only serves to delay the proceedings by abetting redundancy in the

RULE 26 pleadings, the intended purpose for the rule will certainly be
ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY defeated.

SECTION 1. Request for admission.—At any time after issues have

LEAVE OF COURT
been joined, a party may file and serve upon any other party a
written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of
 Leave of court is not required to avail of a request for admission.
any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with
  
the request or of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact
Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the request unless
set forth in the request. Copies of the documents shall be delivered
copy have already been furnished.
with the request unless copies have already been furnished. (1)
  
Discussion: An example of this is an actionable document. By way of review,
This is different from interrogatories that we discussed in rule 25. In actionable documents are required to be attached in the pleading.
interrogatories you served to the adverse party the questions and
the answers called for by the questions are narrations facts. here you
also file and served to the adverse party questions. These questions APPLICATION:
are answered only by yes or no.
In an action for collection of a sum of money plus interest, the
When do you file and serve this request for admission defendant made the following request for admission:
At anytime after issues have been joined so what do we mean by
after issues have been joined?
Request is hereby made of the following particulars:
This means that the answer of the defendant had already been filed
and served
1. Do you admit that the debt has been paid?
What do you want the other party to admit?
1. It could be of the genuineness of the material and relevant 2. If you admit that the debt has been paid, do you admit having
documents which are executed with a request issued a receipt?
Any document you would like the adverse party to admit.
2. The truth of any material and relevant matter of facts set forth in
3. If you admit 1 and 2, do you admit the genuineness and due
the request.
execution of the attached receipt dated September 29, 2009?
Do they admit that juandelacruz was not in physical possession of
the lot covered by tct 14344? This is an example for a request for
admission regarding a material and relevant matter of fact. 4. Do you admit the genuineness and due execution of the contract
of loan dated March 10, 2009?

Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the request unless 5. Do you admit that there is no stipulation as to payment of interest
copies have already been furnished.  in the said contract of loan?
example - naay uban na naka attach dapat sa imong pleading. For
example of promissory note if it is what is described under the rule
as an actionable document, which of the foundation of a cause of
DISTINCTIONS
action or defense, so in this case you don't have to furnish a copy of
the actionable document because it was already previously attached
INTERROGATORIES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
in your complaint and the adverse party already has copy.
PARTIES RULE 26
RULE 25
In both, the answers must be under oath.
PURPOSE OF ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY
In both, it is purely between parties to the action
 The purpose of this mode of discovery is to allow one party to Specific details or Admissions are sought. Thus, the
request the adverse party in writing to admit certain material and evidentiary matters are questions are answerable by YES or
relevant matters which most likely will not be disputed during the sought. The questions NO.
trial. To avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the parties in going asked are WHO, WHAT,
through the rigors of proof, before the trial, a party may request the WHEN, WHERE, etc.
other to: Can be availed of at any Can be availed of if there is an answer
   time by filing an ex- served with leave of court in the latter
(a) admit the genuineness of any material and relevant document parte motion. case.
described in and exhibited with the request; or

SEC. 2. Implied admission.—Each of the matters of which an

(b) admit the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set
forth in the request (Sec. 1, Rule 26, Rules of Court).
 
LAÑADA V. CA NESTLE PHILIPPINES v. CA
February 1, 2002
 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
admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within a
period designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen
(15) calendar days after service thereof, or within such further time as
the court may allow on motion, the party to whom the request is
directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a
sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an
admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he
or she cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the
court by the party requested within the period for and prior to the
filing of his or her sworn statement as contemplated in the evidence of the guilt of the accused.
preceding paragraph and his or her compliance therewith shall be BUT non-flight cannot be used as
deferred until such objections are resolved, which resolution shall be evidence to prove his innocence,
made as early as practicable. (2a) because that will be considered as
an act that is favorable to the
Discussion. For example there is a request for admission which is interest of the accused.
served upon you. when are you supposed to answer it? the rule says 2. In court, as in the
within 15 days after service.  case of testimony made
as a witness, either in
direct, cross, re-direct,
Dapat within 15 days magserve naka sa pikas party ug answer to
re-cross examination;
each of those matters not included in the request for admission. So
3. In the pleadings, as example: an answer you admitted
you either admit or deny so yes or no. If the questions are such na it
in the case of an something or you generally denied
is impossible for you to admit or to say yes or no because either way
admission in an answer the admission of the plaintiff so
it will be detrimental to you. So you can just state the reason why
or any other paper that's also equivalent to an
you cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters now if you
submitted before the admission. So those are finding
have objections also to the subject of the request for admission can
court; against the breeder
you file an objection? yes you can file an objection.
4. By failing to make a Discussion: As we have already
proper denial, as in the discussed before for example in the
within what period? within the period to file the answer to that case of a general denial answer you have to deny specifically
request for admission so also 15 calendar days.  when a specific one is those allegations in the complaint
required or in the case of which you wish to deny mere
Now what if you objected to the request for admission because a denial of an actionable general denial is not sufficient
maybe those questions pertain to matters which are privileged, or document not under otherwise it will be equivalent to an
they are irrelevant so what will happen to the period within which to oath. For example, for an admission or when there is an
file your answer supposedly to the request for admission? The rules allegation that defendant actionable document and you don't
says  na it will be deferred until the objections are resolved. So is “without knowledge or denied under oath so that is an
masuspend sa tong period within which to file the answer. information sufficient to admission of the genuineness and
form a belief as to the due execution of that document. Or
truth of a material you just say na the defendant has
what happens if gi ignore lang nimo request for admission? wala kay
averment made in the without knowledge or information
gibuhat? Take note na imong answer here should be under
complaint” to constitute sufficient to form a belief as to the
oath. Under oath ang imuhang statement so what if i maybe nag
denial, it must be shown truth of the material of averment
answer ka pero not under oath or wala ka nag answer at all? 
that the defendant made in the complaint and then in
indeed was in no position reality it's an allegation that either
Then the rule says each of the matters of which and admission is to know the truth of the you know or you don't know for
requested shall be deemed admitted. So luoy ka kay there is an averment in the example ng utang si defendant kay
admission on your part of all those matters na wala nimo gi answer complaint. But if it can be plaintiff so usually you deny or admit
answer and your own request for admissions sa pikas.  demonstrated that he in you cannot say that you are without
fact was in a position to sufficient knowledge or information
know, then the denial is regarding that unless if the
ADMISSIONS BY ADVERSE PARTY ineffective and the allegation is as to moral damages. 
Discussion: averment is deemed
admitted.
Regarding admission, what are those instances when there are 5. During the pre-trial We discussed before that during the
admissions - take note if it is an admission, it can be used against the stage; pre trial stage there can be
party who made the admission.  What are the instances?  stipulation of facts. When you
stipulate on a fact that is already an
The adverse party may make admissions: admission you don't have to prove it
anymore because it is already
binding against the parties who
1. Out of court, as in EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION. Under admitted. 
the case of extrajudicial this rule, the admission is admissible
6. By silence; Rule 130, Section 32. Admission by
admissions, whether by only if it is against the interest of the
silence. - An act or declaration made
act or omission; admitter (otherwise it is a self-
in the presence and within the
serving statement).
hearing or observation of a party
who does or says nothing when the
note: you will not usually say
act or declaration is such as naturally
something which is against you but
to call for action or comment if not
if you say something which is in your
true, and when proper and possible
favor you cannot say na the other
for him to do so, may be given in
party has also to utilize your
evidence against him. (23a)
admission because in so far as you
are concerned it is self-serving. It is
Discussion:  So kung wala niya
more useful for a person to admit
gidisprove, wala siya ng object that
something favorable to him than
is equivalent to saying silence means
something which is against him. 
yes. 
7. Through others, as in Even if it is not your admission but it
Example: Flight is considered a
the case of the is your partner or co conspirator it
disserving act, since it is prejudicial
exceptions to the RES may be minding under the res inter
to the interest of the accused. Flight
INTER ALIOS ACTA rule in alios acta rule
is considered as circumstantial
 evidence;
8. Expressly in an answer
to a request for
admission under Rule 26;
9. Impliedly under Rule If there's a request for admission
26, Section 2. and you did not answer you did not
admit or deny or object that would
be considered an admission each of
the matters in which an admission is
requested shall be deemed
admitted. That is the important
effect of failure to respond to a
request for admission there is an
implied admission.
CAN A PARTY BE MADE TO ADMIT THE SAME ALLEGATION
TWICE?
An example is an actionable document. Its genuineness and due
execution must be denied under oath in the pleadings, otherwise its
genuineness and due execution are admitted. The adverse party may
then ask the other to admit its genuineness and due execution under
oath using a request for admission. This is not prohibited under the
Rules. The same effect applies. Failure to comply with Section 2 of
Rule 26 amounts to an implied admission. Thus, a party may, IN
THEORY, be asked to admit the same thing twice.
Discussion: so there's already an actionable document attached to
the complaint if you are the defendant how do you deny the
actionable document? you deny otherwise you are deemed to have
admitted the genuineness and you execution of that actionable
document so naa nakay denial in your answer. No later on the same
plaintiff filed a request for admission in that same request for
admission naa napud syay gi  attach na same actionable
document which was already previously denied by the defendant in
his answer. Technically we have here a second denial. In the request
for admission diba there's another question regarding the
genuineness and you execution of the document so you should also
denied that under oath or admitted on their own in your answer to
the request for admission.
HOWEVER, TAKE NOTE OF:
PRISCILLA SUSAN PO vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. L-34341,
August 22, 1988
FACTS: The petitioner filed in 1971 a complaint for P35,000
damages against the private respondent Jose P. Mananzan. After
Mananzan had answered the complaint, petitioner served upon him
a request for admission.
On February 27, 1971, Mananzan asked for an extension of time to
answer the request for admission. The petitioner opposed the
motion for extension of time on account of alleged defects in the
notice of hearing.
On March 4, 1971, the petitioner filed a motion for summary
judgment on the ground that there exists no genuine or substantial
controversy on any issue of fact raised in the complaint because the
defendant, by failure to answer her request for admission within the
reglementary period (Sec. 2, Rule 26, Rules of Court) is deemed to
have admitted the facts set forth in the request.
On April 16, 1971, respondent Judge Lustre denied the motion for
summary judgment, observing that "the interrogatories...are nothing
but a reiteration of a portion of the plaintiffs allegations in the
complaint, which have already been answered and denied by the
defendant in his answer" hence, they "need not be answered again if
asked in the form of interrogatories."
ISSUE: Is there an implied admission?
RULING:
An examination of petitioner's complaint and her request for
admission confirms Judge Lustre's finding (which the Court of
Appeals upheld) that the "fact" set forth in the request for admission,
including the amount of damages claimed, are the same factual
allegations set forth in her complaint which the defendant either
admitted or denied in his answer.
A party should not be compelled to admit matters of fact already
admitted by his pleading and concerning which there is no issue
(Sherr vs. East, 71 A2d 752, Terry 260, cited in 27 C.J.S. 91), nor
should he be required to make a second denial of those already
denied in his answer to the complaint. A request for admission is not
intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the
requesting party's pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiary
matters of fact, or documents described in and exhibited with the
request, whose purpose is to establish said party's cause of action or
defense. Unless it serves that purpose, it is, as correctly observed by
the Court of Appeals, "pointless, useless," and "a mere redundancy."
Discussion: 
It could be possible na imohang complaint there are allegations
there na imuha napod ibalik sa imong request for admission. And
pwede na pod mag balik balik imohang admissions. Si defendant
pwede sya mag balik balik ug deny or admit. Just take note na the
answer as a pleading does not have to be under oath. it is only
required to be under oath kung naay actionable document attached
to the complaint because you have to deny it under oath. Otherwise
you are named to have admitted the genuineness and due execution
of that actionable document. 
Kung sa request for admission naman imong answer dapat under
oath. So how to reconcile? Kung naa nakay answer and it is not
under oath although you denied the matters set forth in the
complaint and then again naa na puy we request for admission
which is served by the complainant against you as the defendant.
Now you have to deny or maybe admit - you have to answer the
request for admission. Under oath. you cannot say na you already
answered those same questions raised in the request for admission
when you filed your answer to the complaint why because your
answer your denials your admissions in your answer are not under
oath.
Dapat under oath sya. that's why you need to respond to the request
for admission under oath otherwise you are deemed to have
admitted all the matters set forth in the request for admission. 
THE PARTY TO WHOM THE REQUEST IS DIRECTED
1. Can a lawyer answer a request for admission on behalf of his client?
LAÑADA V. CA NESTLE PHILIPPINES v. CA
February 1, 2002
May the counsel of a party to whom a written request for admission
is addressed under Section 1, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, answer
such request for his client?
The issue for resolution thus calls for an interpretation of the phrase
“the party to whom the request is directed.” This is not the first time
that the Court is faced with the issue of whether a party requested to
make admissions may reply or answer through his counsel. In PSCFC
Financial Corporation v. Court of Appeals (216 SCRA 838), the
petitioner therein served upon the Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank, a written request for admission of the truth of
certain factual matters. Through Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun, who was not
yet a lawyer when Banco Filipino inaugurated its financing plan in
1968, Banco Filipino made the requested admissions but denied that
the financing corporation had availed of the Home Financing Plan
subject of controversy. Obviously objecting to the reply, the
petitioner therein made a second request for admission. In resolving
the issue of whether or not the answer to the request for admission
under Rule 26 “should be made by the party himself and nobody
else, not even his lawyer,” the Court issued a Resolution stating as
follows:
party to whom the request is directed cannot be deemed to have
admitted the genuineness of any relevant document in and exhibited
with the request or relevant matters of fact set forth therein, on
account of failure to answer the request for admission.
This is one of the instances na notice to the lawyer does not bind the
client.
The general rule is notices documents papers etc must be served to
the lawyer and not to the client if a client is represented by
counsel. Notice to client is not notice to the lawyer and it will not
prejudice also the client. Notice to the lawyer is notice to the client it
is binding against the client. But if it is a request for admission notice
to the lawyer himself alone without notifying the client is not binding
against the client or the parties

The argument is untenable. Section 21 of Rule 138 states –

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES and
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
SEC. 21. Authority of attorney to appear. – An attorney is presumed
to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he
appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
him to appear in court for his client. TO PARTIES RULE 26
RULE 25
In both, any objection to the questions are submitted directly to
Petitioner has not shown that the case at bar falls under any of the
the court.
recognized exceptions as found in Art. 1878 of the Civil Code which
In both, the answers may be deferred pending the court’s ruling
enumerates the instances when special powers of attorney are
of the objections.
necessary, or in Rule 20 of the Rules of Court on pre-trial where the
The period to object The period to object is not less than 15
parties and their attorneys are both directed to appear before the
is 10 days after days from the date of service of the
court for a conference; so that for counsel to appear at the pre-trial
service of the request for admission.
in behalf of his client, he must clothe the former with an adequate
interrogatories.
authority in the form of a special power of attorney or corporate
Period to answer Period to answer may be extended but
resolution.
may be shortened not shortened.
or extended.
Section 23 of Rule 138 provides that “(a)ttorneys have authority to
bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto
made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary
judicial procedure x x x .”
SEC. 3. Effect of admission.—Any admission made by a party
Thus, when Rule 26 states that a party shall respond to the request pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the pending action
for admission, it should not be restrictively construed to mean that a only and shall not constitute an admission by him or her for any
party may not engage the services of counsel to make the response other purpose nor may the same be used against him or her in any
in his behalf. Indeed, the theory of petitioner must not be taken other proceeding. (3a)
seriously; otherwise, it will negate the principles on agency in the
Civil Code, as well as Sec. 23, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court. When there is an admission it is binding against the admitter. What
what is the extent of such admission? The rule says that it is for the
Nonetheless, even assuming arguendo that Atty. Philip Sigfrid purpose of the pending action only and shall not constitute and
Fortun overstepped his authority, it is only his client, respondent admission for any other purpose nor may the same be used against
Banco Filipino, which has the prerogative to impugn his acts and not him or her in any other proceeding.
petitioner, the adverse party. Interestingly, Banco Filipino has not
objected to the response made by its counsel in its behalf. (Italics This means that there is an exclusive use of the admission made.
supplied.)

EXCLUSIONARY RULE OF EVIDENCE

In the case at bar, neither is there a showing that petitioners Nestle
and Santos did not authorize their respective counsel to file in their
Section 3 provides that any admission made by a party pursuant to
behalf the respective answers requested of them by private
such request is for the purpose of the pending action only and shall
respondents in the latter’s written request for admission. As this
not constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor may
Court has said, there is no reason to strictly construe the phrase “the
the same be used against him in any other proceeding.
party to whom the request is directed” to refer solely or personally to
the petitioners themselves.
Discussion: remember that in rule 23 in deposition, the deposition is
not only limited to that certain proceeding. A deposition under rule
2. If a lawyer is allowed to make the answer, can the request for 25, the deposition may still be used notwithstanding:
admission be served upon him instead? NO

1. The substitution of parties

SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No.
101682, December 14, 1992
2. The dismissal of the action and the subsequent filing of another
action involving the same subject between the same parties or their
Under Section 1, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, the request for representatives or successors-in-interest
admission must be served directly upon the party; otherwise, the
So all depositions lawfully taken and duly filed in the former
action, may still be used in another action as if originally taken
therefrom. But this is not the case in rule 26 section 3. So section 3 of
rule 26 is an exclusionary rule of evidence. 
SEC. 4. Withdrawal.—The court may allow the party making an
admission under this Rule, whether express or implied, to withdraw
or amend it upon such terms as may be just. (4)
Q: Can you still withdraw the admission whether express implied? yes
under section 4. You can withdraw or change the admission up on
such terms as may be just.  motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in which
What are those terms which are just which would justify the
withdrawal or amendment of the admission?
1. Section 2 rule 129, on judicial admissions
If you make an admission it may be contradicted by showing that it
was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was
made. So in relation to rule 129 you can withdraw or amend your
admission a pawn showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or walay admission nahitabo in the first place.  manner of making the inspection and taking copies and
SEC. 5. Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission.—
Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good cause shown and to
prevent a failure of justice, a party who fails to file and serve a
request for admission on the adverse party of material and relevant
facts at issue which are, or ought to be, within the personal
knowledge of the latter, shall not be permitted to present evidence
on such facts. (5)
Q: what is the effect if you fail to file and serve a request for
admission? Take note of section. It has the effect of bearing you
from later on presenting evidence on such fact. This is a very harsh
consequence.
SEE ALSO: DUQUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS; 
VALENZUELA vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 125383, July 2, 2002
--- END OF RULE 26 ----
RULE 27
PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
SECTION 1. Motion for production or inspection; order. –Upon
an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce and permit
the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the
moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books,
accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things not
privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any
matter involved in the action and which are in his or her possession,
custody or control; or (b) order any party or permit entry upon
designated land or other property in his or her possession or control
for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or
photographing the property or any designated relevant object or
operation thereon. The order shall specify the time, place and
photographs, and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are
just. (1a)
PURPOSE
Discussion: in so far as the smooth for production and inspection
these are the two purposes by which a party is allowed to seek an
order from the court in which the action is pending ( so we
presuppose here that there is already an action which is ongoing)
The purpose of this mode of discovery is to allow a party to seek an
order from the court in which the action is pending to:

(a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and
Example: let's say that there is a fact that the plaintiff wants to prove
copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of
and he knows that this is within the knowledge of the
any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
defendant. Under the rules, the plaintiff has to send the defendant a
photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which
request for admission. Supposed to plaintiff did not send the
constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the
defendant a request for admission because according to the plaintiff
action and which are in his possession, custody or control ( of the
anyway i will just prove this during the trial. During trial the adverse
party against whom the motion is made);
party can object because under section 5 the plaintiff cannot present
evidence to prove something which the defendant could have
admitted in a request for admission so this is something which could (b) order any party to permit entry upon designated land or other
have been the other party resorted to a request for admission. So property in his/her possession or control for the purpose of
this is a dangerous provision because it practically places the other inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or
party in estoppel.  any designated relevant object or operation thereon (Sec. 1, Rule 27,
Rules of Court)

GR: The adverse party can therefore bar the other from proving
anything simply because he failed to avail of the modes of Rule" 27 sets an unequivocal proviso that the documents,
discovery.  papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
things that may be produced under Rule 27 and inspected
SHOULD NOT BE PRIVILEGED.
XPT: However, the Rules allow an exception: “Unless otherwise
allowed by the court for good cause and to prevent a failure of
justice.” On the ground of public policy the rules should only be limited to
those which are not confidential and which are not privileged in
character because even this evidence cannot be admitted also. 
• What if denied by the defendant in his answer, still need to send
request for admission?
This condition is in addition to the requisite that the items must be
specifically described so will not inspect remove or get any other
If the answer of the defendant is not under oath then you need to
item and must constitute evidence material to any matter in the
send another request for admission because the answer in a request
action.
for admission has to be under oath. So the answer in the answer the
admissions and denials, would not serve the same purpose as answer
to the request for admission if the answer itself is not under oath. Materiality basta-basta naunsa lang na document even if it is
described kung dili material sa case, then you cannot ask for the
production of that document and which are in the poor disposition
custody or control.
Ngano man diay mangayo ka og order for the production kung wala
man gihapon sa inyong possession or custody useless gihapon
SEE: AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION VS PENSWELL (G.R.
No. 172835)
Discussion: 
A party may be compelled to produce or allow the inspection of
documents if six procedural requisites are complied with, viz.:
1. The party must file a motion for the production or inspection of
documents or things, showing good cause therefor;
2. Notice of the motion must be served to all other parties of the
case;
3. The motion must designate the documents, papers, books,
accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things which the
party wishes to be produced and inspected;
4. Such documents, etc. are not privileged;
5. Such documents, etc. constitute or contain evidence material to
any matter involved in the action; and
6. Such documents, etc. are in the possession, custody or control of
the other party.
SEE: SECURITY BANK CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R.
No. 135874, January 25, 2000
“MODE OF DISCOVERY” UNDER THE AMPARO RULE
GEN. ALEXANDER B. YANO vs. SANCHEZ and MEDINA G.R. No.
186640, February 11, 2010
In line with this, Section 14 of the Amparo Rule provides for interim
or provisional reliefs that the courts may grant in order to, inter alia,
protect the witnesses and the rights of the parties, and preserve all
relevant evidence, viz:
SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. — Upon filing of the petition or at anytime
before final judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of
the following reliefs:
(b) Inspection Order. — The court, justice or judge, upon verified
motion and after due hearing, may order any person in possession or
control of a designated land or other property, to permit entry for
the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing
the property or any relevant object or operation thereon.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It
shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having
personal knowledge of the enforced disappearance or whereabouts
of the aggrieved party.
If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the
privileged nature of the information, the court, justice or judge may
conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the
opposition.
The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to
establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or
violated.
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized
to make the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of
making the inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect
the constitutional rights of all parties. The order shall expire five (5)
days after the date of its issuance, unless extended for justifiable
reasons.
(c) Production Order. — The court, justice, or judge, upon verified
motion and after due hearing, may order any person in possession,
custody or control of any designated documents, papers, books,
accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects
in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence
relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their
inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant.
The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of
the privileged nature of the information, in which case the court,
justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the
merit of the opposition.
The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect
the constitutional rights of all the parties. (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
Production or Inspection of Subpoena Duces Tecum under
Documents or Things under Rule 21
Rule 27
A mode of discovery A means of compelling
production of evidence which
must be brought to court
Limited to parties in the action May be directed to any person,
whether a party or not
The order under Rule 27 is A subpoena duces tecum under
issued only upon motion with Rule 21 may be issued upon an
notice to the adverse party. ex-parte application.
EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. CAMERON
GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.
G.R. No. 204700, November 24, 2014
The availment of a motion for production, as one of the modes of
discovery, is not limited to the pre-trial stage. Rule 27 does not
provide for any time frame within which the discovery mode of
production or inspection of documents can be utilized. The rule only
requires leave of court "upon due application and a showing of due
cause."
Since the rules are silent as to the period within which modes of
discovery (in that case, written interrogatories) may still be
requested, it is necessary to determine: (1) the purpose of discovery;
(2) whether, based on the stage of the proceedings and evidence
presented thus far, allowing it is proper and would facilitate the
disposition of the case; and (3) whether substantial rights of parties
would be unduly prejudiced. This court further held that "[t]he use of
discovery is encouraged, for it operates with desirable flexibility
under the discretionary control of the trial court."
INSIGNE, ET. AL. vs. ABRA VALLEY COLLEGES, INC. G.R. No.
204089, July 29, 2015
The petitioners filed a Motion for Production/Inspection of
Documents,asking that the RTC direct the respondents to produce
Abra Valley’s Stock and Transfer Book (STB); and that petitioners be
allowed to inspect the same.
Petitioners alleged that considering that Abra Valley’s STB was not in
the possession of the petitioners, or at their disposal, they could not
be reasonably expected or justly compelled to prove that their stock
subscriptions and purchases were recorded therein. This, more than
any other, was precisely why they filed their Motion for
Production/Inspection of Documentsto compel the respondents to
produce the STB.
The RTC did not act on the motion on the ground that "the Stock
and Transfer Book is one of the corporate books which may be
examined only by a stockholder-of-record."
RULING:
The RTC is wrong. The rules of discovery, including Section 1, Rule 27
of the Rules of Court governing the production or inspection of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things not privileged, which contain
or constitute evidence material to any matter involved in the action
and which are in the other party’s possession, custody or control, are
to be accorded broad and liberal interpretation.
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 opponent’s 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,"...
In light of the foregoing, the RTC should have favorably acted on the
petitioners’ Motion for Production/Inspection of Documents in order
to enable the petitioners, consistent with the recognized privileges
and disabilities, to enable them to obtain the fullest possible
knowledge of the issues and facts to be determined in Special Civil
Action Case No. 2070, and thereby prevent the trial from being
carried on in the dark, at least from their side. Doing so would not
have caused any prejudice to the respondents, for, after all, even had
the petitioners not filed the Motion for Production/Inspection of
Documents, the respondents would themselves also be expected to
produce the STB in court in order to substantiate their affirmative
defense that the petitioners were not stockholders-of-record of Abra
Valley. Verily, that there was no entry or record in the STB showing
the petitioners to be stockholders of Abra Valley was no valid
justification for the respondents not to produce the same. Otherwise,
the disputable presumption under Section 3 (e) of Rule 131 of the
Rules of Court that "evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse
if produced" could arise against them.
---- END OF RULE 27 ----
RULE 28
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS
SECTION 1. When examination may be ordered. —In an action in
which the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy,
the court in which the action is pending may in its discretion order
him or her to submit to a physical or mental examination by a
physician. (1a)
APPLICABILITY
This mode of discovery applies to an action in which the mental or
physical condition of a party is in controversy (Sec. 1, Rule 28, Rules
of Court). Examples of this action would be:
1. An action for annulment of a contract where the ground relied
upon is insanity or dementia;
2. A petition for guardianship of a person alleged to be insane;
3. An action to recover damages for personal injury where the issue
is the extent of the injuries of the plaintiff;
Here we have to know the extent of the injury suffered by the
plaintiff for example.
4. Action for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity;
Here we can compel the mental examination of the person.
5. Action for annulment under Article 45 of the Family Code on the
grounds of insanity, physically incapacity of consummating the
marriage with the other and such incapability continues and appears
to be incurable and affliction with a sexually-transmissible disease
found to be serious and appears to be incurable;
6. An action for damages based on quasi-delict that led to physical
injuries.
SEC. 2. Order for examination.—The order for examination may be
made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the
party to be examined and to all other parties, and shall specify the
time, place, manner, conditions and scope of the examination and
the person or persons by whom it is to be made. (2)
Discussion: So it should be a bond motion you file a motion for the
physical examination of your opponent and there should be good
cause to justify why there is a need to examine. You should serve a
copy of the motion to the adverse party so fun to the requisites of
motion. Once the court already approves you motion for the mental
or physical examination the court should also specify the time please
manner condition etc of the examination and who will conduct
examination
SEC. 3. Report of findings—If requested by the party examined, the
party causing the examination to be made shall deliver to him or her
a copy of a detailed written report of the examining physician setting
out his or her findings and conclusions. After such request and
delivery, the party causing the examination to be made shall be
entitled upon request to receive from the party examined a like
report of any examination, previously or thereafter made, of the
same mental or physical condition. If the party examined refuses to
deliver such report, the court on motion and notice may make an
order requiring delivery on such terms as are just, and if a physician
fails or refuses to make such a report, the court may exclude his or
her testimony if offered at the trial. (3a)
What is the meaning of section 3
For example a files a case against b for declaration of nullity of
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity of be in that
particular case for example a filed a motion in court for the mental
examination of b which the court granted. So the exam was
conducted and the results are in. Be requested for a copy of that
psychological evaluation so once mohatag na si a kay b ug copy
atong result, of findings, unsay consequence?
A can ask B of a copy of any examination conducted before or after
of the same mental condition. So dili pa kaingon si B karon na dili
taka tagaan because that is privileged communication. Here we are
applying the rule on physical and mental examination of persons
under rule 28. So be cannot refuse to furnish be a copy of an
examination which he underwent before sa examination na girequest
ni A or after.
Halimbawa dili magsugod si A maghatag ug copy sa result sa iyang
gibuhat ng examination. the rules says the court can make an order
or notice compelling delivery. If the physician does not want to make
a report, you cannot present that position because you did not
furnish a copy to A when A asked for the copy of the result.
PROCEDURE
A motion must be filed showing good cause for the examination,
with notice to the other parties as well aside from the party to be
examined. The motion shall likewise specify the time, place, manner,
conditions and scope of the examination and 'by the person or
persons by whom it is made (Sec. 2, Rule 28, Rules of Court).
The party examined may request the party causing the examination
to be made to deliver to him a copy of a detailed written report of
the examining physician setting out his findings and conclusions.
After such request and delivery, the party causing the examination to
be made shall be entitled upon request to receive from the party
examined a like report of any examination, previously or thereafter
made, of the same mental or physical condition. If the party
examined refuses to deliver the report, the court may make an order
requiring the delivery on such terms as are just. If it is the physician
who fails or refuses to make a report, the court may exclude his
testimony (Sec. 3, Rule 28, Rules of Court).
SEC. 4. Waiver of privilege.—By requesting and obtaining a report of
the examination so ordered or by taking the deposition of the
examiner, the party examined waives any privilege he or she may
have in that action or any other involving the same controversy,
regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined or
may thereafter examine him or her in respect of the same mental or
physical examination. (4a)
Discussion: are you familiar with patient physician privileged
communication? The doctor cannot divulge the result of the
examination made without the consent of the patient. In effect in this
section, there is a waiver of the privilege. IF si a ug B and upon
motion of A, he compelled the examination of B, si B nangayo ug
copy sa result sa mnetal exam conducted on him on motion of A so
based on Sec 4, B now waives any privilege which he may have in
that action or any other involving the same controversy, regarding
the testimony of every other person who has examined or may
thereafter examine him or her in respect of the same mental or
physical examination.
Example, even before the case if nagpacheck up na si B and naa nay
result, again, dili na sya makainvoke ug privileged communication.
Kung si A mangayo’g copy ato (katong exam before the action but
relating to the same mental condition), dili na makaprevent si A – he
cannot invoke privileged communication or any examination
conducted thereafter by requesting and obtaining a report of the
exam or by taking the deposition of the examiner.
So same illustration, si B, after sya na examine on order of the court
by motion of A, gitake ni B ang deposition sa doctor. By taking that
deposition, B waives any privilege which he may have in that case or
in any other case involving the same mental condition.
So A now has access to mental examinations conducted by ANY
OTHER DOCTOR upon B.
So 2 instances when there is a waiver:
1. By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination
so ordered or
2. By taking the deposition of the examiner, the party
examined
 
 
 
RULE 29
REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY
Discussion: we have here the consequences of refusal to comply with
the modes of discovery.
Note: familiarize yourselves with the consequences of refusing to
comply with modes of discovery.
SECTION 1. Refusal to answer.—If a party or other deponent refuses
to answer any question upon oral examination, the examination may
be completed on other matters or adjourned as the proponent of
the question may prefer. The proponent may thereafter apply to the
proper court of the place where the deposition is being taken, for an
order to compel an answer. The same procedure may be availed of
when a party or a witness refuses to answer any interrogatory
submitted under Rules 23 or 25.
If the application is granted, the court shall require the refusing party
or deponent to answer the question or interrogatory and if it also
finds that the refusal to answer was without substantial justification,
it may require the refusing party or deponent or the counsel advising
the refusal, or both of them, to pay the proponent the amount of the
reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including
attorney’s fees.
If the application is denied and the court finds that it was filed
without substantial justification, the court may require the proponent
or the counsel advising the filing of the application, or both of them,
to pay to the refusing party or deponent the amount of the
reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the application, including
attorney’s fees. (1)
SEC. 2. Contempt of court.—If a party or other witness refuses to be
sworn or refuses to answer any question after being directed to do
so by the court of the place in which the deposition is being taken,
the refusal may be considered a contempt of that court. (2)
Discussion:
2 kinds of contempt:
 1. Direct contempt
2. Indirect contempt
When you say contempt it is the refusal or disobedience being done
in the presence of a judge.
Indirect contempt, it’s not committed in the presence of a judge. Eg.
Refusal to comply with subpoena, to follow any order of the court
(rule 39 on execution). It’s either:
1. the court holds you in indirect contempt motu proprio or
2. by petition filed by aggrieved party to cite the
disrespectful party in indirect contempt.
SEC. 3. Other consequences.—If any party or an officer or managing
agent of a party refuses to obey an order made under Section 1 of
this Rule requiring him or her to answer designated questions, or an
order under Rule 27 to produce any document or other thing for
inspection, copying, or photographing or to permit it to be done, or
to permit entry upon land or other property, or an order made under
Rule 28 requiring him or her to submit to a physical or mental
examination, the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal
as are just, and among others the following:
(a) An order that the matters regarding which the questions were
asked, or the character or description of the thing or land, or the
contents of the paper, or the physical or mental condition of the
party, or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established
for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the
party obtaining the order;
(b)An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or
oppose designated claims or defenses or prohibiting him or her from
introducing in evidence designated documents or things or items of
testimony, or from introducing evidence of physical or mental
condition;
(c) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further
proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or
proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default
against the disobedient party; and
(d) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an
order directing the arrest of any party or agent of a party for
disobeying any of such orders except an order to submit to a
physical or mental examination. (3a)
CAPITOL HILLS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC. vs. SANCHEZ G.R. No.
182738, February 24, 2014
During the January 11, 2007 inspection, the only document
produced by the Acting Corporate Secretary, Atty. Antonio V. Meriz,
and one of the staff, Malou Santos, was the Stock and Transfer Book
of the Corporation. They alleged that they could not find from the
corporate records the copies of the proxies submitted by the
stockholders, including the tape recordings taken during the
stockholders’ meetings, and that they needed more time to locate
and find the list of stockholders as of March 2002, which was in the
bodega of the Corporation. This prompted respondent to file a
Manifestation with Omnibus Motion praying that an order be issued
in accordance with Section 3, Paragraphs (a) to (d) of Rule 29 of the
Rules of Court (Rules), in relation to Section 4, Rule 3 of the Interim
Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under
Republic Act No. 8799 (Interim Rules).
On September 3, 2007, the trial court issued a Resolution, the
concluding portion of which ordered the defendants to produce and
make available for inspection and photocopying by the plaintiff the
following documents:
1. The list of stockholders of record as of March 2002;
2. All proxies, whether validated or not, which have been received by
the defendants;
3. The specimen signatures of all stockholders as contained in the
Stock and Transfer Book or on the stub of the stock certificate; and
4. The tape recording of the stockholders’ meeting on April 23, 2002
and May 21, 2002.
The Court ordered the defendants to strictly comply with the order.
Failure of the defendants to comply with all the requirements of the
order dated September 10, 2002 will result in the court citing all the
defendants in contempt of court and to order defendants solidarily
to pay a fine of ₱10,000.00 for every day of delay to comply with the
order of September 10, 2002 until the defendants shall have fully and
completely complied with the said order.
ISSUE: Is the order providing for contempt and payment of fine
valid?
RULING:
Yes, the order is valid. A person guilty of disobedience of or
resistance to a lawful order of a court or commits any improper
conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or
degrade the administration of justice may be punished for indirect
contempt. In particular, Section 4, Rule 3 of the Interim Rules states
that, in addition to a possible treatment of a party as non-suited or
as in default, the sanctions prescribed in the Rules for failure to avail
of, or refusal to comply with, the modes of discovery shall apply.
Under Section 3, Rule 29 of the Rules, if a party or an officer or
managing agent of a party refuses to obey an order to produce any
document or other things for inspection, copying, or photographing
or to permit it to be done, the court may make such orders as are
just. The enumeration of options given to the court under Section 3,
Rule 29 of the Rules is not exclusive, as shown by the phrase "among
others."
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, or rendering judgment by
default against the disobedient party; contempt of court, or arrest of
the party or agent of the party; payment of the amount of
reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining a court order to compel
discovery; taking the matters inquired into as established in
accordance with the claim of the party seeking discovery; refusal to
allow the disobedient party support or oppose designated claims or
defenses; striking out pleadings or parts thereof; staying further
proceedings. Comment: when you say contempt, it’s actually indirect
contempt because it is committed not in the presence of the judge.
How about the fine?
If adjudged guilty of indirect contempt, the respondent who
committed it against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent
or higher rank may be punished with a fine not exceeding thirty
thousand pesos, or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or
both.
In this case, the threatened sanction of possibly ordering petitioners
to solidarily pay a fine of ₱10,000.00 for every day of delay in
complying with the September 10, 2002 Order is well within the
allowable range of penalty.
SEC. 4. Expenses on refusal to admit.—If a party after being served
with a request under Rule 26 to admit the genuineness of any
document or the truth of any matter of fact, serves a sworn denial
thereof and if the party requesting the admissions thereafter proves
the genuineness of such document or the truth of any such matter of
fact, he or she may apply to the court for an order requiring the
other party to pay him or her the reasonable expenses incurred in
making such proof, including reasonable attorney’s fees. Unless the
court finds that there were good reasons for the denial or that
admissions sought were of no substantial importance, such order
shall be issued. (4a)
SEC. 5. Failure of party to attend or serve answers.—If a party or an
officer or managing agent of a party wilfully fails to appear before
the officer who is to take his or her deposition, after being served
with a proper notice, or fails to serve answers to interrogatories
submitted under Rule 25 after proper service of such interrogatories,
the court on motion and notice, may strike out all or any part of any
pleading of that party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any
part thereof, or enter a judgment by default against the party, and in
its discretion, order him or her to pay reasonable expenses incurred
by the other, including attorney’s fees. (5a)
SEC. 6. Expenses against the Republic of the Philippines.—Expenses
and attorney’s fees are not to be imposed upon the Republic of the
Philippines under this Rule.(6)
REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE MODES OF DISCOVERY (Rule
29)
The sanctions for refusal to 'comply with the modes of discovery may
be summarized as follows:
A. Refusal to answer any question
a. The court may upon proper application, compel a deponent who
refuses to answer an oral examination. The same applies to a witness
who refuses to answer an interrogatory submitted (Sec. 1, Rule 29,
Rules of Court). A refusal to answer after being directed by the court
may be considered as a contempt of court (Sec. 2, Rule 29, Rules of
Court).
The court may order the deponent, a party, or the counsel advising
the refusal, or both of them, to pay the proponent the amount of
reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including
attorney's fees (Sec. 1, Rule 29, Rules of Court).
b. If the application for an order to compel a deponent to answer is
denied because of the absence of a substantial justification, the court
may require the proponent or the counsel advising the application,
or both of them, to pay to the refusing party or deponent the
amount of reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the
application, including attorney's fees (Sec. 1, Rule 29, Rules of Court).
B. Refusal to answer designated or particular questions or
refusal to produce documents or things or to submit to physical
or mental examination
a. The court may order that the matters .regarding which the
questions were asked shall be taken as established for purposes of
the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining them
(Sec. 3[a], Rule 29, Rules of Court).
b. The court may issue an order refusing to allow the disobedient
party to refuse or support designated claims or defenses or
prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents
or things or items of testimony, or from introducing evidence of
physical or mental condition (Sec. 3[b], Rule 29, Rules of Court).
c. The court may issue an order striking out pleadings or parts
thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or
dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering
a judgment by default against the disobedient party (Sec. 3[c], Rule
29, Rules of Court).
d. The court may direct the arrest of any party or agent of a party for
disobeying any of the orders of the court, except an order to submit
to a physical examination.
C. Refusal to be sworn
A refusal of a party to be sworn after being directed by the court
may be considered as contempt of court (Sec. 2, Rule 29, Rules of
Court).
D. Refusal to admit
If a party refuses to admit the genuineness of any document or the
truth of any matter of fact and serves a sworn denial thereof and if
the other party later on proves the genuineness of the document or
the truth of such matter of fact, the court upon proper application,
may order the former to pay the reasonable expenses in making
such proof, including attorney's fees (Sec. 4, Rule 29, Rules of Court).
E. Failure to attend depositions or to serve answers to
interrogatories
The court may:
(a) strike out all or any part of the pleading of that party, or dismiss
the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or
(b) enter a judgment by default against that party, and in its
discretion,
(c) order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the other,
including attorney's fees (Sec. 5, Rule 29, Rules of Court).
The consequences under Sec. 5 of Rule 29 will apply if a party refuses
to answer the whole set of written interrogatories, and not just a
particular question. Where the party upon whom the written
interrogatories is served, refuses to answer a particular question in
the set of written interrogatories and despite an order compelling
him to answer the particular question, still refuses to obey the order,
Sec. 3(c) of Rule 29 will apply (ZEPEDA vs. CHINA BANKING
CORPORATION, G.R. No. 172175, October 9,2006).
The following are the consequences provided for in Sec. 3(c) of Rule
29:
(a) The court may issue "an order striking out pleadings or parts
thereof;
(b) The court may issue an order staying further proceedings until
the order is obeyed; or
(c) The court may issue an order rendering a judgment by default
against the disobedient party.
The matter of how, and when, the above sanctions should be applied
is one that primarily rests on the sound discretion of the court where
the case is pending, having always in mind the paramount and
overriding interest of justice. For while the modes of discovery are
intended to attain the resolution of litigations with great expediency,
they are not contemplated, however, to be ultimate causes of
injustice. It behooves trial courts to examine well the circumstances
of each case and to make their considered determination thereafter
(Zepeda vs. China Banking Corporation, supra).
RULE 30
TRIAL
SECTION 1. Schedule of trial.—The parties shall strictly observe
the scheduled hearings as agreed upon and set forth in the pretrial
order.
a) The schedule of the trial dates, for both plaintiff and
defendant, shall be continuous and within the following periods:

i. The initial
presentation of plaintiff’s
evidence shall be set not
later than thirty (30)
calendar days after the
termination of the pre-
trial conference. Plaintiff
shall be allowed to
present its evidence
within a period of three
(3) months or ninety (90)
calendar days which shall
include the date of the
judicial dispute
resolution, if necessary;
ii. The initial presentation
of defendant’s evidence
shall be set not later than
thirty (30) calendar days
after the court’s ruling
on plaintiff’s formal offer
of evidence. The
defendant shall be
allowed to present its
evidence within a period
of three (3) months or
ninety (90) calendar days;
Discussion:
Let’s just summarize what happens
in a trial. So we mentioned before in
the pre trial order, the court will
shceduel based on the availability of
the parties. The trial dates for
plaintiff and trial dates for
defendant. Assuming no 3rd 4th party
complaint.
After the pre trial, based on the
schedules indicated in the pre trial
dates, I schedula na ang
presentation of evidence. Firat ang
plaintiff. So witness for the plaintiff.
Let’s say na 2 witnesses so 2 trial
dates. Witness A will be presented in
court to testify. When is the initial
presentation of evidence for the
plaintiff? The rule says not later than
30 calendar days after the
termination of thepre trial and then
all in all plaintiff has 90 calendar
days including JDR if necessary.
Possibly man gud after pre trial,
before proceeding to trial, ischedule
for JDR.
So apil na sa 90 days ang JDR.
Witness A will be subject to direct
exam by virtue of a judicial affidavit.
Then cross exam, redirect and then
recross.
After that, next trial date, si B napud.
Same – direct, cross, redirect,
recross. After the presentation of
testimonial evidence, usually ang
counsel ni plaintiif will offer na the
exhibits- all which were identified
during the trial.
After that, the rule says defendant
na pud. initial presentation of
defendant’s evidence shall be set
not later than thirty (30) calendar
days after the court’s ruling on
plaintiff’s formal offer of evidence.
Nganong court’s ruling? Kay mag
rule paman si court regarding the
formal offer of evidence made by
paintiff to magrule si court kung
admitted or excluded. Then, si
defendant if duha iyang witness
example, the defendant shall be
allowed to present its evidence
within a period of three (3) months
or ninety (90) calendar days;
So pareho lang kaso si plaintiff nay
bawas kay inclusive of JDR iyang 90
days.
After presentation of evidence,
defendant will also make the formal
offer of evidence. What you offer is
the documents. Kanus a man nimo
ioffer ang testimonial evidence?
When you call the witness to testify.
iii. The period for the
presentation of evidence
on the third (fourth,
etc.)party claim,
counterclaim or cross
claim shall be
determined by the
court, the total of which
shall in no case exceed
ninety (90) calendar days;
and
iv. If deemed necessary,
the court shall set the
presentation of the
parties’ respective
rebuttal evidence, which
shall be completed within
a period of thirty (30)
calendar days.
b) The trial dates may be
shortened depending on
the number of witnesses
to be presented, provided
that the presentation of
evidence of all parties
shall be terminated within
a period of ten (10)
months or three hundred
(300) calendar days. If
there are no third (fourth,
etc.) –party claim,
counterclaim or cross-
claim, the presentation of
evidence shall be
terminated within a
period of six (6) months
or one hundred eighty
(180) calendar days.
c) The court shall decide
and serve copies of its
decision to the parties
within a period not
exceeding ninety (90)
calendar days from the
submission of the case for
resolution, with or
without memoranda. (n)
Discussion: how about if there is a
3rd, 4th party complaint? The rules
says, the court will also schedule
that but it shall not exceed 90
calendar days.
IV mentions about rebuttal
evidence. Balik ta sa previous
example – si plaintiff nagpresent ug
testimonial evidence, nag formal
offer, then defendant napud, nag
testimonial evidence and nag formal
offer assuming no 3rd, 4th party
complaint. After ni defendant,
human na baa ng akso? Pwede na
submitted for decision. Usually, kana
ang order. Perop possible pud na
after sa offer sa defendant, si
plaintiff magrebuttal. Naay mga
items or issues, evidence in the
testimonial ordocumentary evidence
of the defendant na gusto irebut ni
plaintiff.
Pagrebuttal gani, dili ka magsugod
sa start, limited lang ka sa issues na
pwede irebut based sa evidence sa
defendant. So didto lang ka kutob.
You cannot rpesent evidence you
could have presented during the
presentation of the evidence in
chief. Di na na sya rebuttal – if mag
present kag evidence in chief na
pud. So after the rebuttal, kung
sidefendant nay nakita sa rebuttal
na gusto niya I rebut, we have the
surrebuttal which shall be
completed within 30 calendar days.
Discussion: possible na you schedule
pre trial dates but you’re just able to
present 1 witness.
Then, naa pa jud syay limitation na
regardless sa aktogn first na plaintiff
has to complete presentation of
evidence within 90 days. All in all the
rule says the presentation of
evidence of the parties shall be
terminated within a period of 10
months or 300 calendar days.
Kung walay 3rd 4th, etc, 6 months or
180 calendar days.
Rare ra ni maachieve, but that’s the
rule. Lol.
SEC. 2. Adjournments and postponements.—A court may adjourn a
trial from day to day, and to any stated time, as the expeditious and
convenient transaction of business may require, but shall have no
power to adjourn a trial for a longer period than one month for each
adjournment, nor more than three months in all, except when
authorized in writing by the Court Administrator, Supreme Court.
The party who caused the postponement is warned that the
presentation of its evidence must still be terminated and the
remaining dates previously agreed upon. (2a)
Discussion:
Trial will not be finished in 1 sitting so adjournments would be made
from time to time.
The rule says, dili more than 1 month for each adjournment. For
example, karon kay May 12 nagrpesent ug evidence, nagtestify si A
pero wala na cross examine. Na move to another day. Dapat dili ta
mulampas ug june 12. And the total of all your adjournment should
not exceed 3 months
The party who caused the postponement is warned that the
presentation of its evidence must still be terminated and the
remaining dates previously agreed upon. (2a)
Even if there’s a valid reason, you still have to finish presentation
during the dates agreed upon. So magbutang kag allowance para
dili ka maipit.
[Section 3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for absence of
evidence. – Deleted]
SEC. 3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for illness of party or
counsel.—A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of illness of a
party or counsel may be granted if it appears upon affidavit or sworn
certification that the presence of such party or counsel at the trial is
indispensable and that the character of his or her illness is such as to
render his or her nonattendance excusable. (4a)
Discussion:
So if magpapostpone ka due to illness, you have to file a motion and
it must be accompanied by:
1. affidavit/sworn certification – not the med cert. aside from
that, an affidavit na your presence is indispensable and
that the character of the illness is such to render non
attendance excusable.
Attendance of who? The party OR counsel.
Si party, pwede nap ag muabsent sya, dili pa sya ang nakatoka mag
appear sa witness stand or maybe he is the witness pero diba before
the trial, when you file the complaint, naka attach na dapat ang
judicial affidavit, so maybe if the witness/party is unavailable, if the
other witness is available, you can present him instead and avoid the
postponement of the trial.
Section 4. hearing days and calendar call. – Trial shall be held from
Monday to Thursday, and courts shall call the cases at exactly 8:30
a.m. and 2:00 p.m., pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 399.
Hearing on motions shall be held on Fridays, pursuant to Section 8,
Rule 15.
All courts shall ensure the posting of their court calendars outside
their courtrooms at least one (1) day before the scheduled hearings,
pursuant to OCA Circular No. 250 2015. (n)
Discussion:
8:30-12 then 2-5PM
Motion day is Friday
Naa pud nay court calendar sa gawas where you will see scheduled
hearings for the day. You can look at the calendar of the court for
the next day to check if naschedule jud.
Pero if wala na schedule, you can talk to the staff para masingit. No
biggie.
SEC. 5. Order of trial.—Subject to the provisions of Section 2 of Rule
31, and unless the court for special reasons otherwise directs, the
trial shall be limited to the issues stated in the pre trial order and
shall proceed as follows:
(a) The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his or her
complaint;
(b) The defendant shall then adduce evidence in support of his or her
defense, counterclaim, crossclaim and thirdparty complaint;
(c) The thirdparty defendant, if any, shall adduce evidence of his or
her defense, counterclaim, crossclaim and fourthparty complaint;
(d) The fourthparty, and so forth, if any, shall adduce evidence of the
material facts pleaded by them;
(e) The parties against whom any counterclaim or crossclaim has
been pleaded, shall adduce evidence in support of their defense, in
the order to be prescribed by the court;
(f) The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting evidence only,
unless the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice,
permits them to adduce evidence upon their original case; and
Comment: take note of letter F. You can still adduce rebutting
evidence but only to rebut the evidence of the other party. So
plaintiff presented evidence and defendant also presented evidence.
Halimbawa walay mga 3rd 4th party complaint. After sa defendant
pwede pa si plaintiff mag present ug rebutting evidence.
GR: Kato lang, dili pwede evidence in chief or another kind of
evidence totally unrelated.
EXCEPT: for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice.
(g) Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed
submitted for decision, unless the court directs the parties to argue
or to submit their respective memoranda or any further pleadings.
Pwede pud that the parties will be order to submit memorandum or
other pleadinsg para maguide ang court.
If several defendants or thirdparty defendants, and so forth, having
separate defenses appear by different counsel, the court shall
determine the relative order of presentation of their evidence. (5a)
Section 6. Oral offer of exhibits. – The offer of evidence, the
comment or objection thereto, and the court ruling shall be made
orally in accordance with Section 34 to 40 of Rule 132. (n)
Discussion: after presentation of testimonial evidence, parties will
make a formal offer. Before you had an option – in writing or oral
but not the rule says, this shall be made orally.
Kaya lang, this will be very problematic if is aka box ag imong ioffer.
In that case, the court will allow parties to make a written offer of
their exhibits. Kung isa isahon nimog offer – isa isahon man gud na.
like adeed of sale, you mention it and you mention the purpose,
unsaon pagkahuman sa hearing ana? In that case, the court will allow
a written offer.
SEC. 7. Agreed statement of facts—The parties to any action may
agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and submit
the case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the
introduction of evidence.
If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial shall
be held as to the disputed facts in such order as the court shall
prescribe. (6)
Discussion: it can happen during the pre trial for example, stipulation
of facts. So during trial after na pre trail, the parties can agree upon
the facts involved in the litigation. So walay issue as to what really
happened. The issue lang is what law or how to apply the law on the
set of facts. So in that case mas dali ra sya. You just submit the case
for judgment on the basis of the facts agreed upon. This is similar to
a judgment on the pleadings. You don’t need to introduce evidence
already because insofar as the facts are concerned, that is already
established.
If only some of the facts are in issue, then the court will conduct trial
only on those disputed facts. Dili na sa tanan.
[SEC. 7. Statement of judge.—Deleted]
SEC. 8. Suspension of actions.—The suspension of actions shall be
governed by the provisions of the Civil Code and other laws. (8a)
Discussion:
This contemplates a situation whre the court proceedings will be
suspended. But if you remember our discussion on rule 15, sec 12
(d), sec 12 talks of prohibited motions one of which is a motion to
suspend proceedings without a TRO issued by a higher court. So
nganong naa man tay provision on suspension of actions when a
motion to suspend is a prohibited motion?
Take note that sec 12 contemplates a sitch where there is a petition
for certiorari before a higher court and then nagpadayon gihapon
mo sa RTC. In that rtc case, nay interlocutory orders na wala ka nag
agree so imong gielevate sa CA. is the fact na nay pending petition
for certiorari a ground to suspend proceedings in the RTC? NO.
unless the CA issued a TRO or injuction against the RTC.
BUT this sec 8, is another ground for suspension of actions.
Art. 2030. Every civil action or proceeding shall be suspended:
1) If willingness to discuss a possible compromise is expressed by
one or both parties; or
2) If it appears that one of the parties, before the commencement of
the action or proceeding, offered to discuss a possible compromise
but the other party refused the offer.
Here, you can ask for suspension based on any of these grounds. The
court really favors compromise.
The duration and terms of the suspension of the civil action or
proceeding and similar matters shall be governed by such provisions
of the rules of court as the Supreme Court shall promulgate. Said
rules of court shall likewise provide for the appointment and duties
of amicable compounders. (n)
SEC. 9. Judge to receive evidence; delegation to clerk of court.—The
judge of the court where the case is pending shall personally receive
the evidence to be adduced by the parties. However, in default or ex
parte hearings, and in any case where the parties agree in writing,
the court may delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of court
who is a member of the bar. The clerk of court shall have no power
to rule on objections to any question or to the admission of exhibits,
which objections shall be resolved by the court upon submission of
his or her report and the transcripts within ten (10) calendar days
from termination of the hearing. (9a)
Discussion: judge proceeds and receives evidence. During the entire
proceedings naa si judge. Kung nay objections, judge will rule on
objections.
Can judge delegate hearing or reception of evidence? YES
You can delegate reception of evidence to COC who is a member of
the bar.
In what cases?
1. In default
2. Ex parte hearing
Katong hearings na walay kalaban. Dili pwede magrule si COC if naay
objections. The court will rule when the COC submits the report and
TSN.
There are cases na nay objections – human na pre trial. During trial
na, without any justifiable reason, a party and counsel are not
present so it will allow presentation of evidence ex parte. However,
pag magformal offer na si plaintiff, pwede gihapon makaobject si
defendant.
RULE 31
CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE
SECTION 1. Consolidation.—When actions involving a common
question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a
joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it
may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders
concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary
costs or delay. (1)
Discussion: We are talking of different actions docketed seprarately.
The corut can order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in
issue in the actions.
So for example – this is case 1, then we have case 2, they are
different cases but there is a common question of law or fact in the 2
cases and pedning before the same court.
Example, naay common witness na magtestify for the same 2 cases
and then iyahang testimony would be the same for case 1 and 2. The
documents he will identify in case 1 and 2 are the same. So why
conduct separate trials for the same parson. So okay nan a joint. The
case will be called jointly by the court.
Take note: this is different from joinder of causes of action and
joinder of parties.
When you say joinder of COA, there’s only 1 case and docketed only
once. So even if 3 imong cuases of actions against X, isa lang an sya
ka case number. So there’s only 1 hearing or trial.
IF joinder of parties, when the COA arise of the same transaction or
occurrence – pwede sila magjoinder of parties. So they can file a case
a b and c versus X and its docketed only as one case. This section
talks about differently docketed cases and there will be a joint trial of
the matters in these cases.
SEC. 2. Separate trials.—The court, in furtherance of convenience or
to avoid prejudice, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-
claim, counterclaim, or thirdparty complaint, or of any separate issue
or of any number of claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, thirdparty
complaint or issues. (2)
Discussion:
Lahi ni na storya. Theres only 1 docketed case but to avoid, prejudice
delays, you can separate the trial. Like there’s a counterclaim, a cross
claim a 3rd party complaint, pwede nato lahion ug hear katong cross
claim/ cpunter claim para dili sya mabulabog.
RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER
Discussion:
Concept of trial by commissioner
Here there is still a judge but certain issues may not be within the
competence of a judge. For example there are accounting issues
involved in a case and you cannot render judgment without taking
that issue into account. So the court may refer the issue to persons
or group of persons who are more competent on the matter.
How can an issue be referred to a commissioner?
2 ways
1. Reference by consent - By written consent of both parties,
the court may order any or all of the issues in a case to be
referred to a commissioner to be agreed upon by the
parties or to be appointed by the court.
a. Who will be the commissioner – agreed upon by
parties or if they agree to be appointed by the
court, then to be appointed by the court.
2. Reference ordered on motion – if parties do not agree to
appoint a commissioner- pwede upon application or by
the court on its own direct a reference to a commissioner
in selected cases (refer to sec 2)
SECTION 1. Reference by consent.—By written consent of both
parties, the court may order any or all of the issues in a case to be
referred to a commissioner to be agreed upon by the parties or to
be appointed by the court. As used in these Rules, the word
“commissioner” includes a referee, an auditor and an examiner. (1)
SEC. 2. Reference ordered on motion.—When the parties do not
consent, the court may, upon the application of either or of its own
motion, direct a reference to a commissioner in the following cases:
a) When the trial of an issue of fact requires the examination of a
long account on either side, in which case the commissioner may be
directed to hear and report upon the whole issue or any specific
question involved therein; e.g .accounting.
b) When the taking of an account is necessary for the information of
the court before judgment, or for carrying a judgment or order into
effect; naa lay gusto maclarify ang court before or even after there is
a judgment but in the execution of the decision, you need clarification.
Like accounting.
c) When a question of fact, other than upon the pleadings, arises
upon motion or otherwise, in any stage of a case, or for carrying a
judgment or order into effect. So there’s a question that arises na
wala na raise a pleadings, pero diba if naay issue na wala na raise sa
pleadings pero during trial na raise sya, there’s a need to clarify that
and for an expert to determine that question of fact so the court can
refer – at any stage even after final judgment.
SEC. 3. Order of reference; powers of the commissioner.— When a
reference is made, the clerk shall forthwith furnish the commissioner
with a copy of the order of reference. The order may specify or limit
the powers of the commissioner, and may direct him or her to report
only upon particular issues, or to do or perform particular acts, or to
receive and report evidence only, and may fix the date for beginning
and closing the hearings and for the filing of his or her report.
Subject to the specifications and limitations stated in the order, the
commissioner has and shall exercise the power to regulate the
proceedings in every hearing before him or her and to do all acts
and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient
performance of his or her duties under the order. He or she may
issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, swear witnesses, and
unless otherwise provided in the order of reference, he or she may
rule upon the admissibility of evidence. The trial or hearing before
him or her shall proceed in all respects as it would if held before the
court. (3a)
Discussion:
Take note of the power of commissioner:
1. He can conduct hearings
2. Regulate proceedings
3. Issue subpoena (duces tecum or ad testificandum)
4. Can swear witnesses
Diba pwede idelegate sa clerk of court ang reception of evidence in
ex parte and default hearings but the clerk of court has no power to
rule on objections or admissibility of evidence. But here, the
commissioner may rule on objections and admissibility of evidence.
So kung unsa ang power sa court, mao sad to ang power sa
commissioner.
SEC. 4. Oath of commissioner.—Before entering upon his or her
duties the commissioner shall be sworn to a faithful and honest
performance thereof. (4a)
SEC. 5. Proceedings before commissioner.—Upon receipt of the
order of reference and unless otherwise provided therein, the
commissioner shall forthwith set a time and place for the first
meeting of the parties or their counsel to be held within ten (10)
calendar days after the date of the order of reference and shall notify
the parties or their counsel. (5a)
SEC. 6. Failure of parties to appear before commissioner.—If a party
fails to appear at the time and place appointed, the commissioner
may proceed ex parte or, in his or her discretion, adjourn the
proceedings to a future day, giving notice to the absent party or his
or her counsel of the adjournment. (6a)
Discussion: if for example such failure is without justifiable reason
SEC. 7. Refusal of witness.—The refusal of a witness to obey a
subpoena issued by the commissioner or to give evidence before
him or her, shall be deemed a contempt of the court which
appointed the commissioner. (7a)
Discussion:
It shall be considered a contempt of the court which appointed the
commissioner.
SEC. 8. Commissioner shall avoid delays.—It is the duty of the
commissioner to proceed with all reasonable diligence. Either party,
on notice to the parties and commissioner, may apply to the court
for an order requiring the commissioner to expedite the proceedings
and to make his or her report. (8a)
Remedy: may apply to the court for an order requiring the
commissioner to expedite the proceedings and to make his or her
report.
SEC. 9. Report of commissioner.—Upon the completion of the trial or
hearing or proceeding before the commissioner, he or she shall file
with the court his or her report in writing upon the matters
submitted to him or her by the order of reference. When his or her
powers are not specified or limited, he or she shall set forth his or
her findings of fact and conclusions of law in his or her report. He or
she shall attach thereto all exhibits, affidavits, depositions, papers
and the transcripts, if any, of the testimonial evidence presented
before him or her. (9a)
So the findings of fact, conclusion of law and attach affidavits
transcript, if there are testimonial evidence presented before him,
also include that.
SEC. 10. Notice to parties of the filing of report.— Upon the filing of
the report, the parties shall be notified by the clerk, and they shall be
allowed ten (10) calendar days within which to signify grounds of
objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire. Objections
to the report based upon grounds which were available to the
parties during the proceedings before the commissioner, other than
objections to the findings and conclusions therein set forth, shall not
be considered by the court unless they were made before the
commissioner. (10a)
Discussion:
When the commissioner files the report, it will be the COC which will
notifiy the parties of the report. For example, you are the party and
you have read the report of the commissioner and you want to
object.
Can you object? YES. The rule says you have 10 days within which to
signify grounds of objections to the findings of the report, if they so
desire.
Now, usna man pud ang mga possible objections?
1. As to findings and conclusions in the report
a. So naa may factual statements, didto ta sa
conclusion of findings based on the facts
2. As to the facts mentioned in the report,
a. If tehse grounds were available to the parties
during the proceedings before the
commissioner. Like na syay determination pila
ang amount, distance, area – you should make
these objections before the commissioner
b. If wala girule ug tarong or dii ka satisfied, you
can also reterate that in court but you should
make your objections before the commissioner.
c. But with respect to the findings and conclusions
in the report, you can raise your objections to
the court.
Section 11. Hearing upon report. – Upon the expiration of the period
of ten (10) calendar days referred to in the preceding section, the
report shall be set for hearing, after which the court shall issue an
order:
1. adopting,
2. modifying, or
3. rejecting the report in whole or in part, or
4. recommitting it with instructions, or
5. requiring the parties to present further evidence before the
commissioner or the court. (11a)
BALASBAS, ET. AL. vs. ROBERTO L. UY REALTY & DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 187544, October 03, 2016
Uy Realty filed before the RTC of Pasay City a Complaint for recovery
of possession against Balasbas, et al. During the pretrial, the parties
agreed that the only issue to be resolved is whether the property
claimed by Uy Realty is the same property on which Balasbas, et al.'s
houses stand, or, whether the property claimed by Uy Realty goes
beyond the area covered by its title such that a portion of it
encroaches upon the land on which Balasbas, et al. built their
dwellings.
Trial ensued. On January 29, 1987, the trial court issued an Order
stating that the only way to determine if any of the houses were
constructed on Uy Realty's property is to conduct an actual survey.
The trial court ordered the creation of a survey team which will
conduct an actual survey on the land based on the technical
description found in TCT No. 24612. The team would consist of two
(2) representatives from each party, and a geodetic engineer from the
City Engineer's Office of Pasay City as the team leader.
Engineer Amador Abaya (Engr. Abaya) of the City Engineer's Office
was designated as the team leader. On March 31, 1987, he submitted
a report 17 (Abaya Report) indicating that there are no monuments
on the ground which would enable him to determine the boundary
of Lot No. 555 owned by Uy Realty and the extent of encroachment
of Balasbas, et al.'s houses on Lot No. 555 and that a sevenmeter
canal separates Lot No. 555 and Lot No. 587 owned by a certain Mr.
Saulog. Attached to the report was a sketch plan showing Lot No.
555, Lot No. 587 and the canal which separates the two (2) lots.
During the continuation of the trial, the trial court ordered the
commission to resurvey the area in order to determine the exact area
of the gap or strip of land/canal separating Uy Realty's land and that
of Mr. Saulog. On January 31, 1989, Engr. Abaya manifested that
there is a conflicting tie line appearing on the survey plans submitted
by the engineers of both parties. The RTC then directed the Director
of the Bureau of Lands or his representative to examine the plans
and to certify which one is the correct plan.
Isidro E. Mundo, Jr., Chief: Surveys Division of the Department of
Environment and Natural ResourcesLands Management Sector
(DENRLMS), submitted a reply report dated July 18, 1989 and a
supplemental letter clarifying and correcting the tie line.
Subsequently, the Chief of the Technical Services Section of the
DENRLMS, Elpidio T. De Lara (Engr. De Lara), submitted his Final
Report (De Lara Report) of the field survey dated January 11, 1990.
The results of the surveys conducted by Engr. Abaya and Engr. De
Lara showed encroachment on Uy Realty's property.
On May 8, 1990, the trial court issued an Order submitting the case
for decision on the basis of the survey conducted by the commission
as previously agreed upon by the parties and their counsels.
Petitioners Balasbas, et. al. challenged the surveys undertaken and
their joint stipulations and admissions.
HELD:
The findings of the RTC and the CA regarding petitioners'
encroachment on Uy Realty's property are based on the results of the
surveys Engr. Abaya and Engr. De Lara conducted and which were
attended and witnessed by the parties and their representatives,
adopted by the parties through their joint stipulations and
admissions and approved by the RTC through its July 9, 1987 Order
and September 30, 2005 Decision.
Thus, it is too late in the day for petitioners to challenge this. The
Rules of Court, specifically Rule 32[,] Section 11, clearly provides that
the trial court may adopt, modify, reject or recommit the findings of
the commissioners, the parties, in the case at bench, have agreed to
abide by the results of the survey. Besides, the field survey was
conducted in the presence of representatives of both parties. In fact,
both parties have submitted documents which were utilized as
references. For actively participating in the conduct of the survey, they
are now barred from questioning the manner by which the procedures
were undertaken.
So if you have objections and these are present during the
proceedings before the commissioner, you raise your objections
there. It would be too late to raise your objections on these matters
once the report is already submitted to the court.
SEC. 12. Stipulations as to findings.—When the parties stipulate that
a commissioner’s findings of fact shall be final, only questions of law
shall thereafter be considered. Eg what law to apply and how to we
interpret the law in relation to a set of facts.
SEC. 13. Compensation of commissioner.—The court shall allow the
commissioner such reasonable compensation as the circumstances
of the case warrant, to be taxed as costs against the defeated party,
or apportioned, as justice requires. (13)
RULE 33
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
SECTION 1. Demurrer to evidence.—After the plaintiff has completed
the presentation of his or her evidence, the defendant may move for
dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff
has shown no right to relief. If his or her motion is denied, he or she
shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but
on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed, he or she shall be
deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. (1a)
Discussion: What do we mean by demurrer to evidence? Read
section 1 –
INTRODUCTION
Demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant
after the plaintiff had rested his case, on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence. (Ballentine’s Law Dictionary). There is a similar rule in
criminal procedure under Rule 119, Section 23 – demurrer to
evidence in criminal cases. Rule 33 is demurrer to evidence in civil
cases.
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES (Review)
Discussion: Criminal cases – quantum of proof required is proof
beyond reasonable doubt. So if the prosecution fails to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, pwede na idismiss.
So in criminal cases, the prosecution here presents evidence –
testimonial, documentary. After the presentation of evidence, the
prosecution will now formally offer its evidence. After the
prosecution rests, diha na possible na si accused, tan awon nya if
naprove iyang reasonable doubt. If feel nya wala he can file a
demurrer to evidence.

After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his or her

By way of review what is the rule on demurrer to evidence in criminal
evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that
cases? In the rules on criminal procedure, the prosecution first
upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.
presents evidence to prove the crime and that the accused
committed the crime. After that, the prosecution rests. It is now the
Failure to state COA
turn of the accused to present evidence to prove his defense. But
When we discussed affirmative defences, one of the grounds there
under the rules on demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, the
would be failure to state a cause of action. When you say failure to
accused, instead of presenting evidence, may opt to file instead a
state a cause of action, it means that the complaint as arranged and
demurrer. It is a motion by the accused to dismiss the criminal case
drafter, does not recite all elements of a cause of action. So based on
on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt.
the complaint, we cannot see a COA. Maybe in reality there is but the
Remember that under the Constitution, the accused is presumed
complaint does not show it. That’s why you are asking for the
innocent until his guilt is proven. It is the burden of the prosecution
dismissal via the affirmative defense of failure to state a cause of
to prove his guilt, to destroy the presumption of innocence.
action.
So, what is the procedure in criminal cases?
Lack of COA
Rule 119, SEC. 23. Demurrer to evidence. – After the prosecution
What if in reality, wala juy cause of action although as written, gwapo
rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of
kayo pakabuhat sa complaint. When do you know na walay juy cause
insufficiency of evidence
of action? Only when the plaintiff has already presented his evidence.
(1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity
So w/n there is a cause of action, that’s determined after the plaintiff
to be heard or
completed the presentation of his evidence. So after that, the
(2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without
defendant can move to dismiss the case on the ground that the
leave of court. If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with
plaintiff based on facts and evidence presented, has no cause of
leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense.
action.
When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the
accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case
How do you do that? That is by way of demurrer to evidence.
for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
Remember:
The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall
Motion denied Motion granted
specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-
If the demurrer to evidence is If the motion is granted, the
extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case.
denied, and the court finds court is convinced that the
The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible
that the plaintiff has a cause of plaintiff does not have COA,
period of five (5) days from its receipt.
action, then the defendant will the court will now dismiss the
not present evidence. case
If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to
evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice.
If plaintiff appeals to CA, and
The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a
then upon appeal ana si CA,
similar period from its receipt. The order denying the motion for
mali si RTC. Naa man diay COA
leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall
si plaintiff.
not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. (n)

What happens? It will not be

Demurrer in criminal cases:
remanded to the RTC. Because
the rules say that: If the motion
is granted but on appeal the
order of dismissal is reversed,
he or she shall be deemed to
have waived the right to
present evidence.
The appellate court will just
decide the case based on the
evidence presented.
With leave of court
When – after the prosecution
rests its case. You have 5 days
to file a motion for leave to file
demurrer for evidence.
Pwede sya ioppose ni
prosecution. After that if
gideny ni court, then you can
present evidence.
Without leave of court
If the demurrer is denied, the
accused can no longer present
evidence in his defense. He has
already waived the
presentation of his evidence.
And now the case will be
submitted for judgment on the
basis only of the evidence for
the prosecution.
 to have rested its case. (only after the court has made a ruling on the
If gigrant ni court ang formal offer of evidence.)
motion for leave (nangayo
kag permission to file EFFECT OF DENIAL OF THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
demurrer), within 10 days from If the demurrer is denied, the defendant shall have the right to
receiving the order to grant present his evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 33, Rules of Court). This means that
leave, you should already file the denial of the demurrer to evidence does not deprive the
the demurrer. defendant to adduce evidence in his behalf.

If the court grants the Where a court denies a demurrer to evidence, (the next step is for
demurrer, acquitted si the defendant to present evidence.) it should set the date for the
accused. The prosecution reception of the defendant's evidence in chief. It should not proceed
cannot appeal because it is to grant the relief demanded by the plaintiff (NORTHWEST AIRLINES,
now double jeopardy. INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 284 SCRA 408).

If mag motion for Discussion: in civil cases, leave of court is not required. It’s not even
reconsideration, then certiorari, mentioned in Rule 33 as a requirement for a demurrer to evidence.
allowed sya. 60 days to file. So if denied, dili makaproceed ang court to grant relief. The
defendant has to proceed with presentation of evidence.
If the court denies the
demurrer then the accused can EFFECT OF GRANTING OF THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
still present evidence. Pag naay If the demurrer is granted, the case shall be dismissed. However, if
motion for leave on appeal the order granting the motion is reversed, the defendant
loses his right to present evidence. (Sec. 1, Rule 33, Rules of Court;
REPUBLIC vs. TUVERA, G.R. No. 148246, February 16, 2007).

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION vs. DEL
The regular order of trial requires the plaintiff to adduce evidence in MONTE MOTOR WORKS, INC.
support of his complaint. During the trial the plaintiff presents all the G.R. No. 143338, July 29, 2005
pieces of evidence available to him object, documentary and A demurrer to evidence abbreviates judicial proceedings, it being an
MOTION TO DISMISS DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE instrument for the expeditious termination of an action. Caution,
A motion to dismiss is A demurrer to evidence in Rule 33 is however, must be exercised by the party seeking the dismissal of a
made before the filing of made after the plaintiff rests his case, case upon this ground as under the rules, if the movant's plea for the
the answer. i.e., after the completion of the dismissal on demurrer to evidence is granted and the order of
presentation of his evidence. dismissal is reversed on appeal, he loses his right to adduce
evidence. If the defendant's motion for judgment on demurrer to
There are four grounds There is only one ground under Rule
evidence is granted and the order is subsequently reversed on
for a motion to dismiss 33 which is that the plaintiff is not
appeal, judgment is rendered in favor of the adverse party because
under Rule 16. entitled to relief.
the movant loses his right to present evidence. The reviewing court
If a motion to dismiss is If the demurrer is denied under Rule
cannot remand the case for further proceedings; rather, it should
denied, the defendant 33, the defendant may present his
render judgment on the basis of the evidence presented by the
may file his responsive evidence.
plaintiff.
pleading.
If the motion to dismiss If the demurrer to evidence is
is granted, the complaint granted, the complaint may not be MOTION TO DISMISS DISTINGUISHED FROM DEMURRER TO
may be refiled, refiled and the remedy of the plaintiff EVIDENCE
depending on the is to appeal from the order of
ground for dismissal. dismissal.
testimonial.

After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence,

the defendant shall then adduce evidence in support of his defense,
counterclaim or third-party complaint, as the case may be.

The defendant however, may sincerely feel that the plaintiff has not
lived up to his burden of proving the material allegations of his claim
and is therefore, not entitled to the relief sought for in his complaint.
Instead of presenting his evidence, the defendant may move for
DISTINCTIONS
dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff
has shown no right to relief (Sec. 1, Rule 33, Rules of Court). This
motion for dismissal is called a demurrer to evidence.

WHEN SHALL BE THE PLANTIFF CONSIDERED TO HAVE

COMPLETED THE SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE?

CABADOR vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 186001, October 2, 2009
Here, after the prosecution filed its formal offer of exhibits on August
1, 2006, the same day Cabador filed his motion to dismiss, the trial
court still needed to give him an opportunity to object to the
admission of those exhibits. It also needed to rule on the formal
offer. And only after such a ruling could the prosecution be deemed
 DEMURRER IN CIVIL DEMURRERif it isINsomething
CRIMINAL CASES
which in your
Section 2. Action on demurrer to evidence. – A demurrer to evidence CASES capacity you either know or
shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 15. In a civil case, leave of In a criminal
youcase, do anot
demurrer is filed
know, then you
court is not required with or without
eitherleave
admitoforcourt
deny.(Sec. 23,
The order denying the demurrer to evidence shall not be subject of before filing a Rule 119, Rules of Criminal Procedure).
an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus before demurrer Or answers which are evasive.
judgment. (n) In a civil case, if the In a criminalIt case,
will bethe
anorder
answerof dismissal
which does
demurrer is granted, is not appealable
not tender because of the
an issue aside from
the order of dismissal constitutional
the policy
fact naagainst
it is double
also an
Discussion:
is appealable (Sec. 1, jeopardy. (but could be the subject of
admission.
New provision. Action on the demurrer to evidence. A demurrer is a
Rule 33, Rules of certiorari)
MTD on the ground of lack of cause of action. So it is subject to the
Court).   So in these cases, the answer
same rules on motion.
1. Must be in writing In a civil case, if the In a criminalfailedcase, the accused
to tender an issue may and it
2. Court should set this for hearing demurrer is denied, adduce his can evidence only if that
also be considered thethe
3. Serve a copy of the demurrer to the adverse party the defendant may demurrer isanswer
filed withadmitted
leave of court. all Hethe
proceed to present cannot present
materialhis evidence
allegationsif he of filedthe
Maghulat nalang ka’g judgment because the rule says not subject to his evidence. the demurrer adversewithout
party’s leave of court
pleadings.
appeal, certiorari or mandamus before judgment. So kung ikaw si (Sec. 23, Rule 119, Rules of Court).
defendant, you file demurrer but denied. Then present evidence on The period to file is If without Soleave,kungafter sa
the iyang
prosecution
answer
your behalf. Now if after presentation of evidence, the court after the plaintiff rests its case.
giadmit nya tanan, walay
favoured the plaintiff, you can appeal and you can raise the ground completed the   problema. Just render
in your demurrer to evidence. presentation of If with leave, file thebased
judgment motion onfor leave
pleadings.
evidence first within That
5 days after be
would the the
prosecution
complaint
RULE 34 rests. When leave is into
taking granted, file withinthe
account
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 10 days after noticemade
admissions thatin leave
the answeris
granted. of the defendant.
SECTION 1. Judgment on the pleadings.— Where an answer fails to
tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the
adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that party,
direct judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal Judgment on the pleadings does not apply:
separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be 1. in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage; or
proved. (1) 2. in actions for legal separation;
Discussion: a. In these cases, the state has an interest in the marriage of their
When you say judgment on the pleadings, it is an expeditious way to parties. (pakialamero. Char)
terminate a civil action. Why? Because there is no more trial and the 3. when the issue is the amount of unliquidated damages because
judgment will be rendered based on what the plaintiff says in his there must always be evidence to prove such amount (Rule 8,
pleading. Section 11);
4. when only conclusions of law are being alleged.
So are we saying na the answer of the defendant wala na toy labot? a. We cannot make a decision based on the conclusion of law.
We consider everything becaue the answer also fails to tender an It is for the court to determine. Sa parties, questions of fact.
issue so it does not dispute the allegation n the complaint or it Then based diha, the court will decide applying the law.
admits the allegation. So we just decide based on what the
complainant said in his complaint. ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v.
SANNAEDLE CO., LTD.
GROUNDS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS G.R. No. 181676, June 11, 2014
Ground chika This case stemmed from a Complaint for Sum of Money filed by
1. WHEN AN ANSWER FAILS TO When does an answer fail to respondent against petitioner. The complaint alleged that petitioner
TENDER AN ISSUE; or tender an issue? and respondent executed a Memorandum of Agreement wherein
respondent was engaged to supply and erect insulated panel
When it neither admits not systems at various pavilions at the Philippine Centennial Exposition
denies the allegations in the Theme Park, specifically for the Phase I Project, for an agreed
complaint. Murag negative amount of US$3,745,287.94.
pregnant if you remember. It
will be considered an Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement, petitioner made
admission various payments amounting to US$3,129,667.32 leaving a balance
2. WHEN AN ANSWER We discussed before na when of US$615,620.33. Respondent claims that it made several written
OTHERWISE ADMITS ALL THE the denial is general, it’s also demands for petitioner to pay the said balance, but the latter
MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF equivalent to an admission. So continuously refused to heed its plea.
THE ADVERSE PARTY’S he did not specify the grounds
PLEADING. why he denied. It’s an answer Thereafter, petitioner filed its Answer with Counterclaim.
which does not tender an
issue. Respondent then moved for judgment on the pleadings on the
ground that the Answer admitted all material allegations of the
Or the denials are general in Complaint and, therefore, failed to tender an issue. Thus, respondent
the sense that ingon sya na the deems that petitioner’s Answer, in effect, admitted the existence of
defendant has no knowledge the Memorandum of Agreement and its failure to pay the balance
or infor sufficient to form a despite repeated demands.
beilief.
But the court says in the case For its part, respondent counters that petitioner’s Answer admitted
of Capital Motors Vs Yabut na the material allegations of its complaint regarding the cause of
action, which is collection of sum of money. Respondent emphasizes Other than these affirmative defenses, petitioner’s denial neither
that assuming petitioner’s defense of respondent’s lack of capacity made a specific denial that a Memorandum of Agreement was
to sue has a leg to stand on, still, the same cannot prevent perfected nor did it contest the genuineness and due execution of
respondent from seeking the collection of petitioner’s unpaid said agreement. (so proper ang judgment on the pleadings. So the
balance. court can render a decision only by looking at the pleadings of the
parties.)
HELD: Judgment on the pleadings is proper.
Judgment on the pleadings is governed by Section 1, Rule 34 of the Section 2. Action on motion for judgment on the pleadings. – The
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which reads: court may motu proprio or on motion render judgment on the
pleadings if it is apparent that the answer fails to tender an issue, or
Sec. 1. Judgment on the pleadings. – Where an answer fails to tender otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s
an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse pleadings. Otherwise, the motion shall be subject to the provisions of
party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct Rule 15 of these Rules.
judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for declaration of
nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the material Any action of the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings
facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved. shall not be subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition
or mandamus. (n)
Judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender
Discussion:
an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse
New provision. What are the possible ways by which the court may
party’s pleading. An answer fails to tender an issue if it does not
render judgment on the pleadings?
comply with the requirements of a specific denial as set out in
There should be grounds:
Sections 8 and 10, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
1. the answer fails to tender an issue, or
resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse
2. otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse
party’s pleadings.
party’s pleadings.
BUT how is it possible for the court to render judgment on the
Further, in First Leverage and Services Group, Inc. v. Solid Builders,
pleadings:
Inc., this Court held that where a motion for judgment on the
1. could be the court on its own or
pleadings is filed, the essential question is whether there are issues
a. relate this to the discussion on pre trial. Rule 18,
generated by the pleadings.
Sec 2. Par (f). which says na during pre trial, the
court shall consider the propriety of rendering
In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no
judgment on the pleadings or summary
ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending party’s
judgment or of dismissing the action should a
answer to raise an issue. The answer would fail to tender an issue, of
valid ground exist
course, if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint
b. in relation to this, when you say motu proprio, it
or admits said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings
should be determined by the court during pre
by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with
trial. Na the case is proper for judgment on the
them at all. (gi skip nimo ang issue wala nimo gidirectly address)
pleadings. If it is apparent that a ground is
present
Here, it is irrefutable that petitioner acknowledged having entered
c. if there is no such determination on the pre trial,
into a Memorandum of Agreement with respondent and that it still
this is without prejudice on the right of the
has an unpaid balance of US$615,620.33.
parties to move for a judgment on the pleadings
2. on motion by the parties.
We note that respondent’s complaint for a sum of money is based
a. Shall be subject to provis of Rule 15 on motions
mainly on the alleged failure of petitioner to pay the balance of
i. In writing
US$615,620.33 under the Memorandum of Agreement. Quoting
ii. Copy must be sent to adverse party
petitioner’s Answer, it is obvious that it admitted the foregoing
iii. This is a litigious motion because It
material allegations in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the complaint, which
asks for dismissal of the case/asks for
states as follows:
a decision on the case based on
pleadings.
Xxx
4. That the [respondent] and the [petitioner] entered into a
So there’s now an order of the court that it will make judgment
Memorandum of Agreement in Makati City, within the jurisdiction of
based on the pleadings. Can the aggrieved party appeal on this
this Honorable Court, dated February 17, 1998, wherein the
order or can he file a petition for certiorari before the CA to prevent
[Petitioner] corporation agreed with and ordered the herein
the court from rendering judgment? NO
[Respondent], as Contractor, to design and install INSUPANEL
SYSTEMS at various pavilions, etc. at expo projects site; and
If the court says that this case shall be subjected to judgment on the
specifically for the Phase I project at an agreed amount of
pleadings, you cannot appeal that.
US$3,745,287.94 (Par. 2.1). A xerox copy of this Memorandum of
Agreement dated February 17, 1998 between [Respondent] and
Kung si court later on nagrender na jud syag judgment, based on the
[Petitioner] consisting of six (6) pages, is attached hereto as Annex B
pleadings, that judgment is now subject to an appeal or petition for
and made an integral part hereof.
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.
5. That pursuant to this Memorandum of Agreement (Exhibit
B) and contract price of US$3,745,287.94, various payments have
So lahi nang orcer on a motion for judgment on a pleadings (si court
been made by [Petitioner] Corporation on this Phase I project
lang nag ingon na magrender syag judgment on the pleadings)
totaling US$3,129,667.32, thus leaving a balance of US$615,620.33.
Order made by court to render Actual judgment on the
While petitioner allegedly raised affirmative defenses, i.e., defect in
judgment on pleadings pleadings
the certification of non-forum shopping, no legal capacity to sue and
Cannot be appealed Can be appealed
fortuitous event, the same cannot still bar respondent from seeking
the collection of the unpaid balance.