CASE 1: Pajarillaga vs.

CA
FACTS: Private respondent Thomas T. Kalangeg filed with the RTC
of Bontoc, Mt. Province,, a complaint for a sum of money with
damages against petitioner Isidro T. Pajarillaga. On March 10, 1997,
private respondent presented his first witness. At the next scheduled
hearing, neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared despite notice.
Upon private respondents motion, the trial court allowed him to
present his remaining two witnesses subject to petitioners crossexamination on the next scheduled hearing on September 2, 1997.
But when the case was called on that date, petitioner and his counsel
were again absent.
Upon private respondents motion, the trial court declared petitioner
to have waived his right of cross-examination and allowed private
respondent to make a formal offer of evidence, which the trial court
admitted. The trial court scheduled petitioners presentation of
evidence but the petitioner moved to reset the hearing. The TC
granted the motion. Five days before the scheduled hearing, the
petitioner filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Deposition of
the Defendant Upon Written Interrogatories a. Petitioner resides in
Manila which is more than four hundred (400) kilometers from
Bontoc, Mt. Province; b. Petitioner is suffering from an illness which
prohibits him from doing strenuous activities. 5. Private respondent
opposed the motion.
On December 15, 1997, neither petitioner nor his counsel again
appeared. Nonetheless, the trial court reset the case to January 12,
1998 for the presentation of petitioners evidence. The trial court
denied petitioners motion. Petitioners MR: denied.
CA affirmed. a. Denial of petitioners motion was not tainted with
grave abuse of discretion since the trial court gave petitioner full
opportunity to present his evidence. b. Petitioners motion came
much too late in the proceedings since private respondent has
already rested his case c. The medical certificate which petitioner
submitted to validate his allegation of illness merely contained a
remark that the patient is advised to avoid strenuous activity. It did

not state that the travel from Manila to Mt. Province for the scheduled
hearings was too strenuous to endanger petitioners health. d. The
threats to petitioners life by private respondents relatives were
belatedly alleged only in his motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE: WON the taking of petitioners deposition by written
interrogatories is proper and should have been granted by the court.
HELD: NO.
RATIO: 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. It
should be allowed absent any showing that taking it would prejudice
any party. It is accorded a broad and liberal treatment and the liberty
of a party to make discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if the matters
inquired into are otherwise relevant and not privileged, 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 open court where their
demeanor could be observed by the trial judge, consistent with the
principle of promoting just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding; 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. 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. Under certain conditions and
for certain limited purposes, it may be taken even after trial has
commenced and may be used without the deponent being actually
called to the witness stand. There is no rule that limits depositiontaking only to the period of pre-trial or before it; no prohibition exists
against the taking of depositions after pre-trial. There can be no valid
objection to allowing them during the process of executing final and
executory judgments, when the material issues of fact have become

numerous or complicated. There is really nothing objectionable, per

se, with petitioner availing of this discovery measure after private
respondent has rested his case and prior to petitioners presentation
of evidence. To reiterate, depositions may be taken at any time after
the institution of any action, whenever necessary or convenient. But
when viewed vis the several postponements made by petitioner for
the initial presentation of his evidence, his timing is suspect. The
records show that petitioner stopped attending the hearings after
private respondent presented his first witness. Petitioner offered no
excuse for his and his counsels absences. Moreover, the trial court
has set four (4) hearing dates for the initial presentation of his
evidence. But he merely moved for its resetting without invoking the
grounds. Petitioner has not sufficiently shown an exceptional or
unusual case for us to grant leave and reverse the trial and
appellate courts. o Under Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court,
depositions may be used for the trial or for the hearing of a motion or
an interlocutory proceeding, under the following (c) The deposition of
a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any
purpose if the court finds: (1) that the witness is dead; or (2) that the
witness resides at a distance more than one hundred (100)
kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the
Philippines, unless it appears that his absence was procured by the
party offering the deposition; or (3) that the witness is unable to
attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment;
or (4) that the party offering the deposition has been unable to
procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (5) upon
application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as
to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due regard to
the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in
open court, to allow the deposition to be used. Petitioners claim of
illness: the medical certificate submitted by petitioner merely
contained a remark that the patient is advised to avoid strenuous
activity. It was not alleged that the travel from Manila to Mt. Province
for the scheduled hearings was too strenuous to endanger
petitioners health. While the rules on discovery are liberally
constructed so as to ascertain truth and to expedite the disposal of

