You are on page 1of 17

FORTUNE CORPORATION VS.

CA AND INTER-MERCHANTS CORPORATION Facts: This is a petition for certiorari of the decision of the respondent CA affirming the decision of the RTC of San Pablo City disallowing the taking of the oral deposition of Juanito A. Teope who was the chairman of the Board Directors of private respondent. An action for breach of contract was filed by the petitioner against the private respondent and after the latter filed its answer petitioner served them with written interrogatories pursuant to Rule 25 of the ROC. The pre-trial was scheduled for January 9, February 12 and April 22, 1992. On March 26, 1992, petitioner served the private respondent a Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination notifying the latter that petitioner would take the deposition of the chairman in accordance with Section 15, Rule 24. Private Respondent filed an Urgent Motion Not to Take Deposition/Vehement Opposition to Plaintiff’s Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination alleging that: a) petitioner has previously availed of one mode of discovery, b) there is absolutely no sound reason or justification advanced for the taking of the oral deposition, c) such taking would cause annoyance, embarrassment and oppression upon the prospective deponent, d) deponent has no intention of leaving the country, e)the intended deponent is available to testify in open court if required during the trial on the merits. Trial court ruled that the deposition should not be taken on the grounds that the deposition of Juanito A. Teope appears unwarranted since the proposed deponent had already responded to the written interrogatories of the plaintiff and has signified his availability to testify in court. The petitioner filed an original action for certiorari before the SC and was referred to the CA for further adjudication on the merits. CA ruled dismissing the petition holding that the RTC has jurisdiction to direct, in its discretion, that a deposition shall not be taken, if there are valid reasons for the ruling. This is provided for in Sections 16 and 18, Rule 24 of the ROC which imply that the right of the party to take depositions as means of discovery is not absolute. They reasoned that: a)proposed deponent had earlier responded to the written interrogatories; b)deponent had signified his availability to testify in court; c)to allow the deposition would deprive the trial court of the opportunity to ask clarificatory question. With the denial of the petitioner’s MFR the instant petition was filed with the SC. ISSUE: 1.WON that the decision of respondent court dismissing its petition on the ground that appeal and not certiorari is the proper remedy in this case, is erroneous for the reason that such ruling is based on facts which are not obtaining in the case at bar, viz.: (a) that petitioner had already obtained a deposition, which it had not; (b) that said deposition was offered as evidence, which was not done because there was nothing yet to offer, and (c) that said offer was rejected, which did not happen because there was nothing to reject as nothing was offered. 2. WONthe trial court gravely abused its discretion in ordering that the deposition be not taken in the absence of good cause therefor. It asserts that the reasons advanced by the trial court cannot be considered "good cause" within the contemplation of the law, which reasons, to repeat, are: (a) that the proposed deponent had earlier responded to written interrogatories; (b) that the proposed deponent had signified his availability to testify in court; and (c) that to allow the deposition would deprive the trial court of the opportunity to ask clarificatory questions to the vital witness. RULING: The SC discussed that the finer attributed of the rules of discovery would contribute immensely to the attainment of the judiciary’s primordial goal of expediting the disposition of cases. The deposition-discovery procedure was designed to remedy the conceded inadequacy and cumbersomeness of the pre-trial functions of notice-giving, issue formulation and face revelation theretofore performes primarily by the pleadings. The various modes or instruments of discovery are meant to serve 1) as a device, along with the pre trial hearing under Rule 20, to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties and 2) as a device for ascertaining the facts relative to those issues. The evident purpose is to enable the parties consistent with recognized privileges to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that said trials are carried on in the dark. To this end , the field of inquiry that may be covered by depositions or interrogatories is as broad as when the interrogated party is called as witness to testify orally at trial. I. Section 16 of Rule 24 provides that after notice is served for taking a deposition by oral examination, upon motion seasonably made by any party or by the person to be examined and upon notice and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may, among others, make an order that the deposition shall not be taken. This provision explicitly vests in the court the power to order that the deposition shall not be taken and this grant connotes the authority to exercise discretion in connection therewith. It is well settled, however, that the discretion conferred by law is not unlimited: that it must be exercised, not arbitrarily, capriciously, or oppressively, but in a reasonable manner and in consonance with the spirit of the law, to the end that its purpose may be attained. Pursuant to this rule, it has been held that certiorari will not lie to review or correct discovery orders made prior to trial. 11 This is because, like other discovery orders, orders made under Section 16, Rule 24 are interlocutory and

such as dismissing his action or proceeding or part thereof. The right to take statements and the right to use them in court have been kept entirely distinct. 16 What constitutes good cause furthermore depends upon the kind of protective order that is sought. That the witness is unable to attend or testify is one of the grounds when the deposition of a witness may be used in court during the trial. The matter of good cause is to be determined by the court in the exercise of judicial discretion. But under the concept adopted by the new Rules. the court could not observe the behavior of the deponents. no deposition could ever be taken. SC ruled that certiorari may be availed of to review the questioned order of the trial court. and which will hereinafter be discussed. striking out his pleadings or parts thereof. the limitations on their taking dovetailed with the limitations on their use. and in a proper case should exercise. restrictions are imposed upon their use.. the courts took a relatively liberal view. 25 But the same reason cannot be successfully invoked to prohibit the taking of his deposition. nor that all the transactions were either conducted or confirmed in writing. Accordingly. The allegation that the deponent knows nothing about the matters involved does not justify prohibiting the taking of the deposition." It is quite clear. or staying further proceedings. as long as the party is not attempting to circumvent a ruling of the court. while the use at the trial is subject to circumscriptions looking toward the use of oral testimony wherever practicable. or to harass or oppress the other party. Preference for oral testimony has dictated most of the limitations on the use of depositions as evidence. Finally. certiorari may be availed of to review the questioned order of the trial court. said objection or handicap being common to all depositions alike. refusal to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses. in the absence of proof. the deposition serves the double function of a method of discovery — with use on trial not necessarily contemplated — and a method of presenting testimony. As a matter of practice. such rules are subject to the exception that discretionary acts will be reviewed where the lower court or tribunal has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. or arrest of the party or agent of the party. our legal system is now thoroughly committed to the notion that on the trial itself the adducing of facts by viva voce testimony of witnesses — whose demeanor and manner are subject to the observation of the judge — is superior to the use of written statements of the same witnesses. Rule 29 imposes serious sanctions on the party who refuses to comply with or respond to the modes of discovery. is required to establish good cause for the issuance of a protective order. A particular and specific demonstration of facts. However. The availability of the proposed deponent to testify in court does not constitute "good cause" to justify the court's order that his deposition shall not be taken. where an interlocutory order does not conform to essential requirements of law and may reasonably cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy of appeal will be inadequate. 1. And since their use as evidence was originally conceived as the sole function of depositions proper. taking the matters inquired into as established in accordance with the claim of the party seeking discovery. On the question of whether an oral deposition might be taken after service of interrogatories. and we so hold that under the present Rules the fact that a party has resorted to a particular method of discovery will not bar subsequent use of other discovery devices. contempt of court. 12 considering that they do not finally dispose of the proceeding or of any independent offshoot of it. no limitations other than relevancy and privilege have been placed on the taking of depositions. But it should be made to clearly appear that the relevant subject matter will not involve the interrogation of the witness with respect to those particulars upon which he was examined by interrogatories. 18 In the present case. It is our considered opinion that on the bases of circumstances obtaining in the case at bar. or rendering judgment by default against the disobedient party. The main reason given in support of the contested order is that. nor that whatever the witness knows is protected by the "work product doctrine. however. the first case in which this question was raised. Section 16 of Rule 24 clearly states that it is only upon notice and for good cause shown that the court may order that the deposition shall not be taken. if the deposition were taken. 2.not appealable. otherwise. 3. payment of the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining a court order to compel discovery. or where there is a clear or serious abuse of discretion. The insufficiency of this circumstance to justify the interdiction of the taking of a deposition becomes apparent when we consider that. States Marine Corp. as distinguished from conclusory statements." nor that privileged information or trade secrets will be sought in the course of the examination. the court unquestionably has. Regardless of the development of devices for pre-trial fact investigation. that good cause be shown for a protective order puts the burden on the party seeking relief to show some plainly adequate reasons for the order. it will often be desirable to resort to both interrogatories and depositions in one or the other sequence. It is true that to ensure that availment of the modes of discovery would be untrammeled and efficacious. the allegation that . The requirement. The utmost freedom is allowed in taking depositions. therefore. discretion to permit an oral examination. In Howard v. private respondent failed to sufficiently establish that there is good cause to support the order of the trial court that the deposition shall not be taken. II. Judge Hilbert said that: "Where it develops that examination by interrogatories has been inadequate.

