Malayan Towage and Salvage Corp. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp.
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 11, 2019. The case involves Malayan Towage and Salvage Corporation (petitioner) appealing the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 152662. The petitioner sought to reverse the CA's decision which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's Joint Resolution denying the petitioner's Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA's decision, holding that the trial court's application of the rules on modes of discovery rests upon its sound discretion, which can only be set aside upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court found no such abuse in this case.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241304. March 11, 2019.]
MALAYAN TOWAGE AND SALVAGE CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11March 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241304 (Malayan Towage and Salvage Corporation v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the April 30, 2018 Decision 2 and the August 9, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 152662 for failure of petitioner Malayan Towage and Salvage Corporation (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding no grave abuse of discretion in the Regional Trial Court's Joint Resolution 4 dated April 17, 2017 which denied petitioner's Requests for Admissions 5 and Interrogatories. 6
Notably, the application of the rules on modes of discovery rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court. 7 This discretion shall be set aside only upon clear showing of grave abuse, 8 which means that capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. 9 As the CA correctly observed, such capricious and whimsical exercise of power is absent in the present case. 10
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-30.
2.Id. at 37-43. Penned by Presiding Justice and Chairperson Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, concurring.
3.Id. at 45-46.
4.Id. at 185-188. Penned by Presiding Judge Maximo M. De Leon.
5.Id. at 104-108 and 117-119.
6.Id. at 114-116.
7.Limos v. Spouses Odones, 642 Phil. 438, 447 (2010); Lañada v. CA, 426 Phil. 249, 261 (2002).
8.Eagleridge Development Corporation v. Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc.; 708 Phil. 693, 707 (2013).
9.Bangayan, Jr. v. Bangayan, 675 Phil. 656, 668 (2011).
10. See rollo, p. 42.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU