Case No.

9, Batch 6
G.R. No. 177861               July 13, 2010
EMMA K. LEE, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, RITA K. LEE, LEONCIO K. LEE, LUCIA K. LEE-ONG, JULIAN K. LEE,
MARTIN K. LEE, ROSA LEE-VANDERLEK, MELODY LEE-CHIN, HENRY K. LEE,
NATIVIDAD LEE-MIGUEL, VICTORIANO K. LEE, and THOMAS K. LEE, represented by
RITA K. LEE, as Attorney-in-Fact, Respondents.

The Facts:

Spouses Lee and Keh were immigrants from China. They had 11 children collectively
named herein as Lee-Keh children.

In 1948, Lee brought from China a young woman named Tiu, a housemaid turned mistress
from which Lee had other children.

In order to raise the status of his illegitimate children, Lee made it appear in their birth
certificates that the mother of the illegitimate children is Keh, in effect making them look
legitimate.

When the Lee-Keh children discovered the ploy, they instituted a special civil action against
Emma Lee one of Tiu’s children for the deletion from the certificate of live birth the name
Keh and replace the same with the name Tiu to indicate her true mother’s name.

In April 2005 the Lee-Keh children filed with the RTC an ex parte request for the issuance
of a subpoena ad testificandum to compel Tiu, Emma Lee’s presumed mother, to testify in
the case. Emma Lee, however, interposed that Tiu, being her stepmother, cannot be
compelled to testify in the case because of Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence,
which reads:

SECTION 25. Parental and filial privilege.- No person may be compelled to testify

against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.

Issue:

Whether or not Tiu cannot be compelled to testify under Sec. 25, Rule of the ROC

Held:

No. Tiu can be compelled to testify. The court stated that the rule applies only to “direct"
ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by a common ancestry. Here Tiu, who
invokes the filial privilege, claims that she is the stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee.
Hence, the privilege cannot apply to them because what they portrayed is that they are not
blood related.
 Case 10, Bacth 6
G.R. No. 172948, October 05, 2016
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATED SMELTING AND REFINING
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PABLITO O. LIM, MANUEL A. AGCAOILI, AND CONSUELO
M. PADILLA, Respondents.

Facts:

The former senior officers and presently stockholders of Philippine Associated Smelting
and Refining Corporation (PASAR) demanded to inspect its confidential and inexistent
records. However, PASAR refused and procured a Preliminary Injunction and/or
Temporary Restraining Order against the stockholders.

Petitioner argues that the right of a stockholder to inspect corporate books and records is
limited in that any demand must be made in good faith or for a legitimate purpose.
Respondents, however, have no legitimate purpose in this case.
Issue:

WON injunction properly lies to prevent stockholders from invoking their right to inspect

Held:

No. In this case, injunction does not properly lie to prevent stockholders from invoking
their right to inspect. For an action for injunction to prosper, the applicant must show the
existence of a right, as well as the actual or threatened violation of this right.

The requisites for preliminary injunctive relief are: (a) the invasion of the right sought to
be protected is material and substantial; (b) the right of the plaintiff is clear and
unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent
serious damage. As such, a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear
showing of an actual existing right to be protected during the pendency of the principal
action. The twin requirements of a valid injunction are the existence of a right and its actual
or threatened violation. Thus, to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected
and the violation against that right must be shown. Here, PASAR failed to show that it
would be unduly damaged if the injunction is not issued.

Thus, an injunction must fail where there is no clear showing of both an actual right to be
protected and its threatened violation, which calls for the issuance of an injunction.

It must be noted that in Almeida v. Court of Appeals, it was stated that testimonial and/or
documentary evidence maybe adduced to establish the right to the injunctive writ.