Jurado, Ralph E. CivPro; Atty.

Fernandez

LLB-2 March 2, 2018; TTH-F

Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 156605; Aug. 28, 2007

Facts:

The PCGG on behalf of the Republic and by virtue of an Executive Order for the recovery of ill-
gotten wealth filed a complaint with the Sandiganbayan against Spouses Marcos, Fabian Ver and
Marcelo. The said complaint underwent three subsequent amendments.

After the last amendment, the Republic served a Request for Admission on plaintiff. With
regards, to the request for admission. On the said request plaintiff included his own counter-request for
admission on matters stated in his response. Following the said events during the submission of the pre-
trial brief both Marcelo and MFC filed a pre-trial brief with Written Interrogatories and with First set and
request for admission.

On the 15th of August 1997, petitioners filed three separate Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiffs motion was based on two main arguments 1.) There is no genuine fact/cause of action against
him, 2.) The Republic did not reply to the request. To wit, pursuant to Sec. 2 of Rule 26 of the Rules of
Court “each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted”. Petitioners
stated that, “the pleadings of the parties, and the admission and documentary evidence of the Republic
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that they are entitled to a summary
judgment as a matter of law”.

Issue:

Whether or Not the Republic’s act of not responding would tantamount to an admission.

Held:

The Court ruled on the AFFIRMATIVE stating that there is no more genuine issue to be tried in
this case, since there is failure on the part of the Republic to answer the requests for admission and the
written interrogatories of the petitioners. As it were, the Republic only answered request for admission
or interrogatories but then the Republic’s answer serves only to highlight and confirm the fact that
petitioner-plaintiff’s participation in all the transactions subject to this case is as President of MFC. To
wit, the Republic did not answer the written interrogatories of the other defendant corporation which in
effect the Republic admitted the non-participation of the other defendant corporation in the contract in
question.
Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Ley Construction

G.R. No. 147143

Facts:

Herein respondent filed a complaint for Specific Performance against herein petitioner alleging
that petitioner failed in its obligation to transfer 40% of its share of a real property despite the payment
of the purchase price and that petitioner further failed to develop via joint venture the said property
despite the payment of herein LCDC of the Pre-Construction cost. Furthermore herein respondent
impleaded Princeton and Yu.

Upon filing of responsive pleadings herein respondent filed a notice to take deposition which
was countered by herein petitioners alleging that such would hinder the speediness and to further
expedite the case the court should do away with the deposition. This was granted by the court, this
prompted respondents not to appear during pre-trial and further was declared as non-suited by the trail
court but upon appeal to the CA, despite Motion for Reconsiderations of herein petitioners it was still
remanded to the lower court which prompted petitioners to file this case.

Issue:

Whether or Not the CA erred in letting the deposition proceeding proceed.

Held:

The Court answered on the NEGATIVE stating that, a deposition should be allowed in the
absence of any showing that taking it would prejudice any party. It is accorded with broad and liberal
treatment and the liberty of a party to make discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired in
to are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry is made in good faith and within the
bounds of law.

It is allowed as a departure from the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of examining
witnesses in an open court where their demeanor could be observed by a judge, consistent with the
principle of promoting just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceedings; and
provided it is taken in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, i.e, with leave of court if
summons have been served and without such leave if an answer has been submitted; and provided
further that a circumstance for its admissibility exists. The rules of discovery should not be unduly
restricted, otherwise, the advantage of a liberal discovery procedure in ascertaining the truth and
expediting the disposal of litigation would be defeated.
Jonathan Landoil v. Mangudadatu

G.R. No. 155010

Facts:

Herein respondents field a complaint for damages against herein petitioner. In the trail
proceeding the petitioner failed to participate on the said proceedings this lead to the declaration by the
court of the petitioner to be in default. Upon declaration petitioner filed a motion for new trial which
was then subsequently denied, upon execution the petitioner on his defense stated that he was yet to
receive the denial of the motion. Subsequent thereof a petition for prohibition was filed with the Court
of Appeals and respondents submitted its opposition attached to their pleading s a certification that the
order denying the motion for new trial was no longer available for the deposition since trial had already
been terminated.

