SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225685. October 12, 2016.]
ABS-CBN CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. WILLIE B. REVILLAME AND ABC DEVELOPMENT CORP., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 12 October 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225685 — ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Willie B. Revillame and ABC Development Corp.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to (1) GRANT Petitioner's Motion for Extension to File Petition for Review seeking for an additional period of at least 30 days from July 30, 2016 within which to file its Petition for Review on Certiorari; and (2) DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to show that the Court of appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 121964 committed any reversible error in affirming the October 22, 2010 Joint Resolution and the August 18, 2011 Order respectively issued by Braches 84 and 217 of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-10-67770.
We uphold the Court of Appeals in ruling that the trial courts did not gravely abuse their discretion in denying petitioner's motions that are based on Section 1 of Rule 26 1 and Section 1 of Rule 27. 2 An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgement as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 3 The Court of Appeals correctly held that there is no reason to question the trial courts' wisdom.
The trial courts did not absolutely bar petitioner from what it seeks from respondent Willie Revillame, as the denial were without prejudice to the determination of materiality and relevance during the course of the proceedings. For the trial courts, the focal point of argument involves in the meantime the Agreement between petitioner and Willie Revillame.
More importantly, we agree with the Court of Appeals that there is no need to exhaustively belabor on the matters propounded by petitioner. It is already of public knowledge that Willie Revillame had transferred to ABC TV 5 after his controversy with petitioner. Indeed, questions raised in petitioner's motions have already been answered. cDHAES
ACCORDINGLY, the assailed July 26, 2013 Decision and July 7, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 121964 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.(Carpio, J., no part due to close association to the counsel of a party; Reyes, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated September 21, 2016; Leonen, J., on official leave)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Request for Admission. — At any time after issues have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the request unless copy have already been furnished.
2. Motion for production or inspection; order. — Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession, custody or control; . . .
3. Yu vs. Judge Reyes-Carpio, 667 Phil. 474, 481-482 (2011).