After the case was set for pre-trial. Jr. as we ll as ―Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents‖ relevant to the issue of the case. and Santiago together with the Marcoses for reconveyance. to enable parties. and the stage at which disclosure of evidence is made is advanced from the time of trial to the period preceding it. The Court ruled in favor of the defendant. to the end that the parties may adequately prepare for pre-trial and trial. excepting only those matters which are privileged The first part of petitioner's submission is adequately confuted by Section 1. (b) that the motion has been seasonably filed. (c) that there is good cause shown. The questioned decision of respondent Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Secondly. the petition is GRANTED. it is the precise purpose of discovery to ensure mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts on the part of all parties even before trial. 32 No doubt. it contended that some of the documents are non-existent. their disclosure may not be opposed. accounting." the same shall be "answered . 1989. As to the Motion for the Production and Inspection of Documents. by any officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf. the court ruled that t. Their relevance is indisputable. and (d) that notice of such motion has been served to the other party. As to the ―Motion for Production and Inspections of Documents‖. along with the pre-trial hearing under Rule 20. Orders to protect the party or witness from annoyance. the Court opined that as already pointed out. . harass or oppress the proposed deponent cannot ably support the setting aside of a notice to take deposition. the basis of several of the material allegations of said complaint. 90478 Facts: PCGG filed a complaint against private respondents Tantoco . The only other documents sought to be produced are needed in relation to the allegations of the counterclaim. according to the verification of the amended complaint. Rule 25 which states that if the party served with interrogatories is a juridical entity such as "a public or private corporation or a partnership or association. . the allegation that petitioner merely intended to annoy. 4. The various modes or instruments of discovery are meant to serve (1) as a device. On the bases of the foregoing disquisitions. Sandiganbayan GR no. consistent with recognized privileges. Subsequently. the plaintiff filed an opposition to the pleading contending that the interrogatories are defective because they do not name the particular individuals to whom they are propounded. SO ORDERED. to repeat. Hence. Issue: Whether or not the ―interrogatories to the plaintiff‖ and ―Motion for the Production and Inspection of Documents‖ were in accordance with the Rules of Court as to consider it to be valid HELD: YES. Orders to protect the party or witness from annoyance. 14 of President Corazon Aquino before the Sandiganbayan. Inconvenience to the party whose deposition is to be taken is not a valid objection to the taking of his deposition. and (2) as a device for ascertaining the facts relative to those issues. there is good cause for the production and inspection of the documents subject of the motion dated August 3. restitution and damages. embarrassment or oppression may be issued if the following requirements are complied with: (a) that there is a motion made by any party or by the person to be examined. (b) that the motion has been seasonably filed. The inquiry extends to all facts which are relevant. this petition. private respondent and its representative who is to be examined will be inconvenienced — as are all parties when required to submit to examination — but this is no ground for denial of the deposition-discovery process. amended interrogatories to plaintiff.petitioner merely intended to annoy. Furthermore. this being deemed essential to proper litigation. the plaintiff prayed for the nullity of the pleading contending there is no good cause in the production of the documents sought for. The evident purpose is. Republic vs. we find and so hold that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing an order that the deposition shall not be taken in this case. SP-3469 pending before it. It is matters such as these into which inquiry is precisely allowed by the rules of discovery. and (d) that notice of such motion has been served to the other party. admittedly. reversion. and was avowedly filed pursuant to Executive Order no. and judgment is hereby rendered ORDERING the court a quo to allow herein petitioner to take the deposition upon oral examination of Juanito S. and that respondent court erred in affirming the same. the defendant filed a pleading denominated ―interrogatories to the plaintiff‖. to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trials and thus prevent that said trials are carried on in the dark. contrary to the petitioner's theory. embarrassment or oppression may be issued if the following requirements are complied with: (a) that there is a motion made by any party or by the person to be examined. being only addressed to the PCGG and are the same matters…(private respondents) sought to be clarified through their Bill of Particulars. are to be used in evidence by the plaintiff." As to the second contention. in the absence of proof. WHEREFORE. This is why either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession. harass or oppress the proposed deponent cannot ably support the setting aside of a notice to take deposition. The Court decided in favor of the defendant’s motion. whether they be ultimate or evidentiary. Finally. Teope in and for purposes of Civil Case No. Others. 53 Some of the documents are. (c) that there is good cause shown. to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties. it contended that the interrogatories deal with factual matters which will be part of the PCGG’s proof upon trial.

RTCImus. No. 153667. petitioner.R. FACTS: Spouses Hemedez filed an action for damages against several persons for the death of Dr.] AYALA LAND. N0. Court of Appeals. As this Court has said. August 11. ViedVemir Garcia Hemedez which happened in a dispersal operation during a strike staged by the Union of Filipino Employees on account of alleged unfair labor practices committed by Nestle Philippines.. which shall not be less than ten (10) days after service thereof. February 1. Court of Appeals and in Concrete Aggregates Corporation v. ROGELIO and ELIZA HEMEDEZ. INC. The issue for resolution thus calls for an interpretation of the phrase ―the party to whom the request is directed. . The Court reiterated that ruling in Briboneria v. vs. in his capacity as Presiding Judge. the intended purpose for the rule will certainly be defeated. LUCENITO N.. FACTS: ASB alleged that EMRASON entered into letter-agreement with the former for the conditional sale of a lot. state: SEC. the Court emphasized that the rule on admission as a mode of discovery is intended ―to expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry. Emerito Ramos. and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. – An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears. petitioner. Inc. 2005. Private respondents thus desired the petitioners to admit once again the very matters they had dealt with in their respective answers. 102404. defendants filed a verified answer to the request for admission. vs. Court of Appeals. M. R. within a period designated in the request. 2002 REY LAÑADA. The Hemedez spouses served the defendants a request for admission of truth of the facts set forth in their complaint and the genuiness of each of the documents appended therto. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. Branch 20. INC.‖ Also in Section 23 of Rule 138 provides that ―(a)ttorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing. 2. the matrix upon which the resolution of these petitions rests. if the request for admission only serves to delay the proceedings by abetting redundancy in the pleadings. ASB subsequently received letter from children of EMRASON chairman and president. Implied admission.. respondents. and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client. ASB REALTY CORP. or within such further time as the court may allow on motion and notice. HELD: The provision of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. vs. petitioners. 2002 NESTLE PHILIPPINES. February 1. Moreover. ISSUE: Whether or not an answer to a request for admission signed and sworn to by the counsel of the party so requested is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. HON. Sr.. respondents..‖ This is not the first time that the Court is faced with the issue of whether a party requested to make admissions may reply or answer through his counsel. TAGLE. ALI. as correctly observed by the lower court. informing the former of an existing contract to sell between EMRASON and herein petitioner. (R. [G. 21. the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters. the subject matters of the request for admission are the same as the ultimate facts alleged in the complaint for which private respondents have filed their respective answers. and FRANCIS SANTOS. INC.138) SEC. ROGELIO and ELIZA HEMEDEZ. – Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless. RAMOS & SONS. 102390. respondents. ASB filed complaint.‖ Thus. there is no reason to strictly construe the phrase ―the party to whom the request is directed‖ to refer solely or personally to the petitioners themselves. Through their respective counsel. and in taking appeals. and E. R. ALI filed answer with compulsory counterclaim and crossclaim.‖ Neither is there a showing that petitioners Nestle and Santos did not authorize their respective counsel to file in their behalf the respective answers requested of them by private respondents in the latter’s written request for admission.MARCELO G. G. In PSCFC Financial Corporation v. Authority of attorney to appear. In the latter case.. No.

