PAJARILLAGA V CA

Case: PR filed a complaint for a sum of money against Pet. PR presented

witness but petitioner nor his counsel was absent. Upon motion of PR, TC
declared pet to have waived his right of cross examination and allowed
private respondent to make a formal offer of evidence.
Pet filed a Motion for leave of our to take the deposition of the
defendant on the grounds that: petitioner resides in Manila which is more than
400km and is suffering from illness. Which was denied by the TC. Elevated to
CA which affirmed TC.
Issue: Wether the taking of petitioners deposition by written interrogatories is
proper under the circumstances obtaining in this case?
Held: No. Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the primary function of
which is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of disclosing the
real points of dispute between the parties and affording an adequate factual
basis during the preparation for trial.
Discovery is very liberal in its application and is not allowed only
because of limited grounds. There is no rule that limits deposition taking only
in pre-trial. Depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of any
action whenever necessary or convenient.
But when viewed with the several postponements by the petitioner
the court s of the view that his timing is, in fact, suspect. Pet offered no
excuse for his and counsels absence and merely moved for resetting without
invoking the grounds that was set before the appeal.
Grounds not proven. As to distance, pet could have asked for a
change in venue early in the proceedings. For illness, the med cert did not
specify that it would endanger his health if he went to Mt. Province.
The court finds the protracted delay in the litigation at petitioners
instance coupled with the belated and unsubstantiated allegations of illness
and threats to petitioners life, more than sufficient reasons for the trial court to
deny petitioners motion.

SIME DARBY V NLRC

Case: Union and Company did not agree on the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA). Company president which led to the Company filing a
Notice of Lockout to the NCMB. Union filed for illegal lockout.
Meanwhile, company sold the tire operation which they filed in DOLE and
individually served termination notices to all the employees. Pet filed for illegal
dismissal which was consolidated with illegal lockout.
Labor Arbiter found valid dismissal and therefore dismissed the complaint.
NLRC affirmed. CA affirmed. Union argues that the Labor arbiter erred when it
failed to consider as admitted the matters contained in their request for
admission after respondents failed to file a sworn answer thereto.
Issue: Whether the request for admission should have been granted and the
evidence included therein should have been admitted since respondents
reply/objection thereto were not made under oath?
Held: Petitioner argues that the reply of Company was unsworn, and under
Rule 26, the matters of which admission were requested should be deemed
admitted. This argument must fail.
Why? The Request for Admission does not fall under Rule 26. Rule 26 as a
mode of discovery, contemplates of interrogatories that would clarify and tend
to shed light on truth or falsity of the allegation in a pleading. Upon review of
the RFA, it merely reiterated the issues in the consolidated cases.
Petitioners RFA constitutes an utter redundancy and a useless, pointless
process which respondent should not be subjected to. Mode of discoveries
are intended to expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of proving
facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth which can be
ascertained by reasonable inquiry.
Note on another issue: It is in the discretion of labor arbiter if there will be a
formal case. Documents passed will be understood that they have included
the pieces of evidence needed to establish their case.

REPUBLIC V SANDIGANBAYAN (1991)

Case: PR Tantoco and Santiago was involved in a civil case denominated as
for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages which
was commenced by the PCGG. After having been served with summons, PR
filed for BOP and to strike out some portions in the pleading. This was
opposed by the Pet. In addition, PR filed a motion for leave to file
interrogatories under Rule 25. They sought answer to the question Who are
the commissioners who approved and authorised the inclusion of PR? The
sandiganbayan denied said motions. (Reason of Sandiganbayan: The other
matters sought for particularisation are evidentiary in nature which should be
ventilated in the pre-trial and was filed without leave of court).
After pre-trial, PR filed Interrogatories to Plaintiff and Motion for Production
and Inspection of Documents. (Interrogatories: specific properties, specific
acts. Documents: official records and evidences, minutes.) Sandiganbayan
granted the motion.
PCGG filed for reconsideration (Reason: purposeless and unecessary,
already know the existence of documents, privileged in character, not specific
as to who should answer, frivolous since they inquire matter of facts which
through their aborted BOP). PCGG granted motion of PR.
Issue: Whether or not interrogatories and production of documents should be
granted?
Review on Discovery: Resolution of controversies is the raison dtre of
courts. This essential function is accomplished by (1) ascertainment of all the
material and relevant facts and (2) application of the law.
It is the duty of each contending party to lay before the court the facts in issue
- fully and fairly. Initially, the facts presented are only those that are essential
(ultimate facts) and not evidentiary facts. If the ultimate facts is insufficient or
ambiguous, ask for BOP. However, BOP is limited to making more particular
or definite the ultimate facts and not supply the evidentiary facts. (Common
perception: evidentiary details are made know only during trial which is
WRONG).

