearing. Subsequently, they filed a Suppleme

    Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration,10 attachingerewith an alleged certification issued by the National

    inting Office to support their contention of lack of cause

    action on the grounds, among others, that the Securitiesnd Exchange Commission (SEC) Memorandum Circular

    o. 5, Series of 1996, as amended, has not been dulyublished in accordance with law and jurisprudence.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt8

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    4/25

    ending resolution of the MR, petitioners filed on January

    1, 2003 a Motion for Deferment of Implementation of the

    ptember 10, 2002 Order.11 

    or his part, respondent, on October 7, 2002, filed an

    mnibus Motion to immediately allow him to inspect andhotocopy the documents and to compel petitioners to

    eposit with the court the documents subject of the

    ptember 10, 2002 Order.

    n December 9, 2002, then Presiding Judge Bruselas issuen Order12 denying petitioners’ MR of the Order dated

    ugust 9, 2002 and considered respondent’s omnibus

    otion as a reiteration of his earlier motion for inspection

    nd production of documents; thus, the immediate

    mplementation of the September 10, 2002 Order wasmultaneously ordered.

    etitioners elevated the case to the CA via a petition for

    rtiorari assailing the Orders dated August 9, 2002 and

    ecember 9, 2002. However, the CA denied the same in itsecision dated June 29, 2004. Petitioners’ MR was likewis

    enied on November 3, 2004. A petition for review was

    ed before this Court, but We denied it per Resolution

    ated January 10, 2005.

    the meantime, respondent sought to enforce the

    ptember 10, 2002 Order. The supposed inspection on

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt11

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    5/25

    ptember 30, 2002 was not held per the trial court’s

    rder dated September 27, 2002.13 The January 22, 2003

    spection also did not push through after petitioners and

    eir co-defendants again moved for its deferment.14Whene court eventually denied their motion on June 16, 2003

    spondent set the inspection to August 1, 2003.15 On saidate, however, Atty. Matias V. Defensor, then Corporate

    cretary of the Corporation, was alleged to be out of tow

    nd petitioner Pablo B. Roman, Jr. (Roman) purported to

    ave shown no willingness to comply with the

    rective.16

     The matter was reported to the trial court,hich merely noted respondent’s Report and

    anifestation.17 On November 3, 2003, respondent moved

    r the issuance of an order for immediate implementation

    the September 10, 2002 Order, as reiterated in the Orde

    ated June 16, 2003, but the court denied the same in its

    ay 24, 2004 Order.18 Respondent’s motion for issuance orit of execution suffered the same fate when the trial

    urt denied it on February 10, 2005.19 

    hen this Court settled petitioners’ challenge to the Orde

    ated August 9, 2002 and December 9, 2002, respondented a Manifestation with Omnibus Motion for Clarificatio

    nd to Resolve Plaintiff’s Pending Motion for the Issuance

    a Writ of Execution and to Set the Case for Pre-Trial

    onference.20 Acting thereon, Judge Ramon Paul L.

    ernando, likewise now a member of the Court of Appealsho took over Branch 93 after the appointment of Judge

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt13

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    6/25

    ruselas to the CA, issued the July 10, 2006 Order,21 which

    rected the immediate execution of the September 10,

    002 Order, and set the case for pre-trial.

    n February 9, 2007, Judge Hernando issued an

    rder22 inhibiting himself from handling the case in view s "close friendship relation" with petitioners’ counsel an

    dering the transmittal of the records of the case to the

    ffice of the Clerk of Court for re-raffle to another sala. Thse was subsequently re-raffled to RTC Branch 90

    esided by Judge Reynaldo B. Daway, who likewiseoluntarily recused himself from the case per

    rder23 dated July 13, 2007. Finally, on July 30, 2007, the

    se was re-raffled to RTC Branch 226 presided by Judge

    eah S. Domingo Regala.24 

    n November 28, 2006, the parties agreed to defer the pre

    al conference until the actual conduct of the inspection

    cords/documents on December 12, 2006.25 Before said

    ate, however, petitioners and their co-defendants moved

    hold the inspection to January 11, 2007, which the couranted.26 

    uring the January 11, 2007 inspection, the only documen

    oduced by the Acting Corporate Secretary, Atty. Antonio

    Meriz, and one of the staff, Malou Santos, was the Stock

    nd Transfer Book of the Corporation. They alleged thatey could not find from the corporate records the copies

