C R han obles

In r e te n t

Bar Review

: C an obles h R

P o ssio a r fe n l

Review, In c.


-OutlineJustice Magdangal M. De Leon
A. CONCEPT The rules providing for pre-trial discovery of testimony, pre-trial inspection of documentary evidence and other tangible things, and the examination of property and person, was an important innovation in the rules of procedure. The promulgation of this group of rules satisfied the long-felt need for a legal machinery in the courts to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of disclosing the real points of dispute between the parties and affording an adequate factual basis in preparation for trial (Fortune Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 108119, January 19, 1994, 229 SCRA 355). The Circular on the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures now requires the court to issue an order requiring the parties to avail of the Modes of Discovery (A.M. 03-1-09-SC, which took effect on August 16, 2004; See also Rule 18). B. PURPOSE 1. As a device, along with the pre-trial hearing under Rule 18, to narrow and clarify the basis issues between the parties; 2. As a device for ascertaining the facts relative to those issues. The time-honored cry of ‘fishing expedition’ can no longer provide a reason to prevent a party from inquiring into the facts underlying the opposing party’s case through the discovery procedures. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 90478, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 212, 200) it was held: . . . Indeed 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, not only those known to them individually, but also those known to their adversaries; in other words, the desideratum is that civil trials should not be carried on in the dark; and the Rules of Court make this ideal possible through the deposition-discovery mechanism set forth in Rules 24 to 29 (Ong v. Mazo, G.R. No. 145542, June 4, 2004, 431 SCRA 56, 63). The rules on discovery are intended to (a) enable a party to obtain knowledge of material facts within the knowledge of the adverse party or of third parties through deposition; (b) obtain knowledge of material facts or admissions from the adverse party through written interrogatories; (c) obtain admissions from the adverse party regarding the genuineness of relevant documents or relevant matters of fact through requests for admission; (d) inspect relevant documents or objects and lands or other property in the possession or control of the adverse party; and (e) determine the physical or mental condition of a party when such is in controversy. This mutual discovery enables a party to discover the evidence of the adverse party and thus facilitates an amicable settlement or expedites the trial of the case. All parties are required to lay their cards on the table so that justice can be rendered on the merits of the case. C. IMPORTANCE Justice, later on Chief Justice, Andres Narvasa lamented that among far too many lawyers (and not a few judges), there are, if not a regrettable unfamiliarity and even outright ignorance about the nature, purpose, and operation of the modes of discovery, at least a strong yet unreasoned and unreasonable disinclination to resort to them –-which is a great pity for the intelligent and adequate use of the deposition-discovery mechanism, coupled with pretrial procedure, could, as the experience of other jurisdictions convincingly demonstrates, effectively shorten the period of litigation and speed up adjudication (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90478, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 212, 200). To ensure that availment of the modes of discovery is otherwise untrammeled and efficacious, the 'law imposes serious sanctions on the party who refuses to make discovery, such as dismissing the action or proceeding or part thereof, . . .; taking the matters

w w an lesb w .ch rob ar.com

: w w an lesb ww .ch rob ar.com h .p

G. and the inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of law (Republic v. 3. 2 inquired into as established in accordance with the claim of the party seeking discovery. No. The latter are without a doubt proper subject of discovery (Republic vs. No. G. leave of court is required as regards discovery by (a) production or inspection of documents or things in accordance with Rule 27. bearing always in mind the aim to attain an expeditious administration of justice (Lanada vs. Sandiganbayan. 102390. CA. such limitations inevitably arise when it can be shown that the examination is being conducted in bad faith. 108119. August 11. G. Rule 23). the determination of the sanction to be imposed upon a party who fails to comply with the modes of discovery rests on the same sound judicial discretion.C R han obles In r e te n t Bar Review : C an obles h R P o ssio a r fe n l Review. Court of Appeals. February 1. or (b) physical and mental examination of persons under Rule 28.ch rob ar. or things (Rule 27) Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28) Evidentiary Matters May be G. 1994. I. embarrass. 2002. No. 2.R. H.com : w w an lesb w . 186979. 6.. THESE MODES ARE CUMULATIVE The fact that a party has resorted to a particular method of discovery will not bar subsequent use of other discovery devices. No. November 21. w w an lesb w . Sandiganbayan.R. 16 and 18. 2007). refusal to allow the disobedient party support or oppose designated claims or defenses’ (Marcelo vs.p . November 21. 229 SCRA 355). In c. or oppress the person subject to the inquiry (See Secs. D. It is the duty of the courts to examine thoroughly the circumstances of each case and to determine the applicability of the modes of discovery. LIMITATIONS Limitations inevitably arise when it can be shown that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such a manner as to annoy. DISCOVERY STILL APPLIES EVEN IF MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS DENIED That the matters on which discovery is desired are the same matters subject of a prior motion for bill of particulars denied for lack of merit is beside the point. January 19. 2010) E.R. No. The liberty of a party to make discovery is well nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not privileged.R. 90478. 4. G. 1991. 375 SCRA 543. MODES OF DISCOVERY 1. not so called evidentiary facts. 1991. 156605. even when permitted to be undertaken without leave and without judicial intervention. G. 204 SCRA 212). On the other hand. 204 SCRA 212). In the same vein.ch rob ar.R. 90478. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURE: Inquired Into F. DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION The application of the rules on modes of discovery rests upon the sound discretion of the court. Spouses Odones. No. Depositions pending action (Rule 23) Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24) Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25) Admission by adverse party (Rule 26) Production or inspection of documents. Sandiganbayan. August 28. or in such a manner as to annoy. G. which may be granted upon due application and a showing of due cause (Fortune Corporation vs.R. And further limitations come into existence when the inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches upon the recognized domains of privilege. 5. Indeed xxx a bill of particulars may elicit only ultimate facts.com h . While there are limitations to the rules of discovery. Limos vs.

vs. G. 153667. absent any showing that taking it would prejudice any party. 2004. which are relevant in a suit/proceeding. G.R. Rules of Evidence (Jonathan Landoil International Co.com : w w an lesb w .nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not privileged. Mangudadatu. No. In a broad sense. which is relevant to the subject of the pending action. and provided further that a circumstance for its admissibility exists. (Pajarillaga vs. August 16. with leave of court if summons have been served. before a commissioner. G. B. The deponent must as a rule be presented for oral examination in open court at the trial or hearing. Dual Function of Deposition (a) A method of discovery Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery.ch rob ar. March 10. October 31.. and provided it is taken in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court. w w an lesb w . FUNCTION 1. 163515. they are not therefore generally meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness. Ley Construction and Development Corp. No. August 11. Technically – A deposition is the testimony of a witness.p . DEPOSITIONS A. November 21. and without such leave if an answer has been submitted. 573. DEFINITION 1. reiterating the earlier case of Republic vs.R. Depositions are different from affidavits. 2008 ) A deposition should be allowed.R. consistent with the principle of promoting just. whether relating to the claim or defense of any other party. March 3. Rule 132. This purpose is evident from Section 2 of Rule 23 on the broad scope of examination regarding any matter.R. Sandiganbayan. it refers to any written statement verified by oath. 2008). 2005). death or disability of the deponent.R. Court of Appeals. put or taken in writing. or oppress the person subject to the inquiry. It is accorded a broad and liberal treatment and the liberty of a party to make discovery is well. 1991. 3 embarrass. in answer to interlocutory and cross-interlocutory. In c. Depositions are chiefly a mode of discovery Depositions are principally made available by law to the parties as a means of informing themselves of all the relevant facts. 159127. and usually subscribed by the witnesses (Ayala Land. examiner or other judicial officer.com h .ch rob ar. Rojas. the only requirement is that it be relevant and not privileged. Depositions are intended as a means to compel disclosure of facts resting in the knowledge of a party or other person. al. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.C R han obles In r e te n t Bar Review : C an obles h R P o ssio a r fe n l Review. 436 SCRA 559. (b) An alternative mode of testimony Section 4 of Rule 23 on the use of deposition is clearly indicative of the use of deposition as an alternative mode of testimony in view of distance.. 2. G. G. and the inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of law (Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. 2006). 147143. 90478. 2. They are not admissible in evidence except in cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure. No. Tagle et. vs. under oath or affirmation. not privileged.e.R. No. Affidavits are ex parte statements without formal interrogation and opportunity for crossexamination. i. No.. Deposition 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. vs. Inc. G. 204 SCRA 212). or when the inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches upon the recognized domains of privilege (San Luis vs.. No. This is a requirement of Section 1. Inc. 155010.

vs. Tagle et. 4. Safeguard against surprise.R.27). which took effect on December 15. March 3. 132577. 8. So also is the deposition allowed under the Rule of Examination of a Child Witness. August 11. 159127. D. 5. C. G. WHEN TAKEN (Sec.R.Those taken prior to the institution of an apprehended or intended action. al. 4 This is the same situation in criminal cases allowing conditional examination of witnesses for the accused (See Section 13.p . 00-4-07. August 17. Objections to deposition testimony or evidence. 9.C R han obles In r e te n t Bar Review : C an obles h R P o ssio a r fe n l Review. Expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial (Ayala Land. CLASSIFICATION 1. Prevent delay. No. 312 SCRA 573. The judge shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a child. Webb. or guardian ad litem may apply for an order that a deposition be taken of the testimony of the child and that it be recorded and preserved on videotape (Sec. 2000) The prosecutor.27). Expedite litigation. G. 153667. 2008) RULE 23. PURPOSE 1. 3. 6.com : w w an lesb w . w w an lesb w .R. DEPOSITION PENDING ACTION BENE ESSE A. No. Simplify and narrow the issues.com h . If the purpose is only for use as testimony – the ground therefor is not solely relevancy but there must be a showing of necessity or unavailability of the deponent to appear and testify in court. G. Rule 119) or for the prosecution (See Section 15. Provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false. Inc. Rule 119). to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent the said trials from being carried out in the dark. 2. In c. 585-586) Depositions serve as a device for ascertaining the facts relative to the issues of the case.27). 2. 1999. Educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses thereby encouraging settlements.M. fraudulent claims and defenses.ch rob ar. convenient and inexpensive way.. For: Videotaped deposition. 2005. 7. Deposition de bene esse – One taken in a pending action. it shall issue an order that the deposition of the child be taken and preserved by videotape (Sec. 1) This provision applies to actions pending in a Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court and in a Regional Trial Court.ch rob ar. Make available in a simple. Rule on Examination of Child Witness (A. counsel. consistent with recognized privileges. 3. facts which otherwise could not be proved except with greater difficulty.(San Luis vs. If the court finds that the child will not be able to testify in open court at trial. Deposition in perpetuam rei memoriam -. No. The evident purpose is to enable the parties. or parts thereof. and the grounds for the objection shall be stated and shall be ruled upon at the time of the taking of the deposition (Sec. Rojas. Assist the parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing perjury. citing People v.

h) the court may make any other order which justice requires to protect the party or witness from annoyance.ch rob ar. A particular and specific demonstration of facts. It is not restricted by a protective order (See Sec. Thus. 2.p . 28). b. the deposition shall be opened only by order of the court. Deponent is in prison. (2) Allegation that petitioner merely intended to annoy. 2) The court in which the action is pending may make an order: a) that the deposition shall not be taken. Outline 1) Requirements: (a) After notice is served for taking a deposition by oral examination. 175730.R. 18 for protective orders during taking of deposition. In c. Orders for the protection of parties and deponents a. f) that after being sealed.ch rob ar. harass or oppress the proposed deponent cannot ably support the setting aside of a notice to take deposition in the absence of proof. e) that the scope of the examination shall be held with no one present except the parties to the action and their officers or counsel. Comment (1) Good cause means substantial reason – one that affords a substantial excuse. See also Sec. 2010) B. Both instances presuppose that the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the defendant. 16 for protective orders before taking of deposition and Sec. and deponent is not in prison. petitioner is deemed to have voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.com h . d) that certain matters shall not be inquired into. 2) 1. petitioner may be held to have waived his objections regarding the lack of jurisdiction over his person by seeking affirmative relief through the said provision.C R han obles In r e te n t Bar Review : C an obles h R P o ssio a r fe n l Review. In regard to the Motion for Leave to Take Deposition. It is not privileged. No. and (2) after an answer has been served. it is important to note that there are two instances when the defendant can take depositions under Section 1 of Rule 23: (1) after the court has acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or the property subject of the action. or oppression. G. July 5. embarrassment. Protection orders before examination Section 16. 5 1. By seeking the relief contained in this provision. Without Leave Of Court AFTER an answer has been served. SCOPE OF EXAMINATION IN DEPOSITIONS (Sec. Sandiganbayan. w w an lesb w . c) that it may be taken only on written interrogatories. as distinguished from conclusory statements. (Disini vs. g) that the parties shall simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.com : w w an lesb w . b) that it may be taken only at some designated place other than that stated in the notice. After jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over the property which is the subject of the action but BEFORE an answer has been filed. 2. research need not be disclosed. Matter is relevant to the subject of the pending action made by the pleadings or likely to arise under the pleadings. With Leave Of Court a. 3. or that secret processes. developments. is required to establish good cause for the issuance of a protective order. (b) Upon motion seasonably made by any party or by the person to be examined and (c) For good cause shown. b.

R. b. or oppress the deponent or party. C.C R han obles In r e te n t Bar Review : C an obles h R P o ssio a r fe n l Review. Comment This section refers to protection orders during examination either by the court in which the action is pending or where the deposition is being taken. Stated differently. However. and any party may introduce any other parts While depositions may be used as evidence in court proceedings. 3. or managing agent of a public or private corporation. a deposition is not to be used when the deponent is at hand.p . any deposition offered during a trial to prove the facts therein set out. 133154. Outline 1) Requirements: (a) At any time during the taking of the deposition (b) On motion or petition of any party or of the deponent. 4) The deposition may be used against any party who was present or was represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof. w w an lesb w . USE OF DEPOSITIONS (Sec. Protection orders during examination Section 18. 2. Non-residence of deponent c. they are generally not meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness. Instances where deposition of any witness may be used for any purpose: a. a. as provided in Section 16. 6 (3) Inconvenience to the party whose deposition is to be taken is not a valid objection to the taking of his deposition. The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer. Non procurement by subpoena e.ch rob ar. such as bad faith which unreasonably annoy. may be opposed and excluded on the ground of hearsay. director. in accordance with ANY one of the following provisions: 1. depositions may be used without the deponent being called to the witness stand by the proponent.ch rob ar. Indeed. in lieu of the actual oral testimony of the deponent in open court. Sabino. or association which is a party may be used by an adverse party for any purpose. (c) Upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy. Five (5) exceptions for the admissibility of a deposition are listed in Section 4 (Sales vs. Disability of a witness d.com h . embarrass. When the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is invoked by deponent or his counsel. 2005). Death b. embarrass or harass deponent or party may likewise be invoked. Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent as witness. In c. Exceptional circumstances 4. December 9.com : w w an lesb w . provided the existence of certain conditions is first satisfactorily established. or (b) Limiting the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition. No. Other grounds. 2) The court in which the action is pending or the RTC of the place where the deposition is being taken may order either: (a) Cessation or termination of the deposition. partnership. G. If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party. Motion to terminate or limit examination. the adverse party may require him to introduce all of it which is relevant to the part introduced. the trial court may stop the examination to protect the deponent’s constitutional right.

). a deposition can still be properly taken (Jonathan Landoil International Co. The inability must proceed from a grave cause. (Section 47. None of the circumstances for the admission of the testimony given at a former proceeding obtains in this case. D. There can be no valid objection to allowing them during the process of executing final and executory judgments. 159127.com h .p . despite the fact that trial has already been terminated. when the material issues of fact have become numerous or complicated. No.R. inadmissible. 2004).R. See also Dulay vs. January 29. it may be taken even after trial has commenced and may be used without the deponent being actually called to the witness stand. and the procedure is not on that account rendered illegal nor is the deposition. Depositions are allowed as a departure from the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open court.R. Hence. 155010. June 6.R. There is no rule that limits deposition-taking only to the period of pre-trial or before it. October 31. (Pajarillaga vs. In c.ch rob ar. No. As previously explained. No. the testimony should not have been accorded any probative weight (Ilao-Quianay vs. G. G. PROCEDURE 1. G.R. The testimony or deposition of a witness given in a former case or proceeding may be given in evidence against the adverse party where the witness is deceased.R. Court of Appeals. 2005. L-41154. out of or cannot with due diligence be found in the Philippines. G. 2008) Leave of Court for Use of Deposition Leave of court for taking deposition which is not necessary after answer has been filed unless the deponent is confined in prison should be distinguished from use of deposition where the court has occasion to exercise its discretion. thereby taken. 1988. August 16. No. The present case involved a circumstance that fell under the above-cited Section 4(c)(2) of Rule 23 — the witnesses of petitioner in Metro Manila resided beyond 100 kilometers from Sultan Kudarat. The inability to testify does not cover the case of witnesses who were subpoenaed but did not appear. Depositions may be used for the trial or for the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding.com : w w an lesb w . No. 163515. the proper time being when the deposition is formally offered in evidence (Veran vs. Preliminary Steps 2. G. as when the witness is old and has lost the power of speech (Cariaga vs. Rojas. Dulay.R. General Rule w w an lesb w . October 25. the place of hearing. Court of Appeals. vs. Such testimony does not qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule under Sec. G. No. 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. No. almost amounting to death. Not only were petitioners not parties to the former proceeding and hence without opportunity to cross-examine the notary public.. Spouses Mangudadatu. there was also no proof that the notary public was already deceased or unable to testify. 154087. no prohibition exists against the taking of depositions after pre-trial. 2008) Petitioners' objection to the admission in evidence of the testimony of the notary public who supposedly notarized the deed of sale taken in another case in which petitioners were not parties is persuasive. 143561. unavailable or otherwise unable to testify. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Mapile. Court of Appeals. Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence in relation to Rule 115. 2005). March 3. November 11. 47. Section 1(f) of the Rules of Court) The preconditions set forth must be strictly complied with. .C R han obles In r e te n t Bar Review : C an obles h R P o ssio a r fe n l Review. Inc. (San Luis vs. Under certain conditions and for certain limited purposes. 157 SCRA 438).ch rob ar. G. There is nothing in the Rules of Court or in jurisprudence which restricts a deposition to the sole function of being a mode of discovery before trial. 1558857. where their demeanor could be observed by the trial judge. 2001).