cases, the trial court may disallow a deposition if there are valid
reasons for so ruling.
CASE 2: SALES vs. SABINO
FACTS: Cyril A. Sabino filed an amended complaint for damages
against, among others, Jowel Sales, driver of the vehicle involved in
the accident which caused the death of respondents son, Elbert.
Before any responsive pleading could be filed, respondent, as
plaintiff a quo, notified the defendants that he will take the deposition
of one Buaneres Corral. The deposition on oral examination of
Buaneres Corral was taken before the Clerk of Court of Pasig, in the
presence and with the active participation of petitioners counsel,
Atty. Roldan Villacorta, who even lengthily cross-examined the
deponent.
Upon conclusion of her evidentiary presentation, respondent made a
Formal Offer of Exhibits,6 among which are Exhibits DD and EE.
Likewise offered in evidence as Exhibit BB7 is a certification from
the Bureau of Immigration attesting to the May 28, 1996 departure
for abroad of Buaneres Corral.
Petitioner opposed the admission of the deposition of Corral and
even asked that they be expunged from the records on the ground
that the jurisdictional requirements for their admission under Section
4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, were not complied with.
TC admitted depositions. MR denied. Petitioner went on certiorari to
the CA imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial
court in admitting in evidence the deposition in question. CA denied
certiorari, hence this petition.
ISSUES: (1) WON the deposition should be admitted
(2) WON the petitioner in cross-examining the deponent during the
taking of his deposition waived any and all objections in connection
therewith

HELD: (1) No, it shouldnt be admitted. Caertification does not

establish that he has not returned since then and is unavailable to be
present in court to personally testify.
(2) No, it wasnt waived.
RATIO: (1) While depositions may be used as evidence in court
proceedings, they are generally not meant to be a substitute for the
actual testimony in open court of a party or witness. Stated a bit
differently, a deposition is not to be used when the deponent is at
hand. Indeed, any deposition offered during a trial to prove the facts
therein set out, in lieu of the actual oral testimony of the deponent in
open court, may be opposed and excluded on the ground of hearsay.
However, depositions may be used without the deponent being
called to the witness stand by the proponent, provided the existence
of certain conditions is first satisfactorily established. Five (5)
exceptions for the admissibility of a deposition are listed in Section 4,
Rule 23, supra, of the Rules of Court. Among these is when the
witness is out of the Philippines.
(2) As a rule, the inadmissibility of testimony taken by deposition is
anchored on the ground that such testimony is hearsay, i.e., the party
against whom it is offered has no opportunity to cross-examine the
deponent at the time his testimony is offered. But as jurisprudence
teaches, it matters not that opportunity for cross-examination was
afforded during the taking of the deposition; normally, the opportunity
for cross-examination must be accorded a party at the time the
testimonial evidence is actually presented against him during the trial
or hearing. In fine, the act of cross-examining the deponent during
the taking of the deposition cannot, without more, be considered a
waiver of the right to object to its admissibility as evidence in the trial
proper. Participating in the taking of the deposition, but objecting to
its admissibility in court as evidence, petitioner did not assume
inconsistent positions. He is not, thus, estopped from challenging the
admissibility of the deposition just because he participated in the
taking thereof.