Issue:

Whether or Not the present circumstance would allow the taking of oral deposition.

Held:

The court ruled on the AFFIRMATIVE stating that a deposition may be taken with leave of court
after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property that is subject of the action; or
without such leave of court after an answer has been served. Furthermore, in keeping with the principle
of promoting just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of cases and proceedings, depositions are
allowed. As a rule, depositions should be allowed absent any showing that taking them would prejudice
any party.
American Airlines v. Court of Appeals

G.R. no. 116044-45

Facts:

Herein respondent purchased tickets from Singapore Airlines in Manila with New York as final
destination. In Geneva, petitioner purchased a one-way ticket from Geneva to New York. However,
respondent was prevented from entering the said plane before every other passenger entered which
allegedly cause embarrassment and mental anguish to herein respondent. This prompted private
respondent to file an action for damages against herein petitioner.

On the course of the proceedings herein petitioner moved for the dismissal of the case stating
the grounds of improper venue and that the ticket issued in Geneva was a separate and distinct contract
from the conjunction tickets issued by Singapore Airlines. Upon denial of such motion petitioner
presented the deposition of its security officer taken in Geneva. The trial court ruled that under the pool
partnership agreement among the IATA members including both airline, the members acts as agents of
each other in the issuance of tickets. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

In a Special Proceeding herein petitioner question the jurisdiction of the court in accordance
with the Warsaw convention and in another Special Proceeding the petitioners questioned the validity
of the trial courts order in striking the deposition of the security officer presented for failure to answer
the cross-interrogatories. It should be noted that herein officer appeared subsequently before the
Philippine consul to answer the cross-interrogatories by the private respondent.

Issue:

Whether or Not the Court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the striking out of
the deposition of the security officer on the grounds of non-appearance in the Philippine Consul to
answer the cross-interrogatories.

Held:

The Court answered in a QUALIFIED AFFIRMATIVE manner, stating that the subsequent
appearance of the officer in the Consul and the answering to the cross-interrogatories should be
considered as full compliance with the requisites of the right of the private respondent to cross-examine
the petitioners witness. The deposition filed by the petitioner should be reinstated as part of the
evidence and considered together with the answer to the cross-interrogatories.
Manzano v. Despabiladeras

G.R. No. 148786

Facts:

Herein respondent received from petitioner construction materials on credit this was the
subject of this action for enforcement of money debt with damages before the Regional Trial Court. In
the course of Pre-Trial proceeding herein petitioner agreed to submit a stipulation of the itemized
materials delivered to herein respondent together with the claimed costs within 15 days. In return
respondent shall state any objections or any comment at the same period of time given.

Subsequent thereof, herein petitioner filed a request for admission, differing from the agreed
submission of stipulated itemized materials. The said request wanted respondent to admit the materials
particularly described therein that the value of the goods delivered amounted to P314, 610.50 and that
only P130,000 has been paid. But herein respondent gave no response to the said request which
prompted the trial court to rule against herein respondent. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in
favor of the setting aside of the implied admission enunciated by the trial court.

Issue:

Whether or Not the unanswered request admits of any consequences.

Held:

The Court answered on the AFFIRMATIVE stating that, under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court it
provides that at any time after issues have been joined, a party may serve upon any other party a written
request for admission by the latter of the genuiness of relevant documents described and exhibited with
the request or of truth of any material and relevant matters of fact set forth in the request.

Furthermore, the above stated section should not be disregarded in fact the trial court didn’t,
evidenced by the fact that the trial court asked respondent to comment on the request despite the
agreed submission of the stipulation of itemized goods. The rationale behind this rule is that this is a
remedy afforded to any party after the issues have been joined.

Respondent unable to deny under oath the facts contained in the Request for admission, is
deemed to have admitted that she received such construction materials.