GR 168776; (July, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168776 ; July 17, 2007
PHILIPPINE COMPUTER SOLUTIONS, INC., Petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, Presiding Judge, RTC of Pasig City, Br. 158, and WINEFRIDA MANZO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Computer Solutions, Inc. filed an intra-corporate complaint before the SEC (later transferred to the RTC) against respondents, including Winefrida Manzo, for allegedly usurping corporate powers and fraudulently amending its Articles of Incorporation. The complaint detailed unauthorized business transactions with foreign entities like PeopleSoft Australia. After the case was transferred to the RTC, petitioner moved to declare some defendants in default and also filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Commission to take the depositions abroad of a PeopleSoft Australia officer and one of its own incorporators who was in the United States. Petitioner argued these depositions were vital to prove the unauthorized foreign transactions.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly denied the Motion for the Issuance of a Commission to take depositions abroad, based on the time limit for discovery under the Interim Rules for Intra-Corporate Controversies.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The legal logic centers on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of procedural rules, specifically Section 1, Rule 3 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies. This rule explicitly states that a party may avail of any mode of discovery “not later than fifteen (15) days from the joinder of issues.” The Court emphasized that this period is not merely directory but mandatory. In this case, the issues were joined when the last responsive pleading was filed. Petitioner filed its motion for a commission long after this 15-day period had lapsed. The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the motion was necessary to prove its case, stating that the allegations regarding the foreign transactions were already within its knowledge from the inception of the complaint. The purpose of the strict discovery period in intra-corporate cases is to achieve speedy resolution. Allowing the deposition after the deadline would circumvent this rule. Therefore, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for being filed out of time.