7)Prevent delay. ISSUES: I. he was freely recollecting and testifying on matters within the ambit of his own personal competence. ALI objected on the ground of on the propriety. 16. The trial court issued its Order setting aside the opposition of ALI and admitting in evidence the deposition of Emerito Ramos. and perceiving. "all persons who can perceive. being the President and Chairman of EMRASON. SR. and merely referring to the letter that he received from Mr. and another letter written by a Victor Manarang to his son. In the same Order. Ramos was not refreshing his memory on a fact or transaction with the aid of memoranda. is not applicable to the case at bench as Atty. plaintiff’s motion was granted. . 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. as contended by petitioner. Fernando Ayala. ASB then filed before the trial court a motion to introduce in evidence the deposition of Emerito Ramos. ALI sought rulings on its objections to leading questions. overruling the others and upholding the propriety of the presentation of evidence made by plaintiff through deposition. In this case. Before this date. 20. before a commissioner. IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE RULES.. died at the age of 92. WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED DEPOSITION OF THE WITNESS EMERITO M. and usually subscribed by the witnesses. rule on presentation of secondary evidence. violations of the best-evidence rule. was already 87 years old and although he was of sound mind there is always the possibility that he may not be able to testify on plaintiff’s behalf in the course of the trial on the merits. Atty. Rules of Court). convenient and inexpensive way. ALI again elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by way of Petition for Review onCertiorari. Indeed.’s deposition chiefly because of his advance age which ground is considered valid and justified under the Rules of Court. can make known their perception to others. The same was thus set on 06 October 1995. In that capacity. ALI filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order setting the hearing of the case for cross-examination. Emerito Ramos. Sr. In its more technical and appropriate sense. opinion rule. Emerito Ramos. Sr. Sr. under oath or affirmation. admissibility and conformity of the deposition proceedings to the Rules. Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit. "Deposition" is sometimes used in a broad sense to describe any written statement verified by oath. ASB then obtained the deposition upon oral examination of Emerito Ramos. fraudulent claims and defenses. Sr. incompetence of the deponent. Emerito Ramos. Sr. 3) Make available in a simple. even if in the course of his testimony. examiner or other judicial officer. ALI filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with urgent application for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunctio to restrain the public respondent. ALI filed a Manifestation and Motion praying that the date set be cancelled and re-scheduled to another date. The trial court ruled on the objections of ALI sustaining some of its objections. however. SC: Petition is denied for lack of merit. Sr. Thereafter. Rule 24 of the Revised Rules of Court stating that Emerito Ramos. 6) Safeguard against surprise. Sec. 2) Provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false. be scheduled. testified on matters of his personal knowledge. and was opposed by ALI. citing Section 4(c). 8) Simplify and narrow the issues. and 9) Expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial. Judge Lucenito Tagle. Rule 130. in answer to interlocutory and cross-interlocutory. RAMOS. Ruled: In the instant case.Plaintiff ASB subsequently filed a Motion for Leave to take testimony by deposition upon oral examination of Emerito Ramos. he carried on negotiations relative to the sale of the Dasmariñas property. he referred to certain documents in court.. Sr. from implementing the Order and to declare null and void and expunging the entire deposition proceedings taken. In the Omnibus Order of the trial court dated 17 October 1994. and testimonies not forming part of the offer. 5) Expedite litigation. 4) Educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses thereby encouraging settlements. The trial court again directed that the crossexamination of Emerito Ramos. put or taken in writing. may be witnesses" (Sec.. The trial court reset the hearing. both letters being now in his possession by reason of his duties as President and Chairman of EMRASON. CA denied. facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty. manner of presentation of evidence. Specifically. Sr. the trial court directed the setting of the cross-examination of the deponent. Jr. the trial court permitted the taking of Emerito Ramos. Rule 132. Rather. Sr. The purposes of taking depositions are to: 1) Give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing perjury. A deposition is the testimony of a witness.

A stenographer was present. as in the case at bar. respondents.It must be noted that the depositions of Emerito Ramos. Inc. taken on the dates earlier mentioned. On the same date. [G. CA decision is affirmed. it filed with the CA a Petition for Prohibition seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Writ until the resolution of the Motion to Quash. Sr. Mario and Peligro attesting that they had not yet received a copy of the Order resolving the Omnibus Motion for New Trial. had led the trial court to declare it in default. and the inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of the law. The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade. FACTS: Respondent-Spouses Suharto and Miriam Sangki Mangudadatu filed with the (RTC) a Complaint for damages against Petitioner Jonathan Landoil International Co. ("JLI"). The petitioner had countered with a Motion to Dismiss. This Court has observed that the trial court has painstakingly gone over every objection of ALI contained in its Motion dated 30 January 1995 and ruled on every single objection in the Order dated 05 May 1995 and these objections were again taken up in the Order of the trial court dated 07 September 1995. Petitioner attached the Affidavits of Attys. 155010. the admissibility of the deposition does not preclude the determination of its probative value at the appropriate time. were substantially made in accordance with the requirements of the Rules. Mario Jr. HELD: (1) First Issue Appreciation of Facts . it is not disputed that the deposition was taken inside the courtroom of the trial court. ISSUES: (1) Whether petitioner received the Order denying its timely filed Motion for New Trial. Peligro -. On the objection of ALI owing to the lack of signature of the deponent. ALI confirmed the taking of deposition on said dates and that it was duly represented by its counsel during the proceedings. before the clerk of court.. petitioner.. 2004. The requirement that the deposition must be examined and signed by the witness is only to ensure that the deponent is afforded the opportunity to correct any errors contained therein and to ensure its accuracy. August 16. Petitioner received a copy of the RTC’s Decision. in its Petition before the Court of Appeals. The RTC issued an Order directing respondents to file their written comment on the Motion to Quash and scheduled the hearing. The parties submitted their respective Pretrial Briefs. On the same day. petitioner received a Sheriff’s Notice. On this point. Jaime L. Spouses SUHARTO MANGUDADATU and MIRIAM SANGKI MANGUDADATU. Its counsels -.R. As to whether the manner by which the deposition was taken faithfully complied with the requirements under the Rules of Court. regarding the public auction sale of its properties.] JONATHAN LANDOIL INTERNATIONAL CO. Petitioner received a copy of a Writ of Execution. it filed its Answer. No. tape recorders and a video camera were even utilized to record the proceedings. and Dioscoro G. Alleging that it had yet to receive a copy of an Order resolving the Omnibus Motion for New Trial. INC. By reason of the immediate threat to implement the Writ of Execution. A deponent’s signature to the deposition is not in all events indispensable since the presence of signature goes primarily to the form of deposition. Trial proceeded without the participation of petitioner. It has been repeatedly held that the deposition – discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment and the liberty of a party to make discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not privileged.. it filed an Omnibus Motion for New Trial and Change of Venue. The admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence.submitted separate withdrawals of appearance. we find no compelling reason to disturb the conclusions arrived at by the trial court. it should be noted that a deposition not signed does not preclude its use during the trial. but when this was denied.. This Motion was deemed submitted for resolution but was eventually denied by the trial court.40 In any event.Attys. vs. (2) Whether the taking of oral depositions was proper under the circumstances. petitioner filed a Motion to Quash/Recall Writ of Execution. the law firm Ong Abad Santos & Meneses filed an Entry of Appearance with Supplement to Motion to Quash/Recall Writ of Execution. In fact. in the presence of all the opposing counsels of record including ALI’s.

It is readily apparent that petitioner is raising factual issues that this Court does not review.. Pacita Tan Go. his presence would have afforded him an opportunity to make a formal withdrawal of appearance. petitioner did not explain why it had failed to file a motion for reconsideration. The Rules of Court does not prohibit the filing of a motion for a new trial despite the availability of a motion for reconsideration. President of LCDC. Petitioner also failed to justify the absence of both its counsels. petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration after the trial court had allowed respondents’ ex parte presentation of evidence. that it did not receive the Order denying its timely filed Motion for New Trial.R. as they would be subject to the counsel’s will. Until their formal withdrawal is granted. The Proper Remedy Under the new Rules. (2) Second Issue The Taking of Depositions The present case involved a circumstance that fell under the Section 4(c)(2) of Rule 23 --the witnesses of petitioner in Metro Manila resided beyond 100 kilometers from Sultan Kudarat. As previously explained. vs.00. the rules of procedure would be rendered meaningless. The RTC did not totally disregard petitioner’s depositions. the defendant’s remedy is a motion for reconsideration. It should have also justified its own absence. Non-Receipt of the Order Petitioner fails to convince us that it has not received the trial court’s Order denying its Motion for New Trial. It may therefore not insist. 2006. The lapse of time it shows the negligence of petitioner and its counsels. Account Officer of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). respondents. No. On this basis.. contrary to the finding of the CA. petitioner failed to prove convincingly its denial of receipt.000. Responsive pleadings were filed and LCDC filed notices to take the depositions of Yu. and YU HE CHING. while Princeton filed notice to take the depositions of Manuel and Janet Ley. March 10. While he could no longer represent petitioner. it had no valid ground to request a new trial. Petitioner has failed to establish its non-receipt of the trial court’s Order denying its Motion for New Trial. An improvident termination of legal services is not an excuse to justify non-appearance at a pretrial.without due cause -. and that Hyatt failed to develop the said property in a joint venture. petitioners. Petitioner offered the depositions in support of its Motion to Quash (the Writ of Execution) and for the purpose of proving that the trial court’s Decision was not yet final. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. a deposition can still be properly taken. Hyatt also filed notice to take deposition of Manuel Ley. the consequence of non-appearance without cause at the pretrial is not for the petitioner to be considered "as in default.is a factor in determining whether to apply the liberality rule in lifting an order that allowed the ex parte presentation of evidence. 147143. despite LCDC's payment of 40% of the pre-construction cost. because the defense has already been laid down in the answer.634. Finance Officer of Hyatt. No compelling reason to disturb the CA s factual findings." To the trial court’s order allowing the ex parte presentation of evidence by the plaintiff. There is a disputable presumption that official duties have been regularly performed." but "to allow the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and [for] the court to render judgment on the basis thereof. Despite their depositions. Atty. Having failed to do so. In the present case. the place of hearing. But the failure to file the latter motion -.against all other evidence -. In its motions and petitions filed with this Court and the lower courts. we have ruled that the postmaster’s certification prevails over the mere denial of a lawyer. and PRINCETON DEVELOPMENT CORP.that its Order denying the Motion for New Trial filed by petitioner had not been received by the latter’s counsels. and Elena Sy. . Otherwise. Fernandez absence from the pretrial was still not excusable. Motion for New Trial Improper The explanation offered by petitioner as regards the absence of its counsel from the pretrial is unacceptable. the trial court considered and weighed -. This rule is applicable here. [G.. petitioner has not satisfactorily shown any. despite the fact that trial has already been terminated. Facts: Ley Construction and Development Corporation (LCDC) filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against petitioner Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation (Hyatt) claiming that Hyatt reneged in its obligation to transfer 40% of the pro indiviso share of a real property in Makati in favor of LCDC despite LCDC's full payment of the purchase price of P2. While the rule admits of exceptions.] HYATT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORP. An affidavit of merit is not required to be attached to such motion. lawyers are deemed to be the representatives of their clients.

i. Hyatt and Princeton filed their respective motions for reconsideration which the CA denied. absent any showing that taking it would prejudice any party. when may be taken. this petition. however. trial courts are directed to issue orders requiring parties to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 45 and request for admission of adverse party under Rule 26 or at their discretion make use of depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rule 27 and 28 within 5 days from the filing of the answer. with leave of court if summons have been served. Issue: Whether the CA erred in remanding the case to the trial court and ordering the deposition-taking to proceed. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Hyatt and Yu prayed that all settings for depositions be disregarded and pre-trial be set instead. by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories. pre-trial proceeded at the RTC as scheduled and with the refusal of LCDC to enter into pre-trial. The rules on discovery should not be unduly restricted. the testimony of any person. otherwise. Since the pertinent incidents of the case took place prior to the effectivity of said issuance.. Rules of Court). Meanwhile. Defendants' counterclaims are likewise dismissed. The parties are likewise required to submit.e. No. Indeed. Depositions pending action. as the filing of the petition was made in good faith in their belief that the court a quo erred in canceling the deposition scheduled for no apparent purpose. It is accorded a broad and liberal treatment and the liberty of a party to make discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not privileged. plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of a subpoena as provided in Rule 21. the importance of discovery procedures is well recognized by the Court. 1. Depositions shall be taken only in accordance with . and provided further that a circumstance for its admissibility exists (Section 4. at least 3 days before the pre-trial. such is a legitimate justification to stall the pretrial conference. It approved A. and provided it is taken in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court. LCDC filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied however by the trial court. Hyatt. at the instance of any party. the advantage of a liberal discovery procedure in ascertaining the truth and expediting the disposal of litigation would be defeated. may be taken. Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which expressly sanctions depositions as a mode of discovery without leave of court after the answer has been served. whether a party or not. LCDC went to the CA on appeal. 03-1-09-SC on July 13. 2004 which provided for the guidelines to be observed by trial court judges and clerks of court in the conduct of pre-trial and use of deposition-discovery measures. Held: CA was correct in remanding the case to the RTC and ordering the deposition-taking to proceed. and without such leave if an answer has been submitted.The RTC ordered the deposition-taking to proceed. 03-1-09-SC. consistent with the principle of promoting just. For failure of LCDC to enter into pre-trial conference without any valid reason. or without such leave after an answer has been served. The RTC agreed and on the same day ordered all depositions cancelled and pre-trial to take place. to unduly restrict the modes of discovery during trial would defeat the very purpose for which it is intended which is a pretrial device. Under A. pre-trial briefs. that the trial court also erred in dismissing the complaint as LCDC appeared during the pre-trial conference and notified it of the filing of a petition before the CA. The CA reasoned that: LCDC complied with Section 1. LCDC moved to suspend pre-trial conference alleging pendency of a petition with the Court of Appeals and made it plain that it cannot proceed with the pre-trial because the issue on whether or not plaintiff may apply for depositions before the pre-trial conference is a prejudicial question. Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Court which provides as follows: SECTION 1. Rule 23.M.M. A deposition should be allowed. containing among others a manifestation of the parties of their having availed or their intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners. particularly Sec. Yu and Princeton moved to declare LCDC non-suited which the RTC granted. — By leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is the subject of the action. Hence. and the inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of law. the depositions sought by LCDC shall be evaluated based on the jurisprudence and rules then prevailing. No. CA remanded LCDC’s case to the court a quo for further hearing and directing the latter to allow the deposition taking without delay. contending that the taking of depositions only delay the resolution of the case. It is allowed as a departure from the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open court where their demeanor could be observed by the trial judge.