While errors and irregularities in depositions as to notice,

qualifications of the officer conducting the deposition, and manner of
taking the deposition are deemed waived if not objected to before or
during the taking of the deposition, objections to the competency of a
witness or the competency, relevancy, 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, unless they could be obviated
at that point.
CASE 3: ROSETE VS. LIM
FACTS: Respondents Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim filed a Complaint for
Annulment, Specific Performance with Damages against AFP
Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), Espreme
Realty, Alfredo P. Rosete, Maj. Oscar Mapalo, Chito P. Rosete, BPI,
and Register of Deeds of the Province of Mindoro Occidental.
It asked that the Deed of Sale executed by AFP-RSBS covering
certain parcels of lands in favor of Espreme Realty and the titles
thereof under the name of the latter be annulled; and that the AFPRSBS and Espreme Realty be ordered to execute the necessary
documents to restore ownership and title of said lands to
respondents, and that the Register of Deeds be ordered to cancel
the titles of said land under the name of Espreme Realty and to
transfer the same in the names of respondents.
Respondents filed a Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral
Examination giving notice that on June 18 and 20, 1997, they will
cause the deposition of petitioners Oscar Mapalo and Chito Rosete.
Petitioners filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion and Objection to Take
Deposition Upon Oral Examination. They argued that the deposition
may not be taken without leave of court as no answer has yet been
served and the issues have not yet been joined since their Answer
was filed ex abudanti cautela.
Moreover, they contend that since there are 2 criminal cases pending
before the City Prosecutors of Mandaluyong and Pasig involving the
same set of facts as in the present case where respondent Juliano

Lim is the private complainant and petitioners are the respondents, to

permit the taking of the deposition would be violative of their right
against self-incrimination because by means of the oral deposition,
respondents would seek to establish the allegations of fact in the
complaint which are also the allegations of fact in the complaintaffidavits in the said criminal cases.
The lower court denied petitioners motion and objection to take
deposition upon oral examination, and scheduled the taking thereof.
MR was denied.
Petitioners argument: petitioners refuse to have their depositions
taken in the civil case because they allegedly would be incriminating
themselves in the criminal cases because the testimony that would
be elicited from them may be used in the criminal cases. As
defendants in the civil case, it is their claim that to allow their
depositions to be taken would violate their constitutional right against
self-incrimination because said right includes the right to refuse to
take the witness stand.
ISSUE: WON the constitutional right against self incrimination of
Mapalo and Rosete would not be violated by the taking of their
deposition in the civil case filed in the LC although they are
respondents in criminal cases filed by Lim involving the same or
identical set of facts.
HELD: No.
RATIO: Only an accused in a criminal case can refuse to take the
witness stand. The right to refuse to take the stand does not
generally apply to parties in administrative cases or proceedings.
The parties thereto can only refuse to answer if incriminating
questions are propunded.
It is clear that only an accused in a criminal case can refuse to take
the witness stand. The right to refuse to take the stand does not
generally apply to parties in administrative cases or proceedings.

The parties thereto can only refuse to answer if incriminating

questions are propounded. This Court applied the exception- a party
who is not an accused in a criminal case is allowed not to take the
witness standin administrative cases/ proceedings that partook of
the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal
proceeding. It is likewise the opinion of the Court that said exception
applies to parties in civil actions which are criminal in nature. As long
as the suit is criminal in nature, the party thereto can altogether
decline to take the witness stand. It is not the character of the suit
involved but the nature of the proceedings that controls.
In the case at bar, the case is civil it being a suit for Annulment,
Specific Performance with Damages. In order for petitioners to
exercise the right to refuse to take the witness stand and to give their
depositions, the case must partake of the nature of a criminal
proceeding. The case on hand certainly cannot be categorized as
such. The fact that there are two criminal cases pending which are
allegedly based on the same set of facts as that of the civil case will
not give them the right to refuse to take the witness stand and to give
their depositions. They are not facing criminal charges in the civil
case. Like an ordinary witness, they can invoke the right against selfincrimination only when the incriminating question is actually asked
of them. Only if and when incriminating questions are thrown their
way can they refuse to answer on the ground of their right against
self-incrimination. [Rosete vs. Lim, 490 SCRA 125(2006)]
CASE 4: SIME DARBY EMPLOYEES ASSOC VS. NLRC
FACTS: Sime Darby Pilipinas (the Company) declared and
implemented a lockout against all the hourly employees of its tire
factory on the ground of sabotage and work slowdown. This after
failed negotiations with Sime Darby Employees Association (the
Union) for the remaining two years of their CBA. The Union
contested the lockout before the DOLE-NLRC. Subsequently the
company decided to sell its tire manufacturing assets and close the
business.

As a result, all employees were terminated, including the petitioners.

The company later found a buyer of its assets and business in
Goodyear Philippines, Inc. Petitioners filed a complaint for Illegal
Dismissal before the DOLE and later a complaint for Unfair Labor
Practice (ULP), both cases eventually consolidated. The labor arbiter
ordered the parties to submit their respective memorandum but
instead of doing this, the Union filed an Appeal Memorandum with a
petition for injunction and/or a TRO before the NLRC. The labor
arbiter later dismissed the case for lack of merit. It found the lockout
valid and legal, and justified by the incidents of continued work
slowdown, mass absences, and consistent low production output,
high rate of waste and scrap tires and machine breakdown. It also
considered the mass termination of all the employees valid as an
authorized termination of employment due to closure of the
establishment, the company having complied with due process.
Petitioners appealed the labor arbiters Decision to the NLRC which
was also dismissed for lack of merit.
It also ruled that that the labor arbiter could not have lost jurisdiction
over the case when petitioners appealed the formers order since the
order was interlocutory in nature and cannot be appealed separately.
In the Court of Appeals, the petition was similarly denied. Petitioners
reiterate that they were denied due process when they were
dismissed right on the day they were handed down their termination
letters, without the benefit of the thirty (30)-day notice as required by
law, and invoke the Courts ruling in Serrano v. NLRC; that the labor
arbiter had lost jurisdiction over the issue when have already
perfected their appeal to the NLRC; and that labor arbiter deprived
petitioners of the chance to present their evidence during the formal
trial.
ISSUE: WON request for admission should be permitted
HELD: No, it shouldnt be permitted.
RATIO: A request for admission is a remedy provided by Rule 26 of
the Rules of Court, which allows a party to file and serve upon any

other party a written request for the admission of : (i) the

genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and
exhibited with the request; or (ii) the truth of any material and
relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. Said request must be
answered under oath within the period indicated in the request,
otherwise the matters of which admission were requested should be
deemed admitted. Petitioners claim that respondents, instead of filing
an answer under oath, filed an unsworn reply/objection thereto.
Thus, the admissions should be deemed admitted in their favor.
Petitioners Request for Admission does not fall under Rule 26 of the
Rules of Court. A review of said Request for Admission shows that it
contained matters which are precisely the issues in the consolidated
cases, and/or irrelevant matters.
Rule 26 as a mode of discovery contemplates of interrogatories that
would clarify and tend to shed light on the truth or falsity of the
allegations in a pleading. That is its primary function. It does not refer
to a mere reiteration of what has already been alleged in the
pleadings.
The rule on admission as a mode of discovery is intended to
expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of proving facts which
will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained
by reasonable inquiry. Thus, if the request for admission only serves
to delay the proceedings by abetting redundancy in the pleadings,
the intended purpose for the rule will certainly be defeated.
CASE 5: REPUBLIC VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS: Private respondents Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Jr. and
Dominador R. Santiagotogether with Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda
R. Marcos, Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Sr., Gliceria R. Tantoco, and
Maria Lourdes Tantoco-Pineda are defendants in a civil case. The
case was commenced by the PCGG in behalf of the Republic. The
complaint which initiated the action was for reconveyance,
reversion, accounting, restitution and damages, and was avowedly

filed pursuant to Executive Order No. 14 of President Corazon C.

Aquino.

possible information of all the relevant facts before the trial as to

obtain evidence for use upon said trial.

After having been served with summons, Tantoco, Jr. and Santiago,
instead of filing their answer, jointly filed a MOTION TO STRIKE
OUT SOME PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT AND FOR BILL OF
PARTICULARS OF OTHER PORTIONS". The PCGG filed an
opposition and the movants, a reply to the opposition. The
Sandiganbayan, in order to expedite proceedings and accommodate
the defendants, gave the PCGG 45 days to expand its complaint to
make more specific certain allegations.

