SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201401. September 12, 2012.]
ARCENIO C. ALEJANDRO, JR., petitioner, v. ALEJANDRO CRUZ PADUA DELA CRUZ CORPORATION [ACPC] AND ALEJANDRO BROTHERS, INC. [ABI], BOTH REP. BY THEIR PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, JORGE ALEJANDRO AND LERMA ALEJANDRO PADUA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 12 September 2012which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 201401 (Arcenio C. Alejandro, Jr. v. Alejandro Cruz Padua Dela Cruz Corporation [ACPC] and Alejandro Brothers, Inc. [ABI], both rep. by their President and General Manager, Jorge Alejandro and Lerma Alejandro Padua). — We rule on the motion for reconsideration 1 of our June 20, 2012 Resolution 2 that denied outright the petition for review on certiorari filed by Arsenio C. Alejandro, Jr. (petitioner), for failure to show any reversible error sufficient to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The petitioner prays for a second look at his case, insinuating that the ponente of the Court of Appeals' (CA's) decision, Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, may have been biased and prejudiced against him since he (petitioner), as counsel for a client in another case, filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari against the ponente, then presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 12, and the latter was found guilty by the CA for having acted with grave abuse of discretion.
We find no sound and substantial reason to reconsider our June 20, 2012 Resolution. AIaDcH
The petitioner's bare allegations of Justice Sorongon's partiality will not suffice, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence, to overcome the presumption that a judge will undertake his noble role of dispensing justice in accordance with law and evidence, and without fear or favor. Mere suspicion of bias and prejudice is not enough. 3
Furthermore, we reviewed the CA's decision and found no reversible error sufficient to compel a review. We reiterate that the petitioner's motion for the production and inspection of documents basically called for a blanket inspection of the records of the Alejandro Cruz Padua Dela Cruz Corporation (ACPC) and of the Alejandro Brothers, Inc., since it was simply too broad and too generalized in scope. It is well-settled that "a motion for production and inspection of documents should not demand a roving inspection of a promiscuous mass of documents. The inspection should be limited to those documents designated with sufficient particularity in the motion, such that the adverse party can easily identify the documents he is required to produce." 4 The RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 258, in granting the petitioner's motion for the production and inspection of documents, in effect, partially disposed of the main case without trial, despite the issue of whether the petitioner was actually a stockholder entitled to inspect the book of accounts of ACPC.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 309-314.
2.Id. at 308.
3.Ramiscal, Jr. v. Hernandez, G.R. Nos. 173057-74, September 27, 2010, 631 SCRA 312, 320.
4.Solidbank Corporation v. Gateway Electronics Corporation, G.R. No. 164805, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 256, 268-269.