The deposition-discovery procedure simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding it. not only those known to them individually. LCDC complied with the above quoted provision as it made its notice to take depositions after the answers of the defendants have been served. or oppress the person who is the subject of the inquiry. As correctly observed by the CA. The case of Fortune Corp. But the same reason cannot be successfully invoked to prohibit the taking of his deposition. explained that: The availability of the proposed deponent to testify in court does not constitute "good cause" to justify the court's order that his deposition shall not be taken. and (2) as a device for ascertaining the facts relative to those issues. Indeed. Sandiganbayan : What is chiefly contemplated is the discovery of every bit of information which may be useful in the preparation for trial. is also without merit. such circumstances. The experience in other jurisdictions has been the ample discovery before trial.these Rules. Records also show that the delay of the case is not attributable to the depositions sought by LCDC but was caused by the many pleadings filed by all the parties including petitioners herein. such as the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts. No longer can the time-honored cry of 'fishing expedition' serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent's case. To that end. in Republic v. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. restrictions are imposed upon their use. The RTC cites the delay in the case as reason for canceling the scheduled depositions. in other words. through a meticulous and comprehensive evaluation of the merits of the case. The deposition of a person confined in prison may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes. On this point. while the use at the trial is subject to circumscriptions looking toward the use of oral testimony wherever practicable. . the primary function of which is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of disclosing the real matters of dispute between the parties and affording an adequate factual basis during the preparation for trial. The utmost freedom is allowed in taking depositions. for the ends of justice are reached not only through the speedy disposal of cases but more importantly. Hence. Accordingly. but also requires parties to play the game with the cards on the table so that the possibility of fair settlement before trial is measurably increased. Further. those relevant facts themselves. no limitations other than relevancy and privilege have been placed on the taking of depositions. along with the pre-trial hearing under Rule 20. LCDC having complied with the rules then prevailing. custody. While it is true that depositions may be disallowed by trial courts if the examination is conducted in bad faith. the deposition serves the double function of a method of discovery — with use on trial not necessarily contemplated — and a method of presenting testimony. The argument that the taking of depositions would cause unnecessary duplicity as the intended deponents shall also be called as witnesses during trial. and the existence. condition. Such of this testimony as may be appropriate for use as a substitute for viva voce examination may be introduced at the trial. the desideratum is that civil trials should not be carried on in the dark. embarrass. "the deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment. The various modes or instruments of discovery are meant to serve (1) as a device. of surprise. or in such a manner as to annoy. thus reducing the possibility. . While speedy disposition of cases is important. The right to take statements and the right to use them in court have been kept entirely distinct. the trial court erred in canceling the previously scheduled depositions. documents. v. Sandiganbayan the Court explained that: The truth is that "evidentiary matters" may be inquired into and learned by the parties before the trial. or other tangible things. either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession. it is well to reiterate the Court's pronouncement in Republic v. having served its purpose in revealing the facts to the parties before trial. [U]nder the concept adopted by the new Rules. Court of Appeals 46 which already settled the matter. under proper regulation. As a result. (Emphasis supplied). there is accorded the widest possible opportunity for knowledge by both parties of all the facts before the trial. . That the witness is unable to attend or testify is one of the grounds when the deposition of a witness may be used in court during the trial. but also those known to their adversaries. accomplished one of the most necessary ends of modern procedure. the deposition-discovery procedure was designed to remedy the conceded inadequacy and cumbersomeness of the pre-trial functions of notice-giving. . description. issue-formulation and fact revelation theretofore performed primarily by the pleadings. such consideration however should not outweigh a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of cases.discovery mechanism set forth in Rules 24 to 29. it not only eliminates unessential issues from trials thereby shortening them considerably. As just intimated. or when the inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches upon the recognized domains of privilege. and location of any books. drops out of the judicial picture. nature. it is the purpose and policy of the law that the parties — before the trial if not indeed even before the pre-trial — should discover or inform themselves of all the facts relevant to the action. Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery. the remainder of the testimony. and the Rules of Court make this ideal possible through the deposition. to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties. however are absent in the case at bar.

The evident purpose is. Ricardo and Jonathan. In this case. Siton's undercover work came to an abrupt when members of SGt. While Rule 115. CARIAGA. Upon appeal. No. Considering the foregoing. (DLPC) Service Truck 'S-143'. – The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify. LCDC will be forced to prosecute its case in the dark — the very situation which the rules of discovery seek to prevent. consistent with recognized privileges. to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that said trials are carried on in the dark. Thus. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and DAVAO LIGHT and POWER CO. G. Canuto's testimony was overhauled and corrected to meet the crisis created by eyewitness Ricardo's non-appearance in court. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased. unavailable or otherwise unable to testify.R. Respondent. 2001 JONATHAN D. involving the same parties and subject matter. Inc. which was attached to respondent's position paper in the labor case filed by Jonathan against DLPC for illegal dismissal. to enable the parties. Indeed. herein petitioner. According to petitioner. ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the sworn statement of Ricardo attached to DLPC's position paper in the labor case filed by Jonathan against the latter for illegal dismissal is admissible to the current case. 47. vs. the prosecution submitted the sworn statement of Ricardo. Without such information before pretrial. COURT OF APPEALS. who offered to supply Canuto with electrical materials. Canuto struck an acquaintance with one Ricardo Cariaga. petitioner. hired one Florencio Siton under pseudonym 'Canuto Duran' as its undercover agent to investigate such matter. it reasoned out that the sworn statement of Ricardo who did not testify in open court during the criminal proceedings against petitioner is admissible in evidence and properly considered by the trial court as this was annexed as part of DLPC's position paper submitted to the National Labor Relations Commission in the labor case. judicial or administrative. Rule 115 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure allows the admission of the testimony. to repeat. given in another case or proceeding. DLPC. Though ection 47. judicial or . The petitioner opposed the admission in evidence of the sworn statement of Ricardo for failure to present Ricardo as witness hence. FACTS: Jonathan Cariaga. Series of transaction took place between Canuto. Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence and Section 1(f). Villlasis' team of the Theft & robbery Section apprehended Canuto. the information sought to be obtained through the depositions of Elena and Pacita are necessary to fully equip LCDC in determining what issues will be defined at the pre-trial. The RTC ruled in favor of DLPC contending that the statements in the extrajudicial confessions of Ricardo Cariaga implicative of the accused as the source of the stolen articles. Rights of accused at the trial.. as an exception to the hearsay rule under Section 47. may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him. As a result. was the assigned driver of Davao Light & Power Company. The petitioner also argues that the testimony Canuto was not credible because it is allegedly inconsistent in very material and pivotal details from the sworn statement he made at the police station. and supplies kept in his truck for emergency operations at night. corroborated by Siton's testimony and the police records are formidable compared to the mere puny denial of the accused. But during the trail the prosecution was unable to present Ricardo as its witness as the subpoena could not be personally served upon him as he was in Sultan Kudarat four (4) hours drive from Davao City and the date of his return was not certain. Ricardo and a certain Sergio Jimero confessed to teir as fence for Jonathan. out of or cannot with due diligence be found in the Philippines. saying that he has a cousin (Jonathan) from whom he can procure the same. Section 47 of Rule 130 reads: SEC. respondents. Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. the rules on discovery seek to make trial less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent. a complaint filed by the accused for illegal dismissal. RULING: The court ruled that the sworn statement of Ricardo is inadmissble to the case. the accused shall be entitled: f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. the Court finds that the CA was correct in remanding the case to the trial court and ordering the depositions to proceed. but the court emphasized that this rule must be strictly complied with in criminal cases. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. Canuto confessed in order to persuade Ricardo and the others involved to likewise come out with the truth. Section 1(f) of the Rules of Court in respect of the admissibility in evidence in a criminal case of the previous testimony of unavailable witnesses provides: Section 1. – In all criminal prosecutions. equipments. given in a former case or proceeding. inadmissible. the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Jonathan has been stealing electrical materials. 143561 June 6. (2) Whether or not the material inconsistency between the testimony of Canuto and his sworn statement made at the police station affects his credibility.