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt21

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    7/25

    the proxies submitted by the stockholders, including th

    pe recordings taken during the stockholders’ meetings,

    nd that they needed more time to locate and find the list

    stockholders as of March 2002, which was in the bodegthe Corporation.27This prompted respondent to file a

    anifestation with Omnibus Motion praying that an ordere issued in accordance with Section 3, Paragraphs (a) to

    ) of Rule 29 of the Rules of Court (Rules), in relation to

    ction 4, Rule 3 of the Interim Rules of Procedure

    overning Intra-Corporate Controversies under Republic

    ct No. 8799 (Interim Rules).

    n September 3, 2007, the trial court issued a Resolution,

    e concluding portion of which ordered:

    order to give both the plaintiff and defendants one lastance to comply with the order dated September 10,

    002, this Court reiterates the said order:

    On motion of the plaintiff, without objection from the

    efendants, and pursuant to Rule 3 of the Interim Rules ofocedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies[,] in

    lation to Rule 27 of the 1997 Rule[s] of Civil Procedure,

    e defendants are ordered to produce and make available

    r inspection and photocopying by the plaintiff the

    llowing documents:

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt27

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    8/25

    1. The list of stockholders of record as of March

    2002;

    2. All proxies, whether validated or not, which

    have been received by the defendants;

    3. The specimen signatures of all stockholders as

    contained in the Stock and Transfer Book or onthe stub of the stock certificate; and

    4. The tape recording of the stockholders’ meetin

    on April 23, 2002 and May 21, 2002.

    he production, inspection and photocopying must be

    ndertaken in the office premises of defendant corporatio

    ithin reasonable business hours of a business day beforee pre-trial with costs to be shouldered by the plaintiff.

    O ORDERED."

    his Court orders the defendants to strictly comply with

    is order. Failure of the defendants to comply with all the

    quirements of the order dated September 10, 2002 willsult in this court citing all the defendants in contempt of

    urt. This Court shall order defendants solidarily to pay a

    ne of P10,000.00 for every day of delay to comply with

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    9/25

    e order of September 10, 2002 until the defendants shal

    ave fully and completely complied with the said order.

    urther sanctions shall be meted upon defendants should

    e Court find that defendants have been in bad faith in

    mplying with the order of September 10, 2002 despitee order of this Court.

    oth plaintiff and counsel, as well as defendants and

    unsel, are therefore ordered to meet on November 13,

    007 at the corporate offices of defendant firm between00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. so that faithful compliance with the

    der of September 10, 2002 may be done, otherwise, this

    ourt shall allow the plaintiff to present evidence to prove

    eir prayer in their Manifestation with Omnibus Motion

    ed on January 31, 2007 and issue a resolution based one same accordingly.

    O ORDERED.28 

    etitioners questioned the aforesaid Resolution viaetition for Certiorari (With Application for Temporary

    estraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary

    junction).29 In resolving the petition, the CA ruled that

    ere is no indication that the RTC committed grave abuse

    discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.ccording to the appellate court, the September 3, 2007

    esolution was issued pursuant to Section 3,30 Rule 3 of th

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt28

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    10/25

    terim Rules, with the suppletory application of Section31 Rule 27 of the Rules. It noted that, except for the

    nctions contained therein, the assailed Resolution mere

    iterated the September 10, 2002 Order of Judge Bruselahich petitioners did not dispute in accordance with

    ction 2,32 Rule 3 of the Interim Rules or via petition forrtiorari. The CA further held that petitioners were not

    enied due process as they were able to move for a

    consideration of the September 10, 2002 Order, but not

    pted to file the same with respect to the September 3,

    007 Resolution.

    nent the argument against the threatened imposition of

    nction for contempt of court and the possible payment o

    hefty fine, the CA opined that the case of Dee v. Securitie

    nd Exchange Commission33

     cited by petitioners isapplicable, since the September 3, 2007 Resolution

    erely warned petitioners that they would be cited for

    ntempt and be fined if they fail to comply with the court

    rective. Moreover, it said that the penalty contained in

    e September 3, 2007 Resolution is in accord with Sectio34 Rule 3 of the Interim Rules, in relation to Section35 Rule 29 of the Rules.