In line with this principle of according liberal treatment to the

deposition-discovery mechanism, such modes of discovery as (a)
depositions (whether by oral examination or written interrogatories)
under Rule 24, (b) interrogatories to parties under Rule 25, and (c)
requests for admissions under Rule 26, may be availed of without
leave of court, and generally, without court intervention. The Rules of
Court explicitly provide that leave of court is not necessary to avail of
said modes of discovery after an answer to the complaint has been
served. It is only when an answer has not yet been filed (but after
jurisdiction has been obtained over the defendant or property subject
of the action) that prior leave of court is needed to avail of these
modes of discovery, the reason being that at that time the issues are
not yet joined and the disputed facts are not clear.

Tantoco and Santiago presented a motion for leave to file

interrogatories under Rule 25 of the Rules of Court and
Interrogatories under Rule 25. The PCGG responded by filing a
motion to strike out said motion and interrogatories as being
impertinent, queer, weird, or procedurally bizarre as the purpose
thereof lacks merit as it is improper, impertinent and irrelevant under
any guise.
ISSUE:

On the other hand, leave of court is required as regards discovery by

(a) production or inspection of documents or things in accordance
with Rule 27, or (b) physical and mental examination of persons
under Rule ,28, which may be granted upon due application and a
showing of due, cause.

HELD:
RATIO: The various modes or instruments of discovery are meant to
serve (1) as a device, along with the pre-trial hearing under Rule 20,
to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties, and (2) as
a device for ascertaining the facts relative to those issues. The
evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable the parties, consistent with
recognized privileges, to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the
issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that said trials are
carried on in the dark. To this end, the field of inquiry that may be
covered by depositions or interrogatories is as broad as when the
interrogated party is called as a witness to testify orally at trial. The
inquiry extends to all facts which are relevant, whether they be
ultimate or evidentiary, excepting only those matters which are
privileged. The objective is as much to give every party the fullest

CASE 6: Dasmarias Garments vs. Reyes/American Pres.

FACTS: APL sued Dasmarias Garments for sum of money at the
hearing. Instead of presenting its witness, APL filed a motion praying
that it intended to take the depositions of some Taiwan nationals. The
lower court granted the deposition which was in compliance with the
rules on taking of testimony by deposition upon written
interrogatories under ROC. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: WON a party could present its evidence by taking the
deposition of its witness in a foreign jurisdiction before a private
entity.
HELD: Yes

RATIO: Depositions are chiefly a mode of discovery. They are

intended as a means to compel disclosure of facts resting in the
knowledge of a party or other person which are relevant in some suit
or proceeding in court. Depositions are principally made by law to the
parties as a means of informing themselves of all the relevant facts;
they are not therefore generally meant to be a substitute for the
actual testimony in open court of a party witness. Leave of court is
not necessary where the deposition is to be taken before a secretary
or embassy or legation, consul gen. etc., and the defendants answer
has already been served. Depositions may be taken at any time after
the institution of any action, whenever necessary or convenient.
There is no rule that limits deposition. Taking only to the period of
pre-trial or before it; no prohibition against the taking of deposition
after pre-trial the law authorizes the taking of depositions before or
after an appeal is taken from the judgment of RTC to perpetuate
their testimony for use in event of further proceedings in court or
during the process of execution of a final and executor judgment.
CASE 7: AYALA LAND VS. TAGLE
FACTS: The case is for the 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 Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI), Emerito B.
Ramos, Jr., et al.
ASB alleged that EMRASON, a real estate company which owns real
estate properties in Cavite City, with a total area of 372 hectares,
entered into a Letter-Agreement with ASB for the conditional sale of
65% of the said land for a consideration of P400,000,000.00 payable
in five installments. However, ASB received a letter from the children
of Emerito Ramos, Sr., informing them that they entered into a
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.

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 plaintiffs behalf in the course of the trial on the merits. ASB
then obtained the deposition upon oral examination of Emerito
Ramos, Sr. on six different occasions. Upon termination of Emerito
Ramos, Sr.s direct testimony by deposition, both plaintiffs and
defendants agreed that the cross-examination.
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 bestevidence rule, rule on presentation of secondary evidence,
incompetence of the deponent, opinion rule, manner of presentation
of evidence, and testimonies not forming part of the offer. As a
consequence, the trial court cancelled the scheduled crossexamination of Emerito Ramos, Sr.s deposition.
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, which the trial court
denied. The trial court again directed that the cross-examination of
Emerito Ramos, Sr., be scheduled. Before the scheduled date, ALI
filed a Manifestation and Motion praying that the date set be
cancelled and re-scheduled to another date. The trial court reset the
hearing. Thereafter, ALI filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition with urgent application for Temporary Restraining
Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction to restrain the public
respondent, Judge Lucenito Tagle, from implementing the Order and
to declare null and void and expunging the entire deposition
proceedings.
CA denied petition of ALI. MR was also denied. Emerito Ramos, Sr.
died. Plaintiff then filed before the trial court a motion to introduce in

evidence the deposition of Emerito Ramos, Sr. The motion was

opposed by ALI. ASB filed its Reply. ALI thereafter filed its Rejoinder
and ASB its Sur-rejoinder. The trial court issued its Order admitting in
evidence the deposition of Emerito Ramos, Sr. MR was denied. ALI
again elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by way of Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. CA
dismissed the petition for lack of merit. ALI filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which was opposed by private respondents ASB
and EMRASON. The motion was denied.
ISSUE: WON THE ALLEGED DEPOSITION OF THE WITNESS
EMERITO M. RAMOS, SR. IS ADMISSIBLE
HELD: Yes, it is.
RATIO: The trial court permitted the taking of Emerito Ramos, Sr.s
deposition chiefly because of his advance age which ground is
considered valid and justified under the Rules of Court.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
CASE 8: Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Ley
Construction
FACTS: Respondent LCDC filed a complaint for specific
performance and damages against petitioner Hyatt claiming that
Hyatt reneged in its obligation to transfer 40% of its share of a real
property despite respondents full payment of the purchase price and
that Hyatt failed to develop the said property in a joint venture,
despite LCDC's payment of 40% of the pre-construction cost.
Respondent filed an amended complaint impleading Princeton as
additional defendant claiming that Hyatt sold the property in fraud of
defendant. LCDC filed a second amended complaint adding as
defendant Yu He Ching, alleging that LCDC paid to Hyatt through Yu.
Responsive pleadings were filed and LCDC filed notices to take
depositions. During the scheduled depositions, Hyatt and Yu prayed
that all settings for depositions be disregarded and pre-trial be set
instead, contending that the taking of depositions only delay the
resolution of the case. RTC agreed and on the same day ordered all
depositions cancelled and pre-trial to take place. LCDC moved for
reconsideration, RTC denied. While pre-trial proceeded with the
refusal of LCDC to enter in pre-trial, Hyatt, Yu and Princeton moved
to declare LCDC non-suited, which the RTC granted. Defendant filed
an appeal, which the CA granted. Hyatt and Princeton filed their
respective motions for reconsideration which the CA denied, which
leads to this petition for review on certiorari.

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 law. It is allowed as a departure from the accepted and
usual judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open court
where their demeanor could be observed by the trial judge,
consistent with the principle of promoting just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding; 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 on 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. Indeed, the importance of
discovery procedures is well recognized by the Court. Trial courts are
directed to issue orders requiring parties to avail of interrogatories to
parties under Rule 45 and request for admission of adverse party
under Rule 26 or at their discretion make use of depositions under
Rule 23 or other measures under Rule 27 and 28 within 5 days from
the filing of the answer. The parties are likewise required to submit,
at least 3 days before the pre-trial, pre-trial briefs, containing among
others a manifestation of the parties of their having availed or their
intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to
commissioners. Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the
primary function of which is to supplement the pleadings for the
purpose of disclosing the real matters of dispute between the parties
and affording an adequate factual basis during the preparation for
trial

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in remanding the case to the trial court
and order the deposition-taking to proceed.

CASE 9: SIME DARBY VS. CA

CHECK case 4.

HELD: No.