Evidentiary matters may be inquired into and learned by the parties before
trial. Deposition-discovery procedure was designed to remedy the conceded
inadequacy and cumbersomeness of the pre-trial functions of notice-giving,
issue-formulation and fact revelation. It is meant to serve as (1) a device,
along with pre-trial hearing to narrow and clarify the basic issues bet
parties and (2) as a device for ascertaining facts relative to the issue.
Leave of Court is required when an answer has not yet been filed. Also with
regard to production or inspection of documents and physical and mental
examination of persons.
Sanctions on the party who refuses to make discovery: (1) dismissing the
action or proceeding or part thereof; (2) rendering judgement by default
against the disobedient party; (3) contempt of court; (4) arrest of the party or
agent; (5) payment of the amount of reasonable expenses; (6) taking the
matters inquired into as established in accordance with the claim of the party
seeking discovery; (7) refusal to allow the disobedient party support or
oppose designated claims or defences; and (8) striking out pleadings.
Limitations to discovery: (1) when it can be shown that the examination is
being conducted in bad faith or in such a manner as to annoy or embarrass,
or oppress the person subject to inquiry; (2) irrelevant; and (3) privileged.
No need to file for a motion of leave for amendment.
Held:
As to specificity: Section 1 Rule 26 points out that if the party served with
interrogatories is a juridical entity, it shall be answered by any officer thereof
competent to testify in its behalf. What the PCGG may do is to object to specific
items in the interrogatories, the grounds of which are the limitations.
As to it being factual matters: Purpose of discovery is to ensure mutual
knowledge of the relevant facts even before trial. Party may compel either to
disgorge facts.

As to the adverse party becoming a witness: There is nothing wrong in a

partys making his adversary his witness. This was expressly allowed in Sec 6
Rule 132.
As to PCGGs members not required to testify: The act of bringing a suit must
entail a waiver of the exemption from giving evidence, by bringing a suit it brings
itself within the operation and scope of all the rules governing civil actions.
As to the production of evidence: Since the PR has seen it and made objection
thereto, no serious objection can therefore be presented to the desire of the
private respondents to have copies of those documents in order to study them
some more. These documents the basis of several material allegations.

Any deposition offered to prove facts therein set out during a trial, in lieu of the
actual oral testimony of the deponent may be opposed and excluded on the
ground that it is hearsay. However, depositions may be used without the
deponent being actually called to the witness stand which is provided under
certain conditions and for certain limited purposes under Par 3, Sec 4, Rule
24.
Who may take deposition in a foreign country: on notice before a
secretary or embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul or
consular agent or before such person under or officer as may be appointed by
commission or under letters of rogatory.

DASMARINAS GARMENTS V REYES

Commission: issued by the court as a directive to an official of the

Philippines, authorizing him to take the deposition of the witness.

Case: American President Lines sued Dasmarias Garments to recover the

sum of $53k + 25% for attorneys fees and litigation expenses. Garments
denied any liability to the plaintiff.

Letters of Rogatory: requests to foreign tribunals to give its aid in securing

the desired information.

