Section 1 of Rule 29 of the Rules of Court together with Section 3(c) provides:

Sec. 1. Refusal to answer. — If a party or other deponent refuses to answer any question
propounded upon oral examination, the examination shall be completed on other matters
or adjourned, as the proponent of the question may prefer. Thereafter, on reasonable
notice to all persons affected thereby, he may apply to the court of the province where the
deposition is taken for an order compelling an answer. Upon the refusal of a witness to
answer interrogatory submitted under sections 25 and 26 of Rule 24 or upon the
refusal of a party to answer any interrogatory submitted under Rule 25, the
proponent of the question may on like notice make like application for such an
order. If the motion is granted, the court shall require the refusing party or
deponent to answer the question or interrogatory and if it also finds that the refusal
was without substantial justification, it may further require the refusing party or
deponent or the attorney advising the refusal, or both of them to pay to the
examining party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the
order, including reasonable attorney's fees. If the motion is denied and if the court
finds that the motion was made without substantial justification, it shall require the
examining party or the attorney advising the motion or both of them to pay to the refusing
party or deponent the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the
motion, including reasonable attorney's fees.
………
Sec. 3. Other consequences. — If any party or an officer or managing agent of a party
refuses to obey an order made under section 1 of this rule requiring him to answer
designated questions, or an order under Rule 27 to produce any document or other thing
for inspection, copying, or photographing or to permit it to be done, or to permit entry
upon land or other property, or an order made under Rule 28 requiring him to submit to a
physical or mental examination, the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal
as are just, and among others the following:
………
(c) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings
until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof,
or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party.

In Spouses Zepeda v. China Banking Corporation1, the Supreme Court reiterated that

the consequences enumerated in Section 3(c) of Rule 29 would only apply where the party upon
whom the written interrogatories is served, refuses to answer a particular question in the set of
written interrogatories and despite an order compelling him to answer the particular question,

1 G.R. No. 172175, October 9, 2006, citing Arellano v. Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, [G.R. No. L-34897 July
15, 1975].
still refuses to obey the order. Where the party upon whom the written interrogatories is served,
refuses to answer the whole set of written interrogatories, not just a particular question, then
Section 5 of Rule 29 of the Rules of Court applies. 
Section 5 of Rule 29 of the Rules of Court provide:
Sec. 5. Failure of party to attend or serve answers. If a party or an officer or managing
agent of a party willfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take his deposition,
after being served with a proper notice, or fails to serve answers to interrogatories
submitted under Rule 25 after proper service of such interrogatories, the court on
motion and notice, may strike out all or any part of any pleading of that party, or
dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by default
against that party, and in its discretion, order him to pay reasonable expenses
incurred by the other, including attorneys fees.

G.R. No. 132577           August 17, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, 

vs.
HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, respondent.

Settled is the rule that the whole purpose and object of procedure is to make the powers of the
court fully and completely available for justice. Thus, as the Supreme Court has ruled in Manila
Railroad Co. vs. Attorney General and reiterated in subsequent cases:

. . . The most perfect procedure that can be devised is that which give the opportunity for
the most complete and perfect exercise of the powers of the court within the limitations
set by natural justice. It is that one which, in other words, gives the most perfect
opportunity for the powers of the court to transmute themselves into concrete acts of
justice between the parties before it. The purpose of such a procedure is not to restrict the
jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter, but to give it effective facility in
righteous action. It may be said in passing that the most salient objection which can be
urged against procedure today is that it so restricts the exercise of the court's powers by
technicalities that part of its authority effective for justice between the parties is many
times an inconsiderable portion of the whole. The purpose of procedure is not to thwart
justice. Its proper aim is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of the
contending parties. It was created not to hinder and delay but to facilitate and promote the
administration of justice. It does not constitute the thing itself which the courts are always
striving to secure the litigants. It is designed as the as the means best adapted to obtain
that thing. In other words, it is a means to an end. It is the means by which the powers of
the court are made effective in just judgments. When it loses the character of the one and
takes on the other [,] the administration of justice becomes incomplete and unsatisfactory
and lays itself open to grave criticism.17
In the light of the foregoing judicial precedent, this Court finds that the public respondent
gravely abused her discretion in denying the motion to take the deposition of the witnesses for
petitioner. While petitioner had invoked Rule 23, Section 1 of the Rule of Court, which is found
under the general classification of the Civil Procedure, it does not prevent its application to the
other proceedings, provided the same is not contrary to the specific rules provided therein.
Indeed, the Rules of Court is to be viewed and construed as a whole, and if the Supreme Court
had compartmentalized the same into four divisions, it was, as petitioner had claimed, for the
purpose of organization and expediency and not, for exclusivity.

………

While the taking of depositions pending trial is not expressly provided [for] under the Rules on
Criminal Procedure, we find no reason for public respondent to disallow the taking of the same
in the manner provided for under Section 1 of Rule 23 under the circumstances of the case. To
disallow petitioner to avail of the specific remedies provided under the Rules would deny him
the opportunity to adequately defend himself against the criminal charge of rape with homicide
now pending before the public respondent and, further, [it] loses sight of the object of procedure
which is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties.

………

Even granting arguendo that Rule 23 is to be exclusively applied to civil actions, the taking of
the deposition of petitioner's US-based witnesses should be still allowed considering that the
civil action has been impliedly instituted in the criminal action for rape with homicide. Since
public respondent has jurisdiction over the civil case to recover damages, she exercised full
authority to employ all auxiliary writs, processes and other means to carry out the jurisdiction
conferred and [to] adopt any suitable process or mode of proceeding which includes the
application of the rule on depositions pending action under Rule 23 in the case pending before
her.

G.R. No. 185527               July 18, 2012

HARRY L. GO, TONNY NGO, JERRY NGO AND JANE GO, Petitioners, 

vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HIGHDONE COMPANY, LTD., ET
AL., Respondents.

The procedure under Rule 23 to 28 of the Rules of Court allows the taking of depositions in civil
cases, either upon oral examination or written interrogatories, before any judge, notary public or
person authorized to administer oaths at any time or place within the Philippines; or before any
Philippine consular official, commissioned officer or person authorized to administer oaths in a
foreign state or country, with no additional requirement except reasonable notice in writing to the
other party.
But for purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more particularly of a prosecution
witness who would forseeably be unavailable for trial, the testimonial examination should be
made before the court, or at least before the judge, where the case is pending as required by the
clear mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The pertinent
provision reads thus:

SEC. 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. – When it satisfactorily appears that a
witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial as directed by the court, or
has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning, he may forthwith be conditionally
examined before the court where the case is pending. Such examination, in the presence of the
accused, or in his absence after reasonable notice to attend the examination has been served on
him shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination at the trial. Failure or refusal of
the accused to attend the examination after notice shall be considered a waiver. The
statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or against the accused.