CASE 10 SECURITY BANK VS. CA

FACTS: Petitioner Security Bank Corporation (SBC) is a domestic
banking corporation. It is one of the defendants in Civil Case No. Q97-30330 entitled Spouses Agustin P. Uy and Pacita Tang Sioc Ten
vs Security Bank Corporation, Domingo P. Uy and the Ex-Oficio City

RATIO: A deposition should be allowed, absent any showing that

taking it would prejudice any party. It is accorded a broad and liberal
treatment and the liberty of a party to make discovery is well-nigh

Sheriff of Quezon City, for injunction and damages with an

application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs Spouses Agustin P. Uy and Pacita Tang Sioc Ten sought to
enjoin Security Bank Corporation (SBC for brevity) and the Ex-Oficio
Sheriff of Quezon City from proceeding with the extra-judicial
foreclosure of a mortgage over a piece of property registered under
the respondent spouses names located in Quezon City .

SBC filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the Order, claiming

that said order [did] not explain the basis for requiring it to produce
the requested documents, and that there was no good cause for their
production, hence, it cannot be compelled to produce the same.

SBC filed its answer with compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim

while defendant Uy filed his answer with compulsory counterclaim
and crossclaim. SBC filed its answer to defendant Domingo Uys
cross-claim. Before filing his answer to defendant SBCs cross-claim,
defendant Uy filed an Omnibus Motion (Production of Documents
and Suspension and/or Extension of Time to File Answer to Crossclaim) on the ground that all documents, papers and instruments
made and executed by SBC on the evaluation, processing and
approval of the loans of Jackivi Trading Center, Inc., the real estate
mortgages (REM) and the Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
themselves must first be produced before he prepare and file the
answer to SBCs cross-claim. SBC filed its opposition to the motion
of Domingo Uy. In return defendant Domingo Uy filed a motion to
admit reply with the reply attached and on June 3, 1997 SBC filed its
rejoinder.

ISSUE: WON Motions [For Production, Inspection and Copying of

Documents] of Respondents Spouses should be granted

Trial court denied the omnibus motion. MR was also denied. On the
other hand, plaintiffs also filed their Motion (For Production,
Inspection and Copying of Documents) praying for the issuance of an
order directing SBC to produce and allow them to inspect and copy
the original and additional mortgage contracts executed by Jackivi
Trading Center, Inc. and/or Jose Tanyao.
Defendant SBC opposed the motion by filing its Consolidated
Opposition to the spouses Motion for Production, Inspection and
Copying of Documents and Urgent Motion for a temporary restraining
order and a writ of preliminary injunction. Respondent spouses filed
their reply to the consolidated opposition of SBC.

CA: The motion for production filed by the respondents spouses Uy

and Pacita Tang Sioc Ten is likewise for good cause, it being
necessary for a full determination of the issues

HELD: Yes, the CA did not err in granting the motions.

RATIO: The CA noted that the documents would enable Respondent
Uy to intelligently prepare his defenses against the cross-claim of
petitioner SBC, and not merely to formulate his answer. Likewise,
we agree with the appellate court that the Motion of Spouses Agustin
Uy and Pacita Tang Sioc Ten was for a good cause, because the
said documents were necessary for a full determination of the
issues raised in the case.
In sum, the Court held that the said Rule aims to enable the parties
to inform themselves, even before the trial, of all the facts relevant to
the action, including those known only to the other litigants. Through
this procedure, civil trials should not be carried on in the dark.We
quote: x x x 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. The experience in other jurisdictions has
been that ample discovery before trial, under proper regulation,
accomplishes one of the most necessary ends of modern procedure:
it not only eliminates unessential issues from trials thereby

shortening them considerably, but also requires parties to play the

game with the cards on the table so that the possibility of fair
settlement before trial is measurably increased,
As just intimated, the deposition-discovery procedure was designed
to remedy the conceded inadequacy and cumbersomeness of the
pre-trial functions of notice-giving, issue-formulation and fact
revelation theretofore performed primarily by the pleadings. The
various modes or instruments of discovery are meant to serve (1) as
a device, along with the pre-trial hearing under Rule 20, to narrow
and clarify the basic issues between the parties, and (2) as a device
for ascertaining the facts relative to those issues. The evident
purpose is, to repeat, to enable the parties, consistent with
recognized privileges, to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the
issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that said trials are
carried on in the dark.
It is clear that courts are given wide latitude in granting motions for
discovery in order to enable parties to prepare for trial or otherwise to
settle the controversy prior thereto.
What is chiefly contemplated is the discovery of every bit of
information which may be useful in the preparation for trial, such as
the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant
facts; those relevant facts themselves; and the existence,
description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books,
documents, or other tangible things. Hence, the deposition-discovery
rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment. No longer can
the time-honored cry of fishing expedition serve to preclude a party
from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponents case. Mutual
knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is
essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the
other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession. The
deposition-discovery procedure simply advances the stage at which
the disclosure can be compelled from the time of trial to the period
preceding it, thus reducing the possibility, of surprise

Petitioner points out that a party may be compelled to produce or

allow the inspection of documents if six procedural requisites are
complied with, viz.: (a) The party must file a motion for the
production or inspection of documents or things, showing good
cause therefor; (b) Notice of the motion must be served UT all other
parties of the case; (c) The motion must designate the documents,
papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
things which the party wishes to be produced and inspected; (d)
Such documents, etc are not privileged; (e) Such documents, etc
constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the
action; and (f) Such documents, etc are in the possession, custody or
control of the other party.
The rule is that courts, in passing upon a motion for discovery,
should be liberal in determining whether the documents in question
are relevant to the subject matter of the action. To repeat, 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.
CASE 11: SOLIDBANK VS. GATEWAY
FACTS: Gateway obtained 4 foreign currency denominated loans
from petitioner Solid Bank as capital for its manufacturing operations.
The loans were secured by Promissory notes and by assignment to
Solid Bank of all the proceeds of Gateway's Back-end Services
Agreement with Alliance Semiconductors. However, Gateway failed
to pay its obligations despite repeated demands from the petitioner.
This prompted petitioner to file a complaint for collection of sum of
money.
During the trial, Petitioner filed a motion for the production and
inspection of documents after learning that Gateway already
received proceeds of its Back-end agreement with Alliance. The
motion called for the inspection of all books of accounts, financial
statements, receipts, checks, vouchers, and other accounting
records. The court granted the motion. Subsequently, after a couple
of postponements, Gateway was only able to produce the billings

and not all the other documents. The Court chastised it for not
exerting due diligence in procuring the required documents and it
ordered that those not produced shall be deemed established in
accordance with Solid Bank's claim.
Gateway filed a petition for certiorari before the CA to nullify the 2
orders of the lower court. CA granted the petition and ruled that the
motion to produce and inspect failed to comply with Sec. 1, Rule 27
of the Ruled of Court. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: WON the motion for production and inspection complied with
Sec. 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court

Solidbank's motion was fatally defective and violates Sec. 1 Rule 27

due to its failure to specify with particularity the documents it required
Gateway to produce. Simply, the motion called for a blanket
inspection, too broad and too generalized in scope. Its request that
"all documents pertaining to, arising from, in connection with or
involving the Back-end Services Agreement" ask for a promiscuous
mass of documents.
A motion for production and inspection of documents should not
demand a roving inspection of a promiscuous mass of documents.
The inspection should be limited to those documents designated with
sufficient particularity in the motion, such that the adverse party can
easily identify the documents he is required to produce.

HELD: NO (Petition denied).

RATIO: Rule 27 of the Revised Rules of Court permits "fishing" for
evidence, the only limitation being that the documents, papers, etc.,
sought to be produced are not privileged, that they are in the
possession of the party ordered to produce them and that they are
material to any matter involved in the action. A fishing expedition no
longer precludes a party from prying into the facts underlying his
opponent's case. However, fishing for evidence has its limitations.

Since it is Solid Bank who asserted that Gateway already received

payment from its Back-end Agreement with Alliance, then the burden
of proof is on its side. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Throughout the
trial, the burden of proof remains with the party upon whom it is
imposed, until he shall have discharged the same.