Trial ensued and APL presented its first witness. APL was supposed to
present another 2 witnesses but changed and filed a motion praying that it
intended to take depositions of Lee and Yeh. 5 days later, APL filed an
amended motion stating that since the Philippine Government has no
consulate office in Taiwan. In lieu of the office, there is Asian Exchange
Center occupied by Director Roces and therefore prayed for commission o
letters of rotary be issued addressed to Roces.
Dasmarinas contends that the motion was defective in that it does not seek
that a foreign court examine a person within its jurisdiction, witnesses can be
examined in the PH, and Rules of Court expressly requires that a testimony of
a witness must be taken orally in open court. RTC and CA granted prayer.
Issue: Whether or not the prayer should be granted?
Review on Discovery: Depositions are principally made available by law to
the parties as a means of informing themselves of all the relevant facts; they
are not therefore generally meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in
open court of a party or witness

Held: RTC and CA affirmed. The RTC has issued a commission to the Asian
Exchange Centre to take the testimonies. And upon request and authority of
DFA, the latter will issue a certificate of Authentication. In addition to that,
commission must go thru DFA first (requests for deposition).
As to foreign jurisdiction not recognised by PH: What matters is that the
deposition is taken before a Philippine official acting by authority of the
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and in virtue of a commission
duly issued by the Philippine Court in which the action is pending, and
in accordance, moreover, with the provisions of the Philippine Rules of
Court pursuant to which opportunity for cross-examination of the
deponent will be fully accorded to the adverse party.
As to deposition availed before the action comes to trial: Deposition may
be taken at any time after the institution of any action, whenever necessary
and convenient.

As to departure from the Norm: The procedure is not on that account

rendered illegal nor is the deposition thereby taken, inadmissible. It precisely
falls within one of the exceptions where the law permits such a situation

he may not be able to testify on plaintiffs behalf in the course of the trial on
merits.
Emerson Sr died at the age of 92 yrs old. ASB filed before the trial court a
motion to introduce in evidence the deposition of Emerito. The motion was
opposed by Ayala which led to this petition.
Issue: Whether or not the deposition of Emerito is admissible?
Review on Discovery:
Deposition: In its more technical and appropriate sense, the meaning of the
word is limited to written testimony of a witness given in the course of a
judicial proceeding in advance of the trial or hearing upon oral examination.

AYALAND V TAGLE
Case: ASB Realty Corp and EMRASON filed for nullification of Contract to
Sell Real Properties, Cancellation of Annotations on Transfer Certificates of
Title and Damages against Ayala Land.
ASB alleged that on 21 May 1994, they entered into a Letter Agreement with
EMRASON for the conditional sale of the latters property to the former.
However ASB received a letter informing him the EMRASON entered into a
contract to sell, with the same property, on 18 May 1994 with Ayala Land.
ASB filed a motion for leave to take testimony by deposition upon oral
examination of Emerito Ramos Sr since he was already 87 years old and that

Purpose of Deposition: (1) give greater assistance to the parties in

ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing perjury (2) Provide an
effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent claims and
defenses; 3) Make available in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way,
facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; 4)
Educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and
defenses thereby encouraging settlements; 5) Expedite litigation; 6)
Safeguard against surprise; 7) Prevent delay; 8) Simplify and narrow the
issues; and 9) Expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial.
Held:
As to the validity of deposition: The depositions made by Emerito was
made in accordance with the requirements of the rules. It was taken inside
the courtroom of the trial court, before the clerk of court. A stenographer was
present, tape recorders and a video camera were even utilised to record the
proceedings, in the presence of all the opposing counsels of record including
ALIs.
As to lack of signature of deponent: A deponents signature to the
deposition is not in all events indispensable since the presence of signature
goes primarily to the form of deposition. The signatures purpose was to

ensure that the deponent is afforded the opportunity to correct any errors
contained therein. The admissibility of evidence should not be equated to
weight of evidence.