ch rob ar. Considering that Rule 119 adequately and squarely covers the situation in the instant case. leave may be granted (Republic vs. Petitioner's claim that his right to cross-examine private respondent's witnesses will be curtailed has no merit since petitioner is fully accorded the opportunity for cross-examination under Section 25. Sandiganbayan. hence prior to the time of delineation of the issues.R. Rule 23 of the Rules of Court (San Luis vs. 2000. requesting the latter to cause to be examined. Rules 23 to 28 of the Rules of Court provide for the different modes of discovery that may be resorted to by a party to an action. Letters Rogatory An instrument sent in the name and by authority of a judge or court to another. In criminal proceedings.C R han obles In r e te n t Bar Review : C an obles h R P o ssio a r fe n l Review.Only in “Exceptional” or “Unusual” cases If the witness is aged or infirm. Plaintiff must await joinder of issues because if the discovery is to deal with matters relevant to the case. 152643. Sandiganbayan. As exceptions. May 30. 2001. No. 2008). upon interrogatories filed in a cause pending before the former. or about to leave the court’s jurisdiction. 2008) Commission or letters rogatory (Sec. Risos. the rules of procedure in issuing a commission are entirely under its control. or other competent tribunal to authorize a person to take depositions.R. Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 2001. 3. Rojas. In c. G. Ordinarily. However. Deposition Before Answer -. 159127. No. it is likewise true that the criminal proceedings are primarily governed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. In effect. May 30. 112710. No. it says that the rules of civil procedure have suppletory application to criminal cases. we find no cogent reason to apply Rule 23 suppletorily or otherwise. be altogether under the control of the foreign tribunal which is appealed to for assistance in the administration of justice.ch rob ar. the issues are made up before the need for discovery arises. It is true that Section 3. When and How Depositions are Conducted Depositions may be either upon oral examination or upon written interrogatories within or outside the Philippines. August 28. from the nature of the case. and special proceedings. The general rule is that a plaintiff may not be permitted to take depositions before answer is served. Resorted to if permission of the w w an lesb w . No. G. Resorted to if the execution of the Issued to a non-judicial foreign officer who will directly take the testimony. such officer will then direct somebody in said foreign country to take down the testimony The methods of procedure must. 12) Commission An instrument issued by a court of justice. civil or criminal. 4. 13 and 15. it is difficult to know exactly what is relevant until some progress has been made toward developing the issues.p . the matter is in control of the court (Republic vs. (Cuenco vs. These rules are adopted either to perpetuate the testimonies of witnesses or as modes of discovery. Sections 12.R. 112710. Issued to the appropriate judicial officer of the foreign country.com h . March 3. 358 SCRA 284). or is only temporarily in the jurisdiction. or do any other act by authority of such court or tribunal. 358 SCRA 284). Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the rules of civil procedure apply to all actions. G.R. G. which took effect on December 1. Applicable rules of procedure are those of the requesting court. a witness who is within the jurisdiction of the judge or court to whom such letters are addressed.com : w w an lesb w . allow the conditional examination of both the defense and prosecution witnesses.

and 4. 1994 and the answer to the cross-interrogatories propounded by the private respondent was transmitted to the trial court by the Philippine consul in Geneva on September 23. while errors and irregularities in depositions as to notice. The subsequent appearance of the said security officer before the Philippine consul in Geneva on September 19. Nos. it is not required to provide judicial assistance thereto (Dulay et al. The deposition filed by the petitioner should be reinstated as part of the evidence and considered together with the answer to the cross-interrogatories (American Airlines vs. or materiality of testimony may be made for the first time at the trial and need not be made at the time of the taking of the deposition. qualifications of the officer conducting the deposition. When an action has been dismissed and another action involving the same subject is afterward brought between the same parties or their representatives or successors in interest.9 foreign country is given. 3) may proceed as permitted at the trial under Sections 3 to 18 of Rule 132. If s/he is an employee or attorney of one of the parties. the remedy being an appeal from the final judgment (Sales vs. Substitution of parties does not affect the right to use depositions previously taken. and 2. Leave of court is not necessary. 7.R. Disqualification by Interest (Sec. Certiorari will not lie against an order admitting or rejecting a deposition in evidence. or employee of such counsel. Waiver of objections The act of cross-examining the deponent during the taking of the deposition cannot be considered a waiver of the right to object to its admissibility as evidence in the trial proper. 3. 2005). 2000). 158857. unless they could be obviated at that point. Sabino. Leave of court is necessary. G. Dulay. While a court had the authority to entertain a discovery request. Financially interested in the action. 5. vs. If s/he is related to the deponent within the 6 degree of consanguinity or affinity. objection may be made at the trial or hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying. Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. Effect of Substitution Of Parties (Sec. If s/he is related to the attorney of the deponent within the same degree. 5) 1. 133154. It would be illogical and unreasonable to expect respondent to comply with the letters rogatory without the cooperation of the very institution or personality named in the letters rogatory and requested to examine the witnesses. Court of Appeals. 13) A person is disqualified to be a deposition officer: 1. No. G. relevancy. No. 8. Examination and Cross-Examination (Sec. all depositions lawfully taken and duly filed in the former action may be used in the latter as if originally taken therefore. and manner of taking the deposition are deemed waived if not objected to before or during the taking of the deposition. 1994 should be deemed as full compliance with the requisites of the right of the private respondent to cross-examine the petitioner's witness. G.R. 2. A party is not estopped from challenging the admissibility of the deposition just because he participated in the taking thereof. December 9. March 9. 116044-45. 6. Objections to Admissibility (Sec. 6) Subject to the provisions of Section 29.R. Under Section 29. 2005). objections to the competency of a witness or the competency. commission is refused in the foreign country. th . November 11.

Spouses Fuentebella. In any event. this Court ruled that the sufficiency of a written notice is irrelevant where it is a matter of record that counsel and parties actually knew of the scheduled hearing. EFFECTS OF ERRORS AND IRREGULARITIES IN DEPOSITIONS A deposition not signed does not preclude its use during the trial. Inc. or managing agent of a public or private corporation. the admissibility of the deposition does not preclude the determination of its probative value at the appropriate time. 153667. Introduction of deposition by a party makes the deponent his witness. Rebutting deposition (Sec. 1995. 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. That she failed to inform him immediately is not our concern (Cathay Pacific Airways vs. G. No. Moreover. and the inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of the law (Ayala Land.10 In Bembo v. 155483. as in this case. G. According to Atty. 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 appears that it was his secretary who received the notice one (1) day earlier. 2005. vs. 8) 1.R. No. DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION OR PENDING APPEAL PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY or PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM . any party may rebut any relevant evidence contained in a deposition whether introduced by him or by any other party.R. Sps. If the deposition is used to contradict or impeach the deponent. 1997 after the proceedings. of August 21. No. 250 SCRA 404). 153667. 2005). EFFECT OF TAKING DEPOSITIONS (Sec. Belaro. this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. The deposition must be formally offered in evidence although it need not actually be read in court. disrector. G. he received a copy of the facsimile transmission only at 7:00 p. G. December 15. Dulay. 2005).R. F. Tagle. and b. A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of fact and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. 2. it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court (Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Inc. See also Dulay vs. August 11. No. No. November 29. EFFECT OF USING DEPOSITIONS (Sec. 158857. 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 (Ayala Land. Petitioner also admitted that its counsel of record received the notice at around four o'clock in the afternoon of August 20. 1997.R. 116845.R. 9. 2007). 2005). 1997. RULE 24.m. except: a. E. G. It bears emphasis that both counsel agreed to reset the deposition to August 21.R. Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. or association which is a party. partnership. 142541. The admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. 9) At the trial or hearing. If the adverse party uses the deposition of the other party or of anyone who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer. 7) A party shall not be deemed to make a person his witness for any purpose by taking his deposition Reason: Because depositions are taken for discovery and not for evidence. August 11. Tagle. November 11. vs. Parocha. No. On the other hand. April 27. G. Court of Appeals (G.

G. Specifies whether the depositions shall be taken upon oral examination or written interrogatories. F. That the petitioner expects to be a party to an action in a court of the Philippines but is presently unable to bring it or cause it to be brought. USE OF DEPOSITION (Sec. the court shall cause notice thereof to be served on the parties and prospective deponents in the manner provided for in the service of summons. Contents of the Order a. or 2. ORDER AND EXAMINATION (Sec. at the time and place stated therein. would be admissible in evidence.11 --called as such because their objective is to perpetuate the testimony of a witness for use in the future --a deposition under this rule is also used for the same purposes as those embodied in Secs. 2. although not so taken. 4 and 5 of Rule 23 (Sec. The subject matter of the expected action and his interest therein. and shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the persons to be examined named in the petition for the purpose of perpetuating their testimony. 3. 2. each reference therein to the court in which the action is pending shall be deemed to refer to the court in which the petition for such deposition was filed. b. C. FORMAL AND JURISDICTIONAL REQUISITES The petition shall be verified and shall be filed in the place of residence of any expected adverse party. FILING THE PETITION (Sec. NATURE AND PURPOSE B. NOTICE AND SERVICE (Sec. 4) 1. CONTENTS OF PETITION (Sec. The names and addresses of the persons he expects will be adverse parties and their addresses so far as known. 2. together with a copy of the petition. 2) 1. 4 & 5 of Rule 23. E. At least 20 days before the date of hearing. Designates or describes the persons whose deposition may be taken. and c. or 2. 6) A. is taken under this Rule. stating that the petitioner will apply to the court. The deposition may then be taken in accordance with Rule 23 before the hearing. Who wants to perpetuate the testimony of another person. D. 5) For the purpose of applying Rule 23 to depositions for perpetuating testimony. 3) 1. -it may be used in any action involving the same subject matter subsequently brought in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 5. The names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from each.1) A petition may be filed by any person— 1. The facts which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring to perpetuate it. Who wants to perpetuate his own testimony. The petitioner shall serve a notice upon each person named in the petition as an expected adverse party. 4. Specifies the subject matter of the examination. 6) If a deposition to perpetuate testimony -1. H. . REFERENCE TO COURT (Sec.