    etitioners moved to reconsider the CA Decision, but it wa

    enied.36 

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt31

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    11/25

    efore Us, petitioners contend that the "threatened

    mminent action" by the RTC to penalize them sua sponte

    without regard to the guideline laid down by the Court

    Engr. Torcende v. Judge Sardido37 is not proper and callr the exercise of Our power of supervision over the lowe

    urts. Likewise, citing Panaligan v. Judge Ibay,38amonghers, they claim that the threatened citation for contemp

    not in line with the policy that there should be

    ilfullness or that the contumacious act be done

    eliberately in disregard of the authority of the court.

    e deny.

    person guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawfu

    der of a court 39 or commits any improper conduct

    nding, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, oregrade the administration of justice40 may be punished f

    direct contempt. In particular, Section 4, Rule 3 of the

    terim Rules states that, in addition to a possible

    eatment of a party as non-suited or as in default, the

    nctions prescribed in the Rules for failure to avail of, orfusal to comply with, the modes of discovery shall apply

    nder Section 3, Rule 29 of the Rules, if a party or an offic

    managing agent of a party refuses to obey an order to

    oduce any document or other things for inspection,

    pying, or photographing or to permit it to be done, the

    urt may make such orders as are just. The enumerationoptions given to the court under Section 3, Rule 29 of th

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt37

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    12/25

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    13/25

    s far as the proceedings for indirect contempt is

    ncerned, the case of Baculi v. Judge Belen44 is instructive

    x x Under the Rules of Court, there are two ways of

    itiating indirect contempt proceedings: (1) motu propri

    y the court; or (2) by a verified petition.

    the Matter of the Contempt Orders against Lt. Gen. Jose Calimlim and Atty. Domingo A. Doctor, Jr. (Calimlim)

    arified the procedure prescribed for indirect contempt

    oceedings. We held in that case:

    contempt proceedings, the prescribed procedure muste followed. Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Cour

    ovide the procedure to be followed in case of indirect

    ntempt. First, there must be an order requiring thespondent to show cause why he should not be cited for

    ntempt. Second, the respondent must be given the

    pportunity to comment on the charge against him. Third

    ere must be a hearing and the court must investigate the

    arge and consider respondent’s answer. Finally, only ifund guilty will respondent be punished accordingly.

    itations omitted.)

    s to the second mode of initiating indirect contempt

    oceedings, that is, through a verified petition, the rule isready settled in Regalado v. Go:

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt44

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    14/25

    cases where the court did not initiate the contempt

    arge, the Rules prescribe that a verified petition which

    as complied with the requirements of initiatory pleading

    outlined in the heretofore quoted provision of secondaragraph, Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, must b

    ed.

    he Rules itself is explicit on this point:

    all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be

    mmenced by a verified petition with supportingarticulars and certified true copies of documents or

    apers involved therein, and upon full compliance with th

    quirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil action

    the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out

    are related to a principal action pending in the court, thetition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petitio

    all be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless th

    urt in its discretion orders the consolidation of the

    ntempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing

    nd decision. (Emphasis added.)

    hus, where there is a verified petition to cite someone in

    ntempt of court, courts have the duty to ensure that all

    e requirements for filing initiatory pleadings have been

    mplied with. It behooves them too to docket the petition

    nd to hear and decide it separately from the main case,

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    15/25

    nless the presiding judge orders the consolidation of the

    ntempt proceedings and the main action.

    ut in indirect contempt proceedings initiated motu

    oprio by the court, the above rules, as clarified in

    egalado, do not necessarily apply. First, since the courtself motu proprio initiates the proceedings, there can be

    o verified petition to speak of. Instead, the court has the

    uty to inform the respondent in writing, in accordanceith his or her right to due process. This formal charge is

    one by the court in the form of an Order requiring thespondent to explain why he or she should not be cited in

    ntempt of court.