• The use of discovery procedures is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Neither is it shown in this petition that they know. In fact. With regards to the second issue. which are usually taken ex parte. respondent filed a motion to take testimony by oral deposition of five additional witnesses all located in America. a sworn statement taken ex parte is generally considered to be inferior to a testimony given in open court as the latter is subject to the test of cross examination. — The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. Power of the court to stop further evidence. On this score alone. it bears stressing that under Section 6.administrative. . • Under the circumstances. the trial judge acted in a biased. the sworn statement of Ricardo Cariaga should not have been admitted as evidence for the prosecution. in addition the trial judge who sees and hears witnesses testify has exceptional opportunities to form a correct conclusion as to the degree of credit which should be accorded their testimonies. Issue: • WON the trial judge gravely abused her discretion in denying the motion to take testimony by oral deposition of additional witnesses located outside the country Ruling: • A circumspect scrutiny of the record discloses that the evidence to be obtained through the depositiontaking would be superfluous or corroborative at best. • During the course of the proceeding of the trial court. In this regard. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court: "SECTION 6. 4 & 5 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court. can this witness be categorized as one that cannot be found despite due diligence. of their own personal knowledge. the court ruled that the testimony of Canuto is still credible. There is no rule of evidence to the effect that omission of certain particulars in a sworn statement would estop an affiant from making an elaboration thereof or from correcting inaccuracies during the trial. no efforts were exerted to have the witness arrested which is a remedy available to a party-litigant in instances where witnesses who are duly subpoenaed fail to appear. unavailable or unable to testify. Discretion has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and in consonance with the spirit of the law. • The trial court denied the motion on the ground that it is not allowed by Sec. a person whom they can identify as the respondent-accused who was actually present in the United States and not in the Philippines on the specified dates. Webb GR 132577 / August 17. a mere four hours drive from Davao City. There is no showing or allegation that the American public officers and the bicycle store owner can identify respondent Hubert Webb as the very person mentioned in the public and private documents. • Respondent assailed the trial court decision which was eventually reversed by the CA. based witnesses would be merely corroborative or cumulative in nature and in denying respondent's motion to take them. Indeed. The records reveal that witness Ricardo Cariaga was subpoenaed only once and did not appear to testify in the criminal case against petitioner. 1999 Facts: • Respondent is one of the accused in a rape with homicide case pending before the RTC. the trial court was but exercising its judgment on what it perceived to be a superfluous exercise on the belief that the introduction thereof will not reasonably add to the persuasiveness of the evidence already on record. 4. The court was inclined to rule in the negative and reverse the Court of Appeals on this point. Mere sending of subpoena and failure to appear is not sufficient to prove inability to testify. But this power should be exercised with caution. The Court must exercise its coercive power to arrest." • Needless to state. The rule has always been that the contradictions between the contents of an affiant's affidavit and his testimony on the witness stand do not always militate against the witness' credibility because the court have long taken judicial notice that affidavits. Against this backdrop. People vs.S. the trial court can not be faulted with lack of caution in denying respondent's motion considering that under the prevailing facts of the case. the adverse party having had the opportunity to cross-examine him. arbitrary. Concededly. are often incomplete and inaccurate. • It need not be overemphasized that the foregoing factual circumstances only serves to underscore the immutable fact that the depositions proposed to be taken from the five U. involving the same parties and subject matter. The deposition taking cannot be based nor can it be denied on flimsy reasons. respondent had more than ample opportunity to adduce evidence in his defense. Rule 24 and Sec. this witness was not deceased or out of the Philippines. he was in Sultan Kudarat which is in Cotabato. A careful examination of exhibits ―218‖ and ―219‖ readily shows that these are of the same species of documents which have been previously introduced and admitted into evidence by the trial court. capricious or oppressive manner. • Petitioner then elevated the case to the SC hence this petition for review on certiorari. We sustain the proposition that the trial judge commits no grave abuse of discretion if she decides that the evidence on the matter sought to be proved in the United States could not possibly add anything substantial to the defense evidence involved. In the instant case. There is no indication in this case that in denying the motion of respondent-accused.

The trial court denied the motion.. filed a Motion to Take Testimony by Oral Deposition. in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Pasig City. Before any responsive pleading could be filed. Rule 23. The use of discovery procedures is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. depositions may be used without the deponent being called to the witness stand by the proponent.Pasig City.S. But as jurisprudence teaches. . or (4) that the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena. they are generally not meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness. Five (5) exceptions for the admissibility of a deposition are listed in Section 4. in the taking of the deposition. Whether or not the petitioner in cross-examining the deponent during the taking of his deposition waived any and all objections in connection therewith. Further. In fine. 4. to allow the deposition to be used. and his motion for reconsideration having been denied by the court.R. it matters not that opportunity for cross-examination was afforded during the taking of the deposition. the Court found no indication of grave abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion. therefore. driver of the vehicle involved in the accident which ultimately caused the death of respondent’s son. may be opposed and excluded on the ground of hearsay. infirmity. were not complied with. In participating. No. The trial court admitted. 2. The only reason why respondent was seeking the deposition of the foreign witnesses was to foreclose any objection to the admissibility of two defense exhibits which had already been admitted. respondent Cyril A. respondent.. G. Atty. petitioner went on certiorari to the Court of Appeals. who even lengthily cross examined the deponent. of the Rules of Court. petitioner did not assume inconsistent positions. RTC. Whether or not the requirements of Section 4. among others. Among these is when the witness is out of the Philippines. may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: (1) that the witness is dead. . the act of crossexamining the deponent during the taking of the deposition cannot.At the trial . that such exception circumstances exist and with due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court. the opportunity for cross-examination must be accorded a party at the time the testimonial evidence is actually presented against him during the trial or hearing. before the proper Philippine consular authorities. Here. the deposition on oral examination of Buaneres Corral was taken before the Clerk of Court of Pasig. whether or not a party. may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof. sickness. but was also denied. Elbert. On December 27. vs. Use of depositions. any deposition offered during a trial to prove the facts therein set out. without more. herein petitioner Jowel Sales. among other evidence. for normally. as plaintiff a quo. . Roldan Villacorta. in accordance with any of the following provisions: (c) The deposition of a witness. an accused in the crime of Rape with Homicide. Respondent. petitioner opposed the admission and even asked that they be expunged from the records on the ground that the jurisdictional requirements for their admission under Section 4. Upon conclusion of her evidentiary presentation.• Petition granted. or imprisonment. in the presence and with the active participation of petitioner’s counsel. CYRIL A. provided the existence of certain conditions is first satisfactorily established. to take the testimonies of some vital witnesses residing in the U. notified the defendants that he will take the deposition of one Buaneres Corral before the Clerk of Court. ISSUE: 1. or is out of the Philippines. However. or (3) that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age. Stated a bit differently. unless it appears that his absence was procured by the party offering the deposition. respondent made a Formal Offer of Exhibits. 133154 December 9. be considered a waiver of the right to object to its admissibility as evidence in the trial proper. Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. but objecting to its admissibility in court as evidence. Rule 24 (now Section 3) of the Revised Rules of Court were satisfied by the respondent when it presented a certification attesting to the fact that deponent has left the country but silent as to whether or not at the time his deposition was offered in evidence is in the Philippines 2. any part or all of a deposition. 1995 and resumed on January 3. the evidence sought to be obtained through the deposition-taking would be superfluous as there are exhibits of the same species previously introduced and admitted in evidence by the trial court. in lieu of the actual oral testimony of the deponent in open court. so far as admissible under the rules of evidence. SABINO. While depositions may be used as evidence in court proceedings. 1995. or (5) upon application and notice. but the Court of Appeals allowed the same. a deposition is not to be used when the deponent is at hand. Petitioner. the same would be merely corroborative or cumulative in nature and will not reasonably add to the persuasiveness of the evidence already in hand. Sabino filed an amended complaint for damages against. SYNOPSIS Webb. Indeed. 1996. Metro Manila. or (2) that the witness resides at a distance more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial or hearing. 2005 JOWEL SALES. SEC. Hence. FACTS: On February 20. HELD: 1.

and (3) that petitioners sent demand letters on November 28. the Regional Trial Court held that there was an implied admission by the respondent spouses of the allegations in the request for admission.00 and P432. And that his wife sold the house to Mag-isa without authority. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Salvador D. SPOUSES EDNA BONIFACIO and ENRICO BONIFACIO. In such cases. cannot be deemed to have admitted the facts and documents subject of the request for admission [G. ENRICO BONIFACIO and DRA. 1987. assisted by her husband. (2) that respondent Edna Bonifacio executed promissory notes in favor of petitioners acknowledging therein her indebtedness to them in the amount of P270. estopped from challenging the admissibility of the deposition just because he participated in the taking thereof. respondents filed their answer denying in part and admitting in part the request for admission. SPS. the request for admission must be served directly upon the party. . Rule 13 of the Rules of Court is that all notices must be served upon counsel and not upon party. filed a complaint for Annulment of Document and Damages against private respondent Gertrudes B. July 2. COURT OF APPEALS. that notwithstanding repeated demands. Mag-isa. However. Briboneria. The appellate court also held that there was no service of the request for admission on respondent spouses as required by the Rule. ISSUE: Is respondent deemed to have impliedly admitted the material and relevant facts? Was there a valid service of request for admission? HELD: The material matters and documents set forth in the request for admission are the same as those set forth in the complaint which private respondents either admitted or denied in their answer. petitioner. Moreover. This is so because the attorney of a party is the agent of the party and is the one responsible for the conduct of the case in all its procedural aspects. thus. On appeal. notice to counsel is notice to party. as plaintiff. 125383. Hence. petitioners filed a Request for Admission and furnished to counsel for respondent spouses specifically requesting the admission of three things: (1) that respondent spouses negotiated with petitioners for valuable consideration certain checks. A party should not be compelled to admit matters of fact already admitted by his pleading and concerning which there is no issue. nor should he be required to make a second denial of those already denied in his answer to the complaint. COURT OF APPEALS.000. She. The purpose of the rule is obviously to maintain a uniform procedure calculated to place in competent hands the orderly prosecution of a party's case. respondents refused and continued to refuse to honor said checks or replace it with cash.] FORTUNATA N. After more than 10 days. service must be made directly upon the person mentioned in the law and upon no other in order that the notice be valid. Mag-isa. EDNA BONIFACIO. In their Answers. Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the Answer to Request for Admission was filed by private respondents beyond the 10 day period fixed in the request and that the answer was not under oath. therefore. Thereafter. He was then denied use and enjoyment of his properties which caused him mental anguish and sleepless nights. the Court of Appeals vacated and set aside the decision of the trial court ruling that the matters of which admission by the respondent spouses was being sought in the petitioners' separate requests for admission pertained to those already denied by the former in their respective Answers to the two Complaints filed against them. At some time. Thereafter. VALENZUELA.00. Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. this petition. ABELARDO VALENZUELA. filed her answer admitting in part and denying in part of the alleged facts set forth in the complaint. petitioner served on the counsel of respondent a request for admission. For failure of the respondent spouses to respond to the aforementioned request. hence.He is not. No. the respondent spouses specifically denied petitioners' allegations in the complaints. vs. the same were dishonored. DUQUE. petitioner. consequently the private respondents are deemed to have admitted the material facts and documents.000. He alleged that he acquired a parcel of land through his hard-earned salaries abroad in which he built a residential house. The general rule as provided for under Section 2. vs. BRIBONERIA V. respondents. MARCOSA D. 2002. in due time. Facts: Petitioners Duque and Valenzuela separately filed a complaint against respondent spouses Enrico and Edna Bonifacio alleging that respondents spouses Enrico and Edna Bonifacio negotiated with her certain checks in exchange for cash but upon presentation of the checks on their respective dates of maturity. respondents. the general rule cannot apply where the law expressly provides that notice must be served upon a definite person. the trial court ruled in favor of petitioners. that. 1987 which respondent spouses allegedly received on December 5. under Section 1.R.

Held: First Issue: The prevailing rule in 1988 at the time when the request for admission was made is Rule 26 of the Revised Rules of Court. a party may serve upon any other party 20 a written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any relevant documents described in and exhibited with the request or of the truth of any relevant matters of fact set forth in the request. Clearly therefrom. In the present case.00) and to plaintiff Marcosa Valenzuela in the sum of Four Hundred Thirty Two Thousand Pesos (P432. if the request for admission only serves to delay the proceeding by abetting redundancy in the pleadings. Request for admission — At any time after issues have been joined. 1987 acknowledging that she is indebted to plaintiff Fortunata Duque in the sum of Two Hundred Seventy Thousand Pesos (P270. However. The request for admission pertains to promissory notes while the allegation quoted by the appellate court simply refers to the amount allegedly owed by the respondents. The appellate court held that the allegation of the private respondents in their Answers that "they do not owe that much" is sufficient and does not necessitate a reply to the admission. The first matter sought to be admitted by the petitioners pertains to the checks supposedly negotiated by the respondents to the plaintiffs. . the intended purpose for the rule will certainly be defeated. second. that the plaintiffs in the two (2) cases sent letters of demand commonly dated November 28. within a period designated in the request. Implied admission — Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless. or within such further time as the court may allow on motion and notice. Unless it serves that purpose.000. 'pointless. both dated November 23. 2. it is. Bonifacio signed separate promissory notes. As correctly observed by the appellate court.00). the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.00). However. which shall not be less than ten (10) days after service thereof. A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting party's pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact. not to the promissory notes which in the first place were not mentioned in the Complaint of petitioners.000. and third. . . As expounded by this Court in Po vs. . or documents described in and exhibited with the request. The corresponding denial thereof by the respondents in their Answer reads: . . to wit: . 1987. whose purpose is to establish said party's cause of action or defense.000. "Objections on the ground of irrelevancy or impropriety of the matter requested shall be promptly submitted to the court for resolution. that defendant Edna N. that respondents negotiated with the plaintiffs for valuable consideration the checks annexed to the respective complaints. . 1. nor should he be required to make a second denial of those already denied in his answer to the complaint. useless' and 'a mere redundancy. petitioners requested the admission of three things: first. 1987 which the latter received on December 5. To this we disagree.000. we find no cogent reason to deviate from the observations of the Court of Appeals that the request for admission regarding the alleged promissory notes is defective for failure of petitioners to attach copies of said notes to the request for admission. (2) whether or not there was personal service of the request on private respondents.Issues: (1) whether or not the failure of the private respondents to respond to the request for admission by the petitioners is tantamount to an implied admission under Sections 1 and 2.' Second Issue: On the second matter requested.00) and Four Hundred Thirty Two Thousand Pesos (P432." This particular Rule seeks to obtain admissions from the adverse party regarding the genuineness of relevant documents or relevant matters of fact through requests for admissions to enable a party to discover the evidence of the adverse side thereby facilitating an amicable settlement of the case or expediting the trial of the same. which provides: "Sec. Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the request unless copies have already been furnished. Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. as correctly observed by the Court of Appeals. to require an admission on this point even though it was already denied in the Answer would be superfluous. "Sec. Court of Appeals: "A party should not be compelled to admit matters of fact already admitted by his pleading and concerning which there is no issue. petitioners sought the admission of respondents that Edna Bonifacio executed promissory notes in favor of the petitioners acknowledging therein her indebtedness to them in the amount of Two Hundred Seventy Thousand Pesos (P270. these are the same checks referred to and annexed in the Complaint. and that private respondents were not previously furnished copies of the same.

" Consequently. December 13. respondent delivered and sold to petitioner sundry goods in trade. petitioner alleged that when the purported fraud was discovered. Hence.. Under the contracts. 2007. (b) Thixohtropic Grease and Di-Electric Strength Protective Coating. This is so because the attorney of a party is the agent of the party and is the one responsible for the conduct of the case in all its procedural aspects. service on the counsel would be sufficient.864.94. Alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. Jr. The RTC gave credence to respondent's reasoning. whereby the parties agreed that respondent would return to petitioner the amount it previously paid. As elucidated by the Court in the Briboneria case: "The general rule as provided for under Section 2 of Rule 27 ( now Section 2.00 by respondent for its previous sale of four items.Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements under Section 1 of Rule 26 which provides that a party may 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. their requests do not show that there was indeed such previous or simultaneous service of the said documents on the petitioners.R. On various dates. vs. No. the requests for admission made by the petitioners were not validly served and therefore. On the other hand. In its Answer. Respondent sought reconsideration of the foregoing Order. which later became the subject of respondent's Complaint for Collection of a Sum of Money against petitioner. Said items were misrepresented by respondent as belonging to a new line. PENNSWELL. Atty. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. and (c) Dry Lubricant and Anti-Seize Compound. Inc. RTC granted the petition. Moreover. Rule 13) of the Rules of Court is that all notices must be served upon counsel and not upon the party.864. identical with products petitioner had previously purchased from respondent. private respondents cannot be deemed to have admitted the truth of the matters upon which admissions were requested. service must be made directly upon the person mentioned in the law and upon no other in order that the notice be valid. petitioner contended that its refusal to pay was not without valid and justifiable reasons. 172835. However.98 with interest at 14% per annum until the amount would be fully paid. petitioner alleged that it was defrauded in the amount of P592. respondent. petitioner was surprised when it received a letter from the respondent. and that copies of the documents should be delivered with the request unless copies have already been furnished. hence. However. petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals. petitioner. was organized to engage in the business of manufacturing and selling industrial chemicals. the general rule cannot apply where the law expressly provides that notice must be served upon a definite person. and reversed itself. 11 It appears that petitioner had earlier requested the Philippine Institute of Pure and Applied Chemistry (PIPAC) for the latter to conduct a comparison of respondent's goods. Domingo. In particular.G. respondent filed a Complaint for a Sum of Money. The petitioners claim that respondents were personally served requests for admission as required by the Rules. For failure of the petitioner to comply with its obligation under said contracts. but were in truth and in fact. respondent Pennswell. The purpose of the rule is obviously to maintain a uniform procedure calculated to place in competent hands the orderly prosecution of a party's case. FACTS: Petitioner Air Philippines Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of air transportation services. This is not sufficient compliance with the Rules. Thus. and that granting that they were not. solvents. Records show that only the counsel of the respondents. a conference was held between petitioner and respondent. to wit: (a) Contact Grease and Connector Grease. was furnished copies of the requests. INC. petitioner filed a Motion to Compel 10 respondent to give a detailed list of the ingredients and chemical components of the following products. contending that it cannot be compelled to disclose the chemical components sought because the matter is confidential and would constitute as a trade secret which respondent cannot be forced to divulge. notice to counsel is notice to party. [G. demanding payment of the amount of P449. Except for the bare allegation of the petitioners that they also furnished private respondents said promissory notes.000. and special lubricants. H.] AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION. this petition. the summary judgment rendered by the RTC has no legal basis to support it. During the pendency of the trial. petitioner's total outstanding obligation amounted to P449. . In such cases. which denied the Petition and affirmed the Order.

alkalies. the rules providing for production and inspection of books and papers do not authorize the production or inspection of privileged matter. sell or otherwise dispose of goods. and to place it at an undue disadvantage. wares. If the chemical compositions of respondent’s lubricants are opened to public scrutiny. products. RULING: Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. Section 24 of Rule 130 draws the types of disqualification by reason of privileged communication. (b) communication between attorney and client. . (c) communication between physician and patient. What it had achieved by virtue of its investments may not be wrested from respondent on the mere pretext that it is necessary for petitioner's defense against a collection for a sum of money. photographs. not privileged. could not be received in evidence.  Section 1. however. research. This would result in nothing less than the probable demise of respondent's business. By and large. or (b) order any party to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting. papers. or photographing the property or any designated relevant object or operation thereon. Supreme Court’s conclusion is that the detailed ingredients sought to be revealed have a commercial value to respondent. they also find that there is clearly a glaring intent on the part of respondent to keep the information confidential and not available to the prying public. of any designated documents. merchandise. Not only do the SC acknowledge the fact that the information grants it a competitive advantage. It is clear that the manufacture and production of respondent's products proceed from a formulation of a secret list of ingredients. accounts. by or on behalf of the moving party. (b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted. it will stand to lose the backbone on which its business is founded. accounts. lubricants. Rule 27 sets an unequivocal proviso that the documents. Among them are the following: (a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news. Its entire provision reads: SECTION 1. measuring. paints. In the creation of its lubricants. solvents. (d) information contained in tax census returns. books and papers which. colors. the information is also valuable to respondent's competitors. The documents must not be privileged against disclosure. The ingredients constitute the very fabric of respondent's production and business. including but not limited to industrial chemicals. objects or tangible things that may be produced and inspected should not be privileged. other privileged matters that are not mentioned by Rule 130. On the ground of public policy. No doubt. oils. varnishes. place and manner of making the inspection and taking copies and photographs. the court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing. pigments and similar preparations. custody or control. and (d) bank deposits. letters. (c) trade secrets. Such a condition is in addition to the requisite that the items be specifically described. distribute. Rule 27 of the Rules of Court. respondent expended efforts. (d) communication between priest and penitent. among others. letters. that is. — Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefore. because of their confidential and privileged character. which permits parties to inspect documents or things upon a showing of good cause before the court in which an action is pending. salts. papers. There are.  The chemical composition. Motion for production or inspection order. and must constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in the party's possession.ISSUE: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT UPHELD THE RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE CHEMICAL COMPONENTS OR INGREDIENTS OF RESPONDENT'S PRODUCTS ARE TRADE SECRETS OR INDUSTRIAL SECRETS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO COMPULSORY DISCLOSURE. To compel its disclosure is to cripple respondent's business. surveying. books. and ingredients of respondent's special lubricants are trade secrets within the contemplation of the law. photographs. and (e) public officers and public interest. The order shall specify the time. which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession. objects or tangible things. and resources. the value of the information to respondent is crystal clear. custody or control. Respondent was established to engage in the business of general manufacturing and selling of. skills. and to deal in. to wit: (a) communication between husband and wife. books. formulation. Respondent's proprietary interest over the ingredients which it had developed and expended money and effort on is incontrovertible. acids. and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.

It speeds up transfer of technology and industrialization. this Court has declared that trade secrets and banking transactions are among the recognized restrictions to the right of the people to information as embodied in the Constitution. the protection of industrial secrets is inextricably linked to the advancement of our economy and fosters healthy competition in trade. Clearly. The privilege is not absolute.SC ruled against the petitioner and affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals which upheld the finding of the RTC that there is substantial basis for respondent to seek protection of the law for its proprietary rights over the detailed chemical composition of its products. the SC finds reason to except respondent's trade secrets from the application of the rule on privilege. Jurisprudence has consistently acknowledged the private character of trade secrets. The revelation of respondent's trade secrets serves no better purpose to the disposition of the main case pending with the RTC. the Supreme Court has ruled that all agreements concerning intellectual property are intimately connected with economic development. Foremost. the Court has declared that intellectual and industrial property rights cases are not simple property cases. Verily. However. which is on the collection of a sum of money. and thereby brings about social and economic progress. in accordance with our statutory laws. Without limiting such industrial property rights to trademarks and trade names. There is a privilege not to disclose one's trade secrets. . the trial court may compel disclosure where it is indispensable for doing justice. The protection of industrial property encourages investments in new ideas and inventions and stimulates creative efforts for the satisfaction of human needs.