6) Gen. And the extraordinary writ of certiorari is generally not available to challenge an interlocutory order of a trial court. Without Leave Of Court – after answer has been served b. the issues are not yet joined and the disputed facts are not yet clear) 2) When more than one set of interrogatories is to be served. 2007). Petitioners are not entirely without an adequate remedy if their only objective in amending the complaint is to provide details or amplification to their allegations in the original complaint.G. it may be used as prior inconsistent statements to impeach the testimony of the deponent. C.R. Failure to serve. effect of (Sec. Distinguished from BILL of PARTICULARS. 2004). Nonetheless. 7) These are taken with the view to their being used in the event of further proceedings in the court of origin or the appellate court. this by no means is an absolute rule. hence. They are to be used at the trial or proceeding only if deponent is not available. Mazo. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES A.. he may not be compelled by the adverse party to: . the proper remedy in such cases being an ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment where incorporated in said appeal are the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order. Petitioners can avail of written interrogatories under Rule 25 to obtain information from respondents on the proposed amendments or make use of the request for admission by adverse party under Rule 26 to procure categorical answers under oath from the adverse party relating to the alleged details (Locsin et al vs. Service (Sec. then these details can be proposed as stipulation of facts which will be scrutinized and discussed during the pre-trial conference. No. 2.12 Depositions under Rule 24 should be taken conditionally. provided the predicate is laid in accordance with Section 13 of Rule 132. With Leave Of Court – 1) before answer has been served (REASON: at that time. The trial court order denying the written interrogatories was interlocutory in nature. No. Sandiganbayan et al. 145542. June 4. it could admit the deposition as ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE or remand the case to the lower court for such admission in accordance with Secs.R. Petitioners can present the details sought to be introduced in the original complaint by listing them as admitted facts. CHANGES IN RULE B. 1) a. 134458. 4 and 5 of Rule 23. August 9. Example: A party may perpetuate the testimony of a witness which was objected by the adverse party and ruled out by the court. WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES 1. If the deposition is not taken in accordance with this rule. 2. Rule: Unless a party had been served written interrogatories. PURPOSE AND NATURE 1. I. If there are no admissions on these factual matters. If the appellate court should reverse the decision or order of the lower court. This Court finds that the order disallowing petitioner’s written interrogatories are patently erroneous. RULE 25. the resort to certiorari is warranted (Ong vs. G. Written interrogatories elicit facts from any adverse party (Note: answers may also be used as admissions of the adverse party). DEPOSITIONS PENDING APPEAL (Sec.

Sandiganbayan. it may be a good basis for the dismissal of his complaint for non-suit unless he can justify such failure or refusal.R. NUMBER OF INTERROGATORIES (Sec. No. of Energy. SANCTIONS (Sec. Leave of court is . April 5.13 a. No specific provided period Within 15 days after service. 2007). G. OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES (Sec. RULE 26. 4) Only one set of interrogatories by the same party is allowed. ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY A. 3) F. Available No cross interrogation Any party who was Only on the party served present or was represented or who had due notice or had the opportunity to serve cross-interrogatories. but one of negation by depriving him of evidentiary sources which would otherwise have been accessible to him.R. 159796. The Rules of Court prescribes the procedures and defines all the consequence/s for refusing to comply with the different modes of discovery (Marcelo vs. D. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (Sec. 1) . 2005). Exc: The court allows it for good cause shown and to prevent failure of justice Note: The sanction adopted by the Rules is not one of compulsion in the sense that the party is being compelled to avail of the discovery mechanics. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES (Sec. August 28. Upon whom served Depositions (Rule 23) Written Interrogatories (Rule 25) Interrogatories are Only to an adverse party delivered to officer duly authorized to take the deposition who shall take note of the answer thereto. 2) E. No. give a deposition pending appeal. 6) If the plaintiff fails or refuses to answer the interrogatories. the inquiry must only extend to what is RELEVANT and MATERIAL to the issue subject of the suit as provided for in Section 5 of Rule 25 (Gerochi vs. Availability of cross interrogation On whom answers are binding Time to answer H. or b. G. 5) Although 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. G. give testimony in open court. SCOPE AND USE OF INTERROGATORIES (Sec. 156605. Dept. unless extended or reduced by the court. necessary for succeeding sets of interrogatories.

b. Change in rule 2. 2002). the party to whom the request is directed cannot be deemed to have admitted the genuineness of any relevant document described in and exhibited with the request or relevant matters of fact set forth therein on account of failure to answer the request for admission. 22 August 1988. b. Court of Appeals (G. that party cannot be deemed to have admitted the genuineness of any relevant matters of fact set forth therein on account of failure to answer the request for admission. will serve no purpose but to delay the proceedings and thus defeat the purpose of the rule on admission as a mode of discovery which is "to expedite trial and 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.R. 164 SCRA 668. the requests for admissions made by the petitioners were not validly served and therefore. A matter of fact not related to any documents may be presented to the other party for admission or denial. 125383. Purpose To relieve the 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. February 1. unnecessary to dwell on the issue of the propriety of an UNSWORN response to the request for admission. Otherwise. therefore. Admission of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. CA (216 SCRA 607 [1992]). private respondents cannot be deemed to have admitted the truth of the matters upon which admissions were requested (Duque vs. as a mode of discovery. defect which can be excused in the interest of justice . No. 102404. No. L-34341. which if abetted. G. No. Inc. Records show that only the counsel of the respondents was furnished copies of the requests. as the Court has observed in Briboneria vs. GR no. July 2. That the Comment was not under oath is not a substantive. a redundancy.R. contemplates of interrogatories that would CLARIFY and tend to shed light on the truth or falsity of the allegations in the pleading. Spouses Odones. We have held in Po v. Rule 26 ANSWER such request for his client? YES. otherwise. The request for admission must be served directly upon the party. 670]) that a party should not be compelled to admit matters of fact already admitted by his pleading and … to make a second denial of those already denied in his answer to the complaint. Procedure May the COUNSEL of a party to whom a written request for admission is addressed under Section 1. Admission of the genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the request. When request may be made a. which. Petitioners sought to compel respondents to deny once again the very matters they had already denied. Scope a. Consequently. c. Even assuming that a reply to the request is needed.14 1. 186979. However. It becomes. and Santos vs. G. 5. A request for admission that merely reiterates the allegations in an earlier pleading is inappropriate under Rule 26. Sec. August 11." (Limos vs. 2010) 3. R. 1 of Rule 26 requires that the request for admission must be SERVED directly upon the PARTY REQUESTED. At any time AFTER the issues have been joined (after the responsive pleading has been served). 4. Hemedez. but merely a formal. Court of Appeals And Sps. it is undisputed that the DBP filed its Comment either admitting or specifically denying again the matters sought to be admitted and stating the reasons therefor. Private respondents’ failure to serve copies of the request for admission directly upon the petitioners themselves suffices to warrant denial of the motion to strike out petitioners’ responses to said request (Nestle Philippines. Court of Appeals. 2002).