    Calimlim, the Judge issued an Order requiring the

    etitioners to explain their failure to bring the accusedefore the RTC for his scheduled arraignment. We held in

    at case that such Order was not yet sufficient to initiate

    e contempt proceedings because it did not yet amount t

    show-cause order directing the petitioners to explain

    hy they should not be cited in contempt. The formalarge has to be specific enough to inform the person,

    ainst whom contempt proceedings are being conducted

    at he or she must explain to the court; otherwise, he or

    e will be cited in contempt. The Order must express this

    clear and unambiguous language.

    x x x x

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    16/25

    cond, when the court issues motu proprio a show-cause

    der, the duty of the court (1) to docket and (2) to hear

    nd decide the case separately from the main case does no

    ise, much less to exercise the discretion to order thensolidation of the cases. There is no petition from any

    arty to be docketed, heard and decided separately frome main case precisely because it is the show-cause order

    at initiated the proceedings.

    hat remains in any case, whether the proceedings are

    itiated by a verified petition or by the court motuoprio, is the duty of the court to ensure that the

    oceedings are conducted respecting the right to due

    ocess of the party being cited in contempt. In both mode

    initiating indirect contempt proceedings, if the court

    eems that the answer to the contempt charge istisfactory, the proceedings end. The court must conduct

    earing, and the court must consider the respondent’s

    nswer. Only if found guilty will the respondent be

    unished accordingly.

    x x x x

    contempt proceedings, the respondent must be given th

    ght to defend himself or herself and have a day in court –

    basic requirement of due process. This is especially so in

    direct contempt proceedings, as the court cannot decideem summarily pursuant to the Rules of Court. As We

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    17/25

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    18/25

    c. 11. Review of judgment or final order; bond for stay.–

    he judgment or final order of a court in a case of indirect

    ntempt may be appealed to the proper court as in

    iminal cases. But execution of the judgment or final ordeall not be suspended until a bond is filed by the person

    djudged in contempt, in an amount fixed by the court frohich the appeal is taken, conditioned that if the appeal b

    ecided against him he will abide by and perform the

    dgment or final order.

    he recourse provided for in the above-mentionedovision is clear enough: the person adjudged in indirect

    ntempt must file an appeal under Rule 41 (Appeal from

    e Regional Trial Courts) and post a bond for its

    uspension pendente lit e.46 Obviously, these were not don

    this case. Instead, petitioners filed a petition forrtiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules and did not post the

    quired bond, effectively making the September 3, 2007

    esolution final and executory.

    HEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition isENIED. The March 13, 2008 Decision and April 28, 2008

    esolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.

    00911, which affirmed the September 3, 2007 Resolution

    the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch 226, are

    FFIRMED.

    O ORDERED.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#fnt46

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    19/25

    IOSDADO M. PERALTA 

    ssociate Justice

    E CONCUR:

    PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. 

    Associate Justice

    Chairperson

    LUCAS P. BERSAMIN* Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice

    MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN Associate Justice

    A T T E S T A T I O N

    attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had bee

    ached in consultation before the case was assigned to th

    riter of the opinion of the Court's Division.

    RESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ssociate Justice

    hairperson, Third Division

    C E R T I F I C A T I O N

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    20/25

    ursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and

    e Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the

    nclusions in the above Decision had been reached in

    nsultation before the case was assigned to the writer ofe opinion of the Court's Division.

    ARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO 

    hief Justice

    otnotes 

    * Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abadper Special Order No. 1640 dated February 19, 2014.

    1 Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, with AssociateJustices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Jose C. Reyes, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 28-4

    2 Rollo, p. 42.

    3 Id. at 120-143.

    4 Id. at 44-56.

    5 Id. at 69-77.

    6 Id. at 78-79.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt1

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    21/25

    7 Id. at 80-81.

    8 Id. at 82.

    9 Id. at 83-85.

    10 Id. at 90-94.

    11 Id. at 86-87.

    12 Id. at 88-89.

    13 Id. at 96-97, 129.

    14 Id. at 97, 131.

    15 Id.

    16 Id. at 97-98, 131.

    17 Id. at 98, 131.

    18 Id. at 98, 132.

    19 Id. at 99, 133.

    20 Id. at 95-106.

    21 Id. at 112, 117.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt7

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    22/25

    22  Id. at 113, 118.

    23  Id. at 114, 119.

    24 Id. at 139.

    25 Id. at 133-134.

    26 Id. at 134.

    27 Id. at 121.

    28 Id. at 142-143.

    29 Id. at 144-165.

    30

     SEC. 3. Compliance. – Compliance with any mode of discovery shall bemade within ten (10) days from receipt of the discovery device, or if theare objections, from receipt of the ruling of the court.

    31 SEC. 1. Motion for production or inspection; order. – Upon motion ofany party showing good cause therefor, the court in which an action ispending may (a) order any party to produce and permit the inspectionand copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of adesignated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs,

    objects or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or containevidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are inhis possession, custody or control; or (b) order any party to permit entrupon designated land or other property in his possession or control forthe purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing theproperty or any designated relevant object or operation thereon. The

    order shall specify the time, place and manner of making the inspectionand taking copies and photographs, and may prescribe such terms andconditions as are just.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt22

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    23/25

    32 SEC. 2. Objections. – Any mode of discovery such as interrogatories,request for admission, production or inspection of documents or thingsmay be objected to within ten (10) days from receipt of the discoverydevice and only on the ground that the matter requested is patentlyincompetent, immaterial, irrelevant or privileged in nature.

    The court shall rule on the objections not later than fifteen(15) days from the filing thereof.

    33 276 Phil. 258 (1991).

    34 SEC. 4. Sanctions. – The sanctions prescribed in the Rules of Court forfailure to avail of, or refusal to comply with, the modes of discovery shal

    apply. In addition, the court may, upon motion, declare a party non-suitor as in default, as the case may be, if the refusal to comply with a modediscovery is patently unjustified.

    35 SEC. 3. Other consequences. — If any party or an officer or managingagent of a party refuses to obey an order made under section 1 of thisRule requiring him to answer designated questions, or an order under

    Rule 27 to produce any document or other thing for inspection, copyingor photographing or to permit it to be done, or to permit entry upon lan

    or other property or an order made under Rule 28 requiring him tosubmit to a physical or mental examination, the court may make suchorders in regard to the refusal as are just, and among others thefollowing:

    (a) An order that the matters regarding which the questionwere asked, or the character or description of the thing orland, or the contents of the paper, or the physical or mentacondition of the party, or any other designated facts shall b

    taken to be established for the purposes of the action inaccordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order

    (b) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party tosupport or oppose designated claims or defenses orprohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt32

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    24/25

    documents or things or items of testimony, or fromintroducing evidence of physical or mental condition;

    (c) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, orstaying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, ordismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, orrendering a judgment by default against the disobedientparty; and

    (d) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition

    thereto, an order directing the arrest of any party or agenta party for disobeying any of such orders except an order tsubmit to a physical or mental examination.

    36 Rollo, pp. 166-174, 42.

    37 444 Phil. 12 (2003).

    38 525 Phil. 22 (2006).

    39 Rules of Court, Rule 71, Sec. 3 (b).

    40 Rules of Court, Rule 71, Sec. 3 (d).

    41

     G.R. No. 90478, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 212.

    42 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra, at 225.

    43 Rules of Court, Rule 71, Sec. 7.

    44 A.M. No. RTJ-09-2179 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2873-RTJ) andA.M. No. RTJ-10-2234 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2879-RTJ),September 24, 2012, 681 SCRA 489.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt36

  • 8/15/2019 5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs Sanchez

    25/25

    45 Baculi v. Judge Belen, supra, at 505-508. (Citations omitted)

    46 Id. at 502.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_182738_2014.html#rnt45