Case: Ley Construction and Development Corporation (LCDC) filed a

complaint for specific performance and damages against Hyatt claiming that
the latter reneged in its obligation to transfer 40% of the pro indiviso share of
a real property in Makati in favour of LCDC despite full payment. Complaint
was amended to include Princeton (another buyer) and Yu (president of
Hyatt).
Responsive pleadings were filed and LCDC filed notices to take depositions.
Petitioner also filed notices for deposition but later changed its mind and
prayed for pre-trial which was granted. LCDC opposed but the pre-trial
proceeded and LCDC was declared non-suit. LCDC appealed to CA (12th)
but was denied. Meanwhile on another appeal by LCDC regarding the
deposition on the CA (7th) rendered a judgement granting the appeal of
LCDC and remanding it to the trial court for further proceeding.
Issue: Whether the CA (7th) exceeded its authority? Whether the CA erred in
remanding the case to the trial court?
Held: No to both.
As to the authority of CA (7th): It did not exceed authority. In fact, the CA
(12th) foresaw that this might happen and included in its judgement that their
decision will not produce legal effect and that the CA(7th) should be left free
to resolve the same.
As to the CA remanding it to the TC: LCDC filed for deposition after the
answer was filed and therefore mere notice was needed. In the case, LCDC
filed the required notices to the court. Yes, the depositions may be disallowed
anent showing of bad faith but it was absent in the case at bar.
The delay was due to the cancelling of scheduled depositions. In fact, LCDC
was present at the pre-trial to inform the court of the pending appeal in CA
(7th).

HYATT INDUSTRIAL V LEY CONSTRUCTION

As to duplicity: The availability of the proposed deponent to testify in court

does not constitute good cause to justify the courts order that his deposition

will be taken. It may serve as a method of discovery and a method of

presenting testimony.

SECURITY BANK V CA
Case: Security bank was a defendant in a civil case against Spouses Uy.
Spouses sought for injunction and damages with an application for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Sps
sought to enjoin SB, Domingo Uy, and the Sheriff from proceeding with an
extrajudicial foreclosure).
SB filed an answer with compulsory counterclaim and crossclaim. Before
Domingo filed an answer to defendants crossclaim, he filed an Omnibus
Motion (Production of Documents and Suspension and/or Extension of time to
file answer to cross claim) on the ground that these documents must first be
prepared before he could prepare and file his answer. Spouses also filed for
production of documents. TC granted it upon reconsideration. CA affirmed.
Issue: Whether the CA erred in granting the two motions?
Review on Discovery:
Good cause: does not relate to the substance in the document but to the
reason for procuring relevant or material matters therein; so that the
enforcement of the rule entails exercise of sound discretion. The burden is on
the moving party to demonstrate the need for the documents sought beyond
the relevancy or materiality of the evidence therein.
Procedural requisites to allow production of documents: (a) The party
must file a motion for the production or inspection of documents or things,

showing good cause therefor; (b) Notice of the motion must be served to all
other parties of the case; (c) The motion must designate the documents,
papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things
which the party wishes to be produced and inspected; (d) Such documents,
etc. are not privileged; (e) Such documents, etc. constitute or contain
evidence material to. any matter involved in the action; and (f) Such
documents, etc. are in the possession, custody or control of the other party.
Held:
As to the documents not being indispensable: For Domingo, the
documents were material and important to the issues raised in the case in
general and as between defendant and defendant SBC. It would enable
Domingo to intelligently prepare his defenses against the cross-claim. For the
Spouse, it was for a good cause because the said documents were
necessary for a full determination of the issues raised the Case.
As to the relevance: Petitioner contends that the documents that Spouses
sought (the original and additional mortgage contracts executed by Jackie
Trading) were not relevant to the case of declaration of nullity. And the
documents sought by Domingo was not relevant because the trial court ruled
that he could prepare his answer to the cross claim without those documents.
The court finds the document relevant since the spouse executed an SPA to
Domingo to mortgage their property for their benefit but the latter used it as a
security to Jackivis loan.The additional mortgage contracts executed by
Jackie are material. he spouses can determine why petitioner was going after
their property which was invalidly mortgaged by Domingo. And the same
documents would be useful in Domingos defines against the cross-claim.

SOLIDBANK V CA
Case: Solidbank filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against
Gateway. The latter secured a foreign currency loan to the former. As a
security, transferred its rights to the Back-end Services Agreement with
Alliance to Solidbank. Gateway then failed to pay the loan.
Solid bank amended the complaint to include stockholders as they are
sureties. They also filed a motion for production and inspection of document
on the basis of an information that Gateway received the proceeds of the
Back-end services. TC granted said motion.
Gateway presented documents but Solidbank was not satisfied with it.
Solidbank filed a motion to cite Gateway and its officers in contempt for their
refusal to produce the documents. The court denied the motion but ruled that
the documents sought to be produced which were not otherwise produced

shall bet taken to be established in accordance with plaintiffs claim. CA

reversed on the ground that the Motion for Production of Documents did not
comply with Rule 27.
Issue: Whether the Motion for Production of Documents failed to comply with
Rule 27?
Held: There is good cause to Solidbanks motion but it is fatally defective
since it did not specify with particularity the documents it required. All
documents pertaining to , arising from, in connection with or involving the
Back-end Services Agreement.
A motion for production and inspection of documents should not demand
roving inspection of a promiscuous mass of documents.
The sanction given by the TC was a grave abuse of discretion since Gateway
can only be held liable for unjust refusal if it is shown that the documents
sought to be produced were specifically described, material to the action, and
in the possession, custody or control go Gateway.

ROSETE V LIM
Case: Lim filed a complaint for annulment, specific performance with
damages against Rosete, AFP-RSBS (retirement and separation benefits),
Espreme Realty, BPI, and Register of Deeds. They sought to annul the DOS
executed by AFP to Espreme Realty covering certain parcels of lands in the
name of Lim and tor restore ownership thereof.
Motion to dismiss was filed by Petitioners but were all denied by the TC.
Respondents filed a notice to take deposition upon oral examination, they will
cause the deposition of pets. Rosete. Petitioners objected and argued that the
deposition may not be taken without leave of court as no answer has yet been
served and the issues have not yet been joined since their Answer ex
abutandi causal (which is pending resolution). And that there is a criminal
case pending, and the taking of deposition would be violative of their right
against self-incrimination. TC granted deposition and ordered the sriking out
from the record of the Answer ex abundant causal, declared Rosete in
default. CA affirmed.
Issue: Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting the
deposition?
Held:
As to self-incrimination: Right against self-incrimination as provided by the
constitution states that only when a question is asked, that is incriminatory in
character. will the party be able to invoke this right. In a civil case, a party
cannot refuse to take a stand nor give depositions. They must adhere to
subpoenas and the like, and attend the proceeding, and only there, upon an
incriminatory question, can they invoke this right. It is different from a criminal
case wherein an accused can refuse to be a witness. In the case at bar, it is
clearly a civil case.
As to no leave of court since their answer was abutandi cautela: Ex
abutandi cautela means out of abundant caution or to be on a safe side.
An answer ex abutandi causal does not make their answer less of an answer.

The answers filed by petitioners shows that they contain their respective
defences. Therefore, the issues in this case have already been joined.

SALES V SABINO
Case: Sabino filed a complaint for damages against Sales, driver of the
vehicle involved in the accident which ultimately caused the death of
respondents son, Elbert.
Before any responsive pleading could be filed, respondent notified the
plaintiffs that he would be taking the deposition of one Beaneres Corral, which
was taken in the present of the Clerk of Court and with the active participation
of Plaintiff;s counsel. After, respondent made a formal offer of the deposition.
Petitioners opposed on the grounds that Rule 23 was not complied with. TC
admitted the evidence. CA affirmed on the ground that plaintiff actively
participated and adopting it as his own exhibits and has thereby estopped him
from assailing the admissibility of the evidence.
Issue: Whether the requirements of Rule 23 was complied with?
Held:
As to non-compliance with Sec 4 Rule 23: The case at bar falls under the 5
exceptions for the admissibility of a deposition. The TC had determined that
Corral was abroad coupled with a certification from Bureau of Immigration
which provides evidentiary support. If Corral returned to the Philippines, then
plaintiffs could have presented evidence to show that such was the case.
As to estoppel: The petitioners are not estopped from challenging the
admissibility of the deposition just because they participated in the taking
thereof. While errors and irregularities in depositions as to notice,

qualifications of the officer conducting the deposition, and manner of taking

the deposition are deemed waived if not objected to before or during the
taking of the deposition, objections to the competency of a witness or the
competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony may be made for the first
time at the trial and need not be made at the time of the taking of the
deposition, unless they could be obviated at that point.

Remedy: Appeal from final judgement. Petition denied.