No. An admission is in the nature of evidence and its legal effects become part of the records of the case. 3) An admission under this section is for the purpose of the pending action only and cannot be used in other proceedings. or ought to be. No. There being no implied admission attributable to respondents’ failure to respond. D. The filing of such Comment substantially complied with Rule 26. 116 SCRA 327 [1982] ). 2005).. or OP IN IONS 2. Under these rules. Ltd. Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. (DBP vs. Despabiladeras. Sectio n 5 admit s of som e difficult y for it l eave s to a part y the deter m ination of wh at are the mat erial and relevant fa ct s at issue . hence. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE AND SERVE REQUEST (Sec. E. Change in rule 2. G. Scope: Material and relevant facts at issue which are. Effects: a. (DBP vs. 2) 1.R.R. December 16.. B. WITHDRAWAL OR AMENDMENT (Sec. IMPLIED ADMISSION: Failure to Reply to a Request for Admission (Sec. The amendment of the complaint per se cannot set aside the legal effects of the request for admission since its materiality has not been affected by the amendment. Court of Appeals. b. No. whether EXPRESS or IMPLIED. EFFECT OF ADMISSION (Sec. G. The silence of defendant on the plaintiff’s request for admission amounts to an implied acceptance of the facts set forth therein with the effect that plaintiff’s claim stood undisputed (Manzano vs. 2010). Court of Appeals. the redundant and unnecessarily vexatious nature of petitioners’ Request for Admission rendered it ineffectual. 4) The court may allow the party making an admission under this Rule. 3. within the personal knowledge of the adverse party. and irrelevant so as to proscribe the operation of the implied admission rule in Section 2. In this case. a party who fails to respond to a Request for Admission shall be deemed to have impliedly admitted all the matters contained therein. Each matter must be denied specifically under oath setting forth in detail the reason why he cannot truthfully admit or deny. 2004). GR No. August 11. Not es a. C. September 20. 1 5 3 0 3 4 . Inc. Spouses Odones. Ker & Co. September 20. CONC LU SION S. Remedy Motion to be relieved of consequences of implied admission. 5) 1.R. vs. futile. 153034 . 186979. it could be availed of by any party including the party who was subsequently impleaded and not necessarily only the party who filed the request for admission (See Bay View Hotel. to withdraw or amend it upon such terms as may be just.15 conformably to the well-entrenched doctrine that all pleadings should be liberally construed as to do substantial justice. Each of the matters of which an admission is requested is deemed admitted. 148786. the argument that a preliminary hearing is imperative loses its point (Limos vs.. 2005). The r ul e a ut hor izin g a par ty to cal l on the ot her part y to mak e an admissio n implie s the makin g of demand s for adm ission of relevan t and m ater ial matt er s of fa ct and NOT f o r adm is sion of matt ers of LAW. G. May result in summary judgment.

No. such that the adverse party can easily identify the documents he is required to produce. Unde r the r u le on specifi c denial s ( R ul e 8) . Rule 27 permits "fishing" for evidence. However.16 whic h are. or photographing the property or any designated relevant object or operation thereon. books. 164805. No. The court may order any party: a) to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of any designated documents. it shal l be deeme d as an admissio n. surveying. G. 172835. The lament against a fishing expedition no longer precludes a party from prying into the facts underlying his opponent's case. RULE 27. Subpoena duces tecum Means of compelling production of evidence May be directed to a non-party May be asked before and/or during trial May be asked only during trial The order under this Rule is issued May be issued upon an ex parte application. either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession. G. FIRST PART OF THE RULE A motion for production and inspection of documents should not demand a roving inspection of a promiscuous mass of documents. January 25.. Th e denia l mus t onl y refe r to ma tt er s whi ch ar e not pl ain ly an d nec ess ari l y w i t hi n d efe ndan t’ s kn o wl edg e (mus t be mad e in goo d faith) . April 30. G.. Sanctions Gen.R. 2000). or ough t to be w i th in the peculia r knowledge of the advers e pa rty . 135874. 2007 ) C. Rule: The party who fails to file and serve a request for admission shall not be permitted to present evidence on such fact. Mutual knowledge of all relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. or b) to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting. 3. only upon motion with notice to the adverse party. now known As Metropolitan Bank And Trust Company vs. Production or Inspection of Documents or Things Essentially a mode of discovery The Rules are limited to the PARTIES to the action. December 13. which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action. Gateway Electronics Corporation et al. (Air Philippines Corporation vs. SECOND PART OF THE RULE .R. PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS A. photographs. b. papers. EXC: The court allows such request for good cause shown and to prevent failure of justice. accounts. The provision shows that the production or inspection of documents or things as a mode of discovery sanctioned by the Rules of Court may be availed of by any party upon a showing of good cause therefor before the court in which an action is pending. objects or tangible things. Court of Appeals. measuring. To that end. custody or control. The rule on discovery "requires the parties to play the game with cards on the table so that the possibility of fair settlement before trial is measurably increased" (Security Bank Corporation (SBC) vs. and which are in his possession. 2008). The inspection should be limited to those documents designated with sufficient particularity in the motion. No. CHANGE IN RULE B. ot her w ise. Inc.R. fishing for evidence that is allowed under the rules is not without limitations (Solidbank Corporation. letters. which are not privileged. Pennswell.

