VOL.

466, AUGUST 11, 2005 521

Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle

*
G.R. No. 153667. August 11, 2005.

AYALA LAND, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. LUCENITO N.

TAGLE, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC-Imus,
Branch 20, ASB REALTY CORP., and E.M. RAMOS &
SONS, INC., respondents.

Actions; Modes of Discovery; Depositions; Purposes; Words and

Phrases; The term deposition is sometimes used in a broad sense to
describe any written statement verified by oath but 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.
As defined, the term deposition is sometimes used in a broad
sense to describe any written statement verified by oath. 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.
A deposition is the testimony of a witness, put or taken in writing,
under oath or affirmation, before a commissioner, examiner or other
judicial officer, in answer to interlocutory and cross-interlocutory,
and usually subscribed by the witnesses. [A]nd the purposes of
taking depositions are to: 1) Give greater assistance to the parties
in

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

522

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle

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.
Same; Same; Same; 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; Depositions may be taken at anytime after the institution of
any action, whenever necessary or convenient.In the case of
Jonathan Landoil International Co., Inc. v. Mangudadatu, this
Court instructs: . . . 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. The liberty of a party to avail itself of this procedure, as an
attribute of discovery, is well-nigh unrestricted if the matters
inquired into are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the
inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of the law.
Depositions may be taken at anytime after the institution of any
action, whenever necessary or convenient.
Same; Same; Same; Evidence; A deposition not signed does not
preclude its use during the trial; The admissibility of evidence
should not be equated with weight of evidencethe 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.On the objection of ALI owing to the lack
of signature of the deponent, it should be noted that a deposition
not signed does not preclude its use during the trial. 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 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. In any

523

VOL. 466, AUGUST 11, 2005 523

 Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle

event, the admissibility of the deposition does not preclude the

determination of its probative value at the appropriate time. The
admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of
evidence. 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.
Same; Same; Same; 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, and the inquiry is made in
good faith and within the bounds of the law.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. On this point, we find no compelling
reason to disturb the conclusions arrived at by the trial court. 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, and the inquiry is
made in good faith and within the bounds of the law, as in the case
at bar.
Same; Same; Same; Due Process; Cross-Examination; The right
of cross-examination is a personal one which may be waived by
conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right, thus, where a
party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed
to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-
examine.The second and third issues raised by ALI are that it
was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent
consequently resulting in its denial of due process. The records
reveal that ALI was given more than enough opportunity to cross-
examine the deponent and its failure to exercise such right is solely
attributable to its own inaction. At this instance, ALI cannot feign
prejudice and denial of due process. As echoed in several cases, due
process is, in essence, simply an opportunity to be heard. The right
to cross-examine is not an absolute one which a party can demand
at all times. The right is a personal one which may be waived by
conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-
examination, thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-
examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily
forfeits the right to cross-examine.

524
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar for petitioner.
Teodoro L. Regala, Jr. and Patricia Tismans-Clemente
for ASB Realty Corp. & E.M. Ramos & Sons, Inc.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Civil Case No. 931-94 for nullification of Contract to Sell

Real Properties, Cancellation of Annotations on Transfer
Certificates of Title and Damages was filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite City, by ASB Realty
Corporation (ASB) and E. M. Ramos and Sons, Inc.
(EMRASON) against 1
Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI), Emerito B.
Ramos, Jr., et al.
In its complaint, ASB alleged that on 21 May 1994,
EMRASON, a real estate company which owns real estate
properties in Dasmarias, Cavite City, with a total area of
372 hectares, whose chairman and president is Emerito M.
Ramos, Sr., with his wife, Susana B. Ramos, and children
as stockholders, entered into a Letter-Agreement with ASB
for the conditional sale of sixty-five percent (65%) of the
said land for a consideration of P400,000,000.00 payable in
five installments. However, ASB, through its president, Mr.
Luke C. Roxas, received a letter from the children of
Emerito Ramos, Sr., informing him that on 18 May 1994,
they entered into a2 Contract to Sell said real estate
properties with ALI. ASB confirmed the contract of the
Ramos children with ALI when it found out that the same
was annotated on the Transfer Certificates of Title of the
real estate properties in dispute. This prompted ASB to file
the Complaint dated 13 June 1994

_______________

1 Vol. 1, Records, pp. 1-4.

2 Annex C; Vol. 1, Records, p. 40.

525

VOL. 466, AUGUST 11, 2005 525

Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle
 3
before the trial court. ALI, thereafter, filed 4its Answer with
Compulsory Counterclaim and Cross-claim. 5
Plaintiff ASB subsequently filed a Motion for Leave to
take testimony by deposition upon oral examination of
Emerito Ramos, Sr., citing Section 4(c), Rule 24 of the
Revised Rules of Court stating that Emerito Ramos, Sr.
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 the6 course of the trial
on the merits. In the Omnibus Order of the trial court
dated 17 October 1994, plaintiff s motion was granted. ASB
then obtained the deposition upon oral examination of
Emerito Ramos, Sr. on six different occasions, to wit: 22
and 24 November 1994, 5, 8 and 16 December 1994, and 26
January 1995. Upon termination of Emerito Ramos, Sr.s
direct testimony by deposition, both plaintiffs and
defendants agreed that the cross-examination
7
be scheduled
on 02, 10 and 15 February 1995. These dates were reset to
15 February
8
1995. However, on 30 January 1995, ALI filed
a Motion to Resolve Objections (In deposition proceedings
with Omnibus Motion) on the propriety, admissibility and
conformity of the deposition proceedings to the Rules.
Specifically, ALI sought rulings on its objections to leading
questions, violations of the best-evidence rule, rule on
presentation of secondary evidence, incompetence of the
deponent, opinion rule, manner of presentation of evidence,
9
and testimonies not forming part of the offer. As a
consequence, the trial court, in an Order dated 14 February
1995, cancelled the cross-examination of Emerito Ramos,
Sr.s deposition scheduled on 15 February 1995.

_______________

3 Annex B; CA Rollo, pp. 27-40.

4 Annex B-1; CA Rollo, pp. 41-48.
5 Annex C; CA Rollo, p. 51.
6 Annex D; CA Rollo, pp. 55-60.
7 Vol. II, Records, p. 326.
8 Annex E; CA Rollo, p. 60.
9 CA Rollo, p. 95.

526

526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle
10
On 05 May 1995, the trial court ruled on the objections of
ALI sustaining some of its objections, overruling the others
and upholding the propriety of the presentation of evidence
made by plaintiff through deposition. In the same Order,
the trial court directed the setting of the cross-examination
of the deponent. ALI filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Order setting the hearing of the case for cross-
examination,
11
which the trial court denied on 07 September
1995. The trial court again directed that the cross-
examination of Emerito Ramos, Sr., be scheduled. The
same was thus set on 06 October 1995. Before this date,
however, ALI filed a Manifestation and Motion dated 02
October 1995 praying that the 12
date set be cancelled and re-
scheduled to another date. The trial court reset the
hearing on 27 October 1995.
Thereafter, ALI filed before the Court of Appeals a
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with urgent
application for Temporary13
Restraining Order and Writ of
Preliminary Injunction to restrain the public respondent,
Judge Lucenito Tagle, from implementing the Order dated
07 September 1995 and to declare null and void and
expunging the entire deposition proceedings
14
taken in
connection with Civil Case No. 931-94.
The Court of Appeals issued15 a Temporary Restraining
Order dated 04 October 1995 and later on, 16 a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction dated 14 November 1995 pending
resolution of the petition.

_______________

10 Annex G; CA Rollo, pp. 72-86.

11 Annex J; Rollo, pp. 130-134.
12 Annex K; CA Rollo, p. 135.
13 Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 38541.
14 Annex J; CA Rollo, pp. 92-104.
15 Per Justice Hector L. Hofilena with Justices Jainal D. Rasul and
Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, concurring. Annex L; CA Rollo, p. 106.
16 Annex M; CA Rollo, p. 107.

527

VOL. 466, AUGUST 11, 2005 527

Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle

On 29 October
17
1996, the Court of Appeals rendered its
decision denying due course and dismissing the petition of
ALI. The Court of Appeals held:

In the instant case, Atty. Emerito Ramos, Sr. testified on matters of

his personal knowledge, even if in the course of his testimony, he
referred to certain documents in court, being the President and
Chairman of EMRASON. In that capacity, he carried on
negotiations relative to the sale of the Dasmarias property. Indeed,
all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known
their perception to others, may be witnesses (Sec. 20, Rule 130,
Rules of Court).
Sec. 16, Rule 132, as contended by petitioner, is not applicable to
the case at bench as Atty. Ramos was not refreshing his memory on
a fact or transaction with the aid of memoranda. Rather, he was
freely recollecting and testifying on matters within the ambit of his
own personal competence, and merely referring to the letter that he
received from Mr. Fernando Ayala, and another letter written by a
Victor Manarang to his son, Emerito Ramos, Jr., both letters being
now in his possession by reason of his duties as President and
18
Chairman of EMRASON. (TSN, 05 December 1994, pp. 70-85)

ALIs Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied by

the Court of Appeals.
On 10 June 1999, Emerito Ramos, Sr. died at the age of
92 years old. Plaintiff then filed before the trial court a
motion to introduce
19
in evidence the deposition20of Emerito
Ramos, Sr.21
The motion was opposed by ALI. 22
ASB filed
its Reply. ALI 23
thereafter filed its Rejoinder and ASB its
Sur-rejoinder.

_______________

17 Penned by Justice Antonio M. Martinez with Associate Justices

Ricardo P. Galvez and Hilarion L. Aquino, concurring. Annex N; CA
Rollo, pp. 109-114.
18 CA Rollo, pp. 113-114.
19 CA Rollo, pp. 115-133.
20 CA Rollo, pp. 135-139.
21 Rollo, pp. 504-512.
22 Rollo, p. 513.
23 Rollo, p. 517.

528

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle

On 28 September 1999, the trial court issued its Order

setting aside the opposition of ALI and admitting
24
in
evidence the deposition of Emerito Ramos, Sr. A Motion
for Reconsideration filed 25by ALI was denied in an Order
dated 24 December 1999. ALI again elevated the case to
the Court of Appeals by way of Petition for Review on
 26
Certiorari under27 Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
In a decision dated 31 January 2002, the Court of
Appeals dismissed the petition 28
for lack of merit. ALI filed
29
a
Motion for Reconsideration which was opposed by
private respondents ASB and EMRASON.30 The motion was
denied in a resolution dated 23 May 2002.
Hence this Petition.
The issues raised in the instant petition are the
following:

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED DEPOSITION OF THE

WITNESS EMERITO M. RAMOS, SR. IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER
THE RULES.
II. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER HAD WAIVED ITS
RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE DEPONENT, EMERITO M.
RAMOS, SR.
III. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT APPELLATE COURT
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT
SUSTAINED THE RULING OF THE LOWER COURT IN FIND-

_______________

24 Annex P; Rollo, p. 523.

25 Annex Q-1; Rollo, p. 221.
26 CA-G.R. SP No. 57325.
27 Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes with Justices Alicia
Austria-Martinez and Roberto A. Barrios, concurring. CA Rollo, pp. 267-276.
28 CA Rollo, p. 283.
29 CA Rollo, p. 298.
30 CA Rollo, p. 314.

529

VOL. 466, AUGUST 11, 2005 529

Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle

ING THE DEPOSITION OF WITNESS EMERITO M. RAMOS, SR.

31
AS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.

The first issue is not novel. The same has been in fact
passed upon twice by the Court of Appeals.
As defined, the term deposition is sometimes used in a
broad sense to describe any written statement verified by
oath. 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. A
deposition is the testimony of a witness, put or taken in
writing, under oath or affirmation, before a commissioner,
examiner or other judicial officer, in answer to
interlocutory and cross-interlocutory,
32
and usually
subscribed by the witnesses.

[A]nd the purposes of taking depositions are to: 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
33
preparation and trial.

In the case of Jonathan Landoil International

34
Co., Inc. v.
Mangudadatu, this Court instructs:

_______________

31 Rollo, p. 713.
32 Mata v. Bayona, G.R. No. L-50720, 26 March 1984, 128 SCRA 388,
citing 16 Am Jur. 699.
33 People v. Webb, G.R. No. 132577, 17 August 1999, 312 SCRA 573,
585-586.
34 G.R. No. 155010, 16 August 2004, 436 SCRA 559, 573, reiterating
the earlier case of Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90478, 21
November 1991, 204 SCRA 212.

530

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle

. . . 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. The liberty
of a party to avail itself of this procedure, as an attribute of
discovery, is well-nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into are
otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry is made in
good faith and within the bounds of the law.

Depositions maybe taken at anytime after the 35institution of

any action, whenever necessary or convenient.
In this case, the trial court permitted the taking of
Emerito Ramos, Sr.s deposition chiefly because of his
advance age which ground 36
is considered valid and justified
under the Rules of Court.
ALI contends that the prerequisites of a valid deposition
were disregarded. It repeatedly insists that what
transpired from 22 November 1994 to 26 January 1995 was
simply a recordation of testimony of Emerito Ramos, Sr.
intended to form part of a deposition for submission to the
trial court but not a deposition itself considering that it
never underwent the process of a valid deposition taken
under Rules 23 and 132 of the Rules of Court, as the
deposition was not completed, signed, certified, filed or
offered before the court a quo, 37hence, under the Rules,
considered incompetent evidence.
It must be noted that the depositions of Emerito Ramos,
Sr., taken on the dates earlier mentioned, were
substantially

_______________

35 Dasmarias Garments, Inc. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 108229, 24 August

1993, 225 SCRA 622.
36 Rule 23, Section 4(c)(3) of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 4. Use of depositions.. . .

(3) that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness,
infirmity, or imprisonment; . . .

See also Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 112710, 30 May 2001,

358 SCRA 284.
37 Memorandum, p. 16; Rollo, p. 718.

531

VOL. 466, AUGUST 11, 2005 531

Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle

made in accordance with the requirements of the Rules. In

fact, in its Petition before the Court of Appeals, ALI
confirmed the taking of deposition on said dates and that it
was duly represented by its counsel during the proceedings.
As to whether the manner by which the deposition was
taken faithfully complied with the requirements under the
Rules of Court, it is not disputed that the deposition 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 utilized to record the
proceedings, in the presence
38
of all the opposing counsels of
record including ALIs. The following factual findings
remain uncontroverted:
To reiterate, the deposition of the late Emerito Ramos, Sr. was
taken inside the courtroom by the Clerk of Court in the presence of
the parties and their lawyers, and the entire proceedings was
transcribed by the stenographers of the Court. Thus, the
requirements that the deposition has to be sealed, examined and
signed by the deponent, and also certified, sealed and signed by the
deposition officer would be, to the mind of the court, already
superfluous. Strict compliance with the formal requirements of Rule
23 would hold true in cases of depositions taken outside the Court.
As intimated earlier, the rules on discovery should not be unduly
restricted; otherwise, the perceived advantage of a liberal discovery
procedure in ascertaining the truth and expediting the disposal of
litigation would be defeated. Be that as it may, the motion for
39
reconsideration filed by defendant Ayala Land, Inc. is DENIED.

On the objection of ALI owing to the lack of signature of the

deponent, it should be noted that a deposition not signed
does not preclude its use during the trial. 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 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

_______________

38 Vol. V, Records, p. 1216.

39 CA Rollo, pp. 271-272.

532

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle

40
therein and to ensure its accuracy. In any event, the
admissibility of the deposition does not preclude the
determination of its probative value at the appropriate
time. The admissibility of evidence should not be equated
with weight of evidence. The admissibility of evidence
depends on its relevance and competence while the weight
of evidence pertains to evidence already
41
admitted and its
tendency to convince and persuade.
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. On this point, we find no
compelling reason to disturb the conclusions arrived at by
the trial court.
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, and the inquiry42
is made in
good faith and within the bounds of the law, as in the case
at bar.
The second and third issues raised by ALI are that it
was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent
consequently resulting in its denial of due process. The
records reveal that ALI was given more than enough
opportunity to cross-examine the deponent and its failure
to exercise such right is solely attributable to its own
inaction. At this in-

_______________

40 Will Docter Meat Co. v. Hotel Kingsway, 232 S. W. 2d 821; Ikerd v.

Lapworth, 435 F., 2d 197; Smith v. Henwood, 349 Mo. 396, 161 S. W.2d
232; Hoyberg v. Henshe, 153 Mo. 63, 55 S.W. 83.
41 Permanent Savings and Loan Bank v. Velarde, G.R. No. 140608, 23
September 2004, 439 SCRA 1; PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107518, 08 October 1998, 297
SCRA 402; De la Torre v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102786, 14 August
1998, 294 SCRA 196.
42 Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No 90478, 21
November 1991, 204 SCRA 212.

533

VOL. 466, AUGUST 11, 2005 533

Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle

stance, ALI cannot feign prejudice 43and denial of due

process. As echoed in several cases, due process is, in
essence, simply an opportunity to be heard. The right to
cross-examine is not an absolute one which a party can
demand at all times. The right is a personal one which may
be waived by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the
right of cross-examination, thus, where a party has had the
opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail
himself of44
it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-
examine. As rightly observed by the Court of Appeals:

Applying the foregoing precept in the light of the facts obtaining in

the instant case, We are not inclined to indulge the PETITIONER
in its argument that it was deprived of its constitutional right to
due process. Verily, as may be readily gleaned from the records, the
PETITIONER was afforded several opportunities to cross-examine
the deponent ATTY. RAMOS. However, despite its knowledge of
deponents old age and frail health, PETITIONER chose to
squander its right to subject under appropriate test the assertions
raised by the witness in his deposition. It is worth noting that the
PETITIONER, following the termination of the direct examination
of the deceased ATTY. RAMOS, requested for a setting of the cross-
examination. During the supposed date of cross-examination,
however, instead of seizing the chance to exercise the right which
they now all too belatedly invoke, PETITIONER moved for the
postponement of the proceedings. After this Court ruled on its
Motion to Resolve objections, the PETITIONER again moved for
several times for the resetting of the cross-examination to future
45
dates.

_______________

43 BLTB v. Bitanga, G.R. No. 137934, 10 August 2001, 362 SCRA 635;
Tubiano v. Razo, G.R. No. 132598, 13 July 2000, 335 SCRA 531; Orola v.
Alovera, G.R. No. 111074, 14 July 2000, 335 SCRA 609; Central
Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Macaraeg, G.R. No. 145800, 22
January 2003, 395 SCRA 720.
44 De la Paz v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-71537, 17
September 1987, 154 SCRA 65.
45 CA Rollo, p. 273.

534

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is

DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 31 January 2002 and its Resolution dated 23
May 2002 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairman), Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ.,

concur.
Austria-Martinez, J., No part.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.Like the other modes of discovery authorized

by the Rules of Court, the purpose of written
interrogatories is to assist the parties in clarifying the
 issues in ascertaining the facts involved in a case. (Dela
Torre vs. Pepsi Cola Products, Phils., Inc., 298 SCRA 363
[1998])
Among far too many lawyers (and not a few judges),
there is, if not a regrettable unfamiliarity and even
outright ignorance about the nature, purposes and
operation of the modes of discovery, at least a strong yet
unreasoned and unreasonable disinclination to resort to
them. (Diman vs. Alumbres, 299 SCRA 459 [1998])

o0o

535

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.