Sec. The motion must show good cause for the examination. REPORT OF FINDINGS (Sec. manner. Notice to the party to be examined and to all other parties. measuring.R. A party or other deponent refuses to answer any question upon oral examination. 4) RULE 29. (Jaravata vs. REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY Sanctions: A. 154988. A party or witness refuses to answer any interrogatory submitted under Rule 23 or Rule 25. WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE (Sec. B.17 This rule also provides for an order of entry upon designated land or other property “for the purpose of inspecting. surveying. This is the requisite procedure under Section 1 of Rule 29 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Require the party or his advising counsel or both to pay the amount of reasonable expenses incurred including attorney’s fees Sec. place. Note: An order to submit to a physical examination is an interlocutory order.1) 1. 3) E. thus no appeal is allowed. 2.2 -. A party’s mental or physical condition is in controversy. 3.1. 2007) B. conditions and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is made. PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSON A. June 21. and 2. The application for an ORDER TO COMPEL an answer is GRANTED by the court. Venue: Court of the place where the deposition is being taken The CA rightly held that the court a quo erred in rendering a judgment by default against the defendants for refusal or failure to answer written interrogatories. D. or photographing the property or any designated relevant object or operation thereon. Karolus. Compel a party or deponent to answer questions (Sec. without first requiring an application by the proponent to compel an answer. and 2. pars. 1. The motion shall specify the time. WHEN APPLICABLE (Sec. or 2. Requisites: 1. 2) Requisites to obtain an Order for Examination: 1. 1 and 2) When availed: 1. 4 – Requisites: . The court finds that the REFUSAL to answer was WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION. G. A motion must be filed for the physical and mental examination. There must be a pending action. par.” RULE 28. 4. ORDER OF EXAMINATION (Sec. No.

material to the action and in the possession. 1 of Rule 29. or 3. f. 171827. Gateway Electronics Corporation. et al. a default judgment may be rendered. g. b. Rule 18).R. 3. 3): If any party REFUSES TO OBEY-1. e. The party requesting the admissions applies to the court for an order requiring the other party to pay him the reasonable expenses incurred in making such proof. The order to submit to physical or mental examination under Rule 28. It is not fair to penalize Gateway for not complying with the request of Solidbank for the production and inspection of documents. The court issues the order of payment. September 17. STAYING further proceedings until order is obeyed. Rendering DEFAULT JUDGMENT against the disobedient party. No. 3(c). June 29. 2008) According to former Justice Florenz D. c. 5. 1963). Cite the disobedient deponent in contempt of court (Sec. under the circumstance in Sec. h. Making the FACTS OR DOCUMENTS or MENTAL OR PHYSICAL CONDITION sought to be discovered as ESTABLISHED for purposes of the action. April 30. PROHIBITING the disobedient party from INTRODUCING evidence of physical or mental condition. D. is the sole ground for an order of default (Rosario. except in a refusal to submit to a physical or mental examination. A party is served with a REQUEST under Rule 26 TO ADMIT the genuineness of any document or truth of any matter of fact. Alonzo. G. et al. or The court may issue any of the following orders: a.. The order to produce any document or other thing for inspection. No. i. REFUSING to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose CLAIMS or DEFENSES PROHIBITING the disobedient party from INTRODUCING in evidence designated documents or items of testimony. j. Gateway and its officers can only be held liable for unjust refusal to comply with the modes of discovery if it is shown that the documents sought to be produced were specifically described. copying or photographing or to permit it to be done under Rule 27. 2008) . DISMISSING the action or proceeding or any part thereof. (Monzon vs. 2. vs. the plaintiff shall be allowed to present evidence ex parte and a judgment based thereon may be rendered against the defendant (Section 5. now known as Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. failure to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period. Note: The consequence under Section 4 for refusal to admit is the payment of the expenses incurred in PROVING the document or fact denied. C. considering that the documents sought were not particularly described. 164805. Regalado. except the failure to appear at a pre-trial conference wherein the effects of a default on the part of the defendant are followed. G. Directing PAYMENT of REASONABLE EXPENSES incurred by the other. Also.R. L-17320. Rule 29. Such party serves a SWORN DENIAL thereof. Relova. Directing the ARREST of the party concerned. Sps. 4. The party requesting the admissions thereafter PROVES THE GENUINENESS of such document or the truth of any such matter or fact. 2). The order directing him to answer designated questions under Sec. Other consequences (Sec. and not failure to appear at the hearing. 2. that is. (Solidbank Corporation. including attorney’s fees. STRIKING OUT all or any part of the pleading of the disobedient party. as contrasted with the consequences in the other modes of discovery.18 1. d. custody or control of Gateway. even if the defendant had filed his answer.

Court of Appeals. Moreover. 2006). No. Ltd. however. 5): If a party – 1. STRIKING OUT all or any part of the pleading of the disobedient party b. 102390. 97654. China Banking Corporation. Zepeda vs. . R. vs. G. to be ultimate causes of injustice. see letters e. Court of Appeals. c. respondent bank should have filed a motion based on Section 5 and not Section 3(c) of Rule 29.R. the imposition of sanctions under Section 5 is within the sound discretion of the trial court (Sps. 238 SCRA 88.. November 14. G. h above) would only apply where the party upon whom the written interrogatories is served. including attorney’s fees. G. China Banking Corporation. Rendering DEFAULT JUDGMENT against the disobedient party. 102404. f. The consequences enumerated in Section 3(c) of Rule 29 (Pls. 17217. 2006. February 1. d. It behooves trial courts to examine well the circumstances of each case and to make their considered determination thereafter. Directing PAYMENT of REASONABLE EXPENSES incurred by the other. taking into account the overriding interest of justice and the circumstances of each case (Lañada vs. citing Insular Life Assurance Co. No. R. (Sps. they are not contemplated. Since petitioners refused to answer the WHOLE SET of written interrogatories. Zepeda vs. G. 2002 and Nestle Phil. The determination of the sanction a court should impose for failure of a party to comply with the modes of discovery rests on sound judicial discretion.19 (Sec. refuses to answer a PARTICULAR QUESTION in the set of written interrogatories and despite an order compelling him to answer the particular question.. No. FAILS TO APPEAR before the officer who is to take his deposition. October 9.R. G. No. No. 2002) For while the modes of discovery are intended to attain the resolution of litigations with great expediency. 2. Inc. 17217. 93). v. not just a particular question. CA. February 1. DISMISSING the action or proceeding or any part thereof. still refuses to obey the order. 1994. g.R. FAILS TO SERVE ANSWERS to interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 The court may issue any of the following orders: a. October 9.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful