You are on page 1of 16

CIVPRO SESSION INTERVENTION/DISCOVERY

cause of action pleaded, as the execution of the judgment


would be implemented on their property.

(INTERVENTION)
Nordic Asia Limited vs CA
Nordic Asia has no legal interest in the case
Requirements for intervention:
[a] it must be shown that the movant has legal
interest in the matter in litigation;
and
[b] consideration must be given as to whether the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties may
be delayed or prejudiced, or whether or not the
intervenors rights may be protected in a separate
proceeding.
Petitioners failed to meet both requirements.
Petitioners do not own the vessel, but merely hold a
mortgage lien over it. Consequently, whatever judgment is
rendered in the collection case against the vessel is not of
such a direct and immediate character that the intervenor
would either gain or lose by direct legal operation and
effect of the judgment.
Assuming judgment is rendered against the vessel,
petitioners are not precluded from proceeding with their
foreclosure of the vessel. While there is a chance that
petitioners would not be able fully to satisfy their claims
due to respondents preferred claims, the effect is merely
indirect as it is contingent upon two eventualities: 1)
petitioners being able successfully to foreclose on the
vessel; and 2) the proceeds of the sale being insufficient to
cover the loan amount. It would have been different if
petitioners were the owners of the vessel, for then
petitioners may be said to have a direct interest in the

The second requisite for intervention states that


consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication
of the rights of the original parties may be delayed or
prejudiced, or whether or not the intervenors rights may be
protected in a separate proceeding. In the present case,
petitioners rights were already protected through their
extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. There was no
exigency to grant the intervention. On the other hand,
respondents rights have been unduly delayed or prejudiced
by the intervention. The decision of the RTC of Manila in
favor of respondents, rendered in October 30, 1987, has not
attained finality through the sole efforts of petitioners, even
though the actual judgment obligors, the defendants, did
not appeal from the said decision.

Salandan vs Sps Mendoza


The CA did not err in deniying the petitioners motion for
clarification and intervention
Key provision
Section 2. Time to intervene. The motion to intervene may
be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial
court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be
attached to the motion and served on the original parties.
Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, the courts are nevertheless
mandated to consider several factors in determining
whether or not to allow intervention. The factors that should
be reckoned are whether intervention will unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original
parties and whether the intervenors rights may be fully
protected in a separate proceeding.
Moreover, petitioner's intervention in the ejectment case
would not result in a complete adjudication of her rights.
The issue raised by petitioner is mainly that of ownership,
claiming that the property in dispute was registered and
titled in the name of respondents through the use of fraud.
Such issue cannot even be properly threshed out in an
action for ejectment, as Section 18, Rule 70 provides that
[t]he judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or
detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession
only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the
ownership of the land or building. x x x In Malison v. Court
of Appeals,[25] the Court held thus:
Verily, in ejectment cases, the word possession means
nothing more than actual physical possession, not legal
possession, in the sense contemplated in civil law. The only
issue in such cases is who is entitled to the physical or
material possession of the property involved, independently
of any claim of ownership set forth by any of the party-

litigants. It does not even matter if the party's title to the


property is questionable.[26] (Emphasis supplied)
Held: Petition is Denied

Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs Heirs of


Estanislao Mioza

the NAC, would unnecessarily complicate and change the


nature of the proceedings.

Definition: Intervention is a remedy by which a third party,


not originally impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a
litigant therein to enable him, her or it to protect or
preserve a right or interest which may be affected by such
proceedings.

In addition to resolving who the true and legitimate heirs of


Estanislao Mioza and Inocencia Togono are, the parties
would also present additional evidence in support of this
new allegation of fraud, deceit, and bad faith and resolve
issues of conflicting claims of ownership, authenticity of
certificates of titles, and regularity in their acquisition.
Verily, this would definitely cause unjust delay in the
adjudication of the rights claimed by the original parties,
which primarily hinges only on the issue of whether or not
the heirs represented by Leila have a right to repurchase
the subject properties from the MCIAA.

Persons allowed to intervene:


(1) a legal interest in the matter in litigation;
(2) or in the success of any of the parties;
(3) or an interest against the parties;
(4) or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by
a distribution or disposition
In the case at bar, the intervenors are claiming that they
are the legitimate heirs of Estanislao Mioza and Inocencia
Togono and not the original plaintiffs represented by Leila
Hermosisima. True, if their allegations were later proven to
be valid claims, the intervenors would surely have a legal
interest in the matter in litigation. Nonetheless, this Court
has ruled that the interest contemplated by law must be
actual, substantial, material, direct and immediate, and not
simply contingent or expectant. It must be of such direct
and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain
or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the
judgment.[19] Otherwise, if persons not parties to the
action were allowed to intervene, proceedings would
become
unnecessarily
complicated,
expensive
and
interminable.[20]
Moreover, the intervenors contentions that Leilas
predecessors-in-interest executed, in fraud of the
intervenors, an extra judicial settlement of the estate of the
late spouses Estanislao Mioza and Inocencia Togono and
adjudicated unto themselves the estate of the deceased
spouses, and that subsequently, her predecessors-ininterest fraudulently and deceitfully sold the subject lots to

Verily, the allegation of fraud and deceit is an independent


controversy between the original parties and the
intervenors. In general, an independent controversy cannot
be injected into a suit by intervention, hence, such
intervention will not be allowed where it would enlarge the
issues in the action and expand the scope of the remedies.
It is not proper where there are certain facts giving the
intervenors case an aspect peculiar to himself and
differentiating it clearly from that of the original parties; the
proper course is for the would-be intervenor to litigate his
claim in a separate suit.[21] Intervention is not intended to
change the nature and character of the action itself, or to
stop or delay the placid operation of the machinery of the
trial. The remedy of intervention is not proper where it will
have the effect of retarding the principal suit or delaying
the trial of the action.[22]
To be sure, not only will the intervenors rights be fully
protected in a separate proceeding, it would best determine
the rights of the parties in relation to the subject properties
and the issue of who the legitimate heirs of Estanislao
Mioza and Inocencia Togono, would be laid to rest.
Furthermore, the allowance or disallowance of a motion for
intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after
consideration of the appropriate circumstances.[23] It is not

an absolute right. The statutory rules or conditions for the


right of intervention must be shown. The procedure to
secure the right to intervene is to a great extent fixed by
the statute or rule, and intervention can, as a rule, be
secured only in accordance with the terms of the applicable
provision.[24]
Consequently, the denial of the motion to intervene by the
RTC was but just and proper. The conclusion of the RTC is
not bereft of rational bases. It denied the motion to
intervene in the exercise of its sound discretion and after
taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the
case.
Petition Granted

GSIS VS NOCOM
ISSUE: WON CA ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT
HAS RIGHT TO INTERVENE
In the instant case, records show that BENGSON transferred
and assigned 2,406,666 SMC Class "A" shares to
respondent, as evidenced by their Memorandum of
Agreement and Deed of Assignment executed on August
24, 1999. We recall that these shares of stock in question
were sold to BENGSON to satisfy the costs of suit awarded
to it by the trial court in its April 6, 1995 Order. Clearly,
respondent has an interest in the outcome of the case
before the trial court. The Court of Appeals, therefore, did
not err in ruling that respondents motion for intervention is
in order.

Office of the Ombudsman vs Sison


WON the Office of Ombudsman has sufficient legal interest
warranting its intervention in the proceedings before the CA
since it rendered the subject decision pursuant before the
CA since it rendered the subject decision pursuant to its
administrative authority

In instituting G.R. No. 126354, the Civil Service Commission


dangerously departed from its role as adjudicator and
became an advocate. Its mandated function is to hear and
decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before
it directly or on appeal, including contested appointments
and to review decisions and actions of its offices and
agencies, not to litigate.

RA 6975
A 6975 itself does not authorize a private complainant to
appeal a decision of the disciplining authority. Sections 43
and 45 of RA 6975 authorize either party to appeal in the
instances that the law allows appeal. One party is the PNP
member-respondent when the disciplining authority
imposes the penalty of demotion or dismissal from the
service. The other party is the government when the
disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion but
the government believes that dismissal from the service is
the proper penalty.
However, the government party that can appeal is
not the disciplining authority or tribunal which
previously heard the case and imposed the penalty
of demotion or dismissal from the service. The
government party appealing must be the one that is
prosecuting the administrative case against the
respondent. Otherwise, an anomalous situation will result
where the disciplining authority or tribunal hearing the
case, instead of being impartial and detached, becomes an
active participant in prosecuting the respondent. Thus, in
Mathay, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, decided after Dacoycoy, the
Court declared:
To be sure when the resolutions of the Civil Service
Commission were brought to the Court of Appeals, the Civil
Service Commission was included only as a nominal party.
As a quasi-judicial body, the Civil Service Commission can
be likened to a judge who should detach himself from cases
where his decision is appealed to a higher court for review.

Clearly, the Office of the Ombudsman is not an appropriate


party to intervene in the instant case. It must remain partial
and detached. More importantly, it must be mindful of its
role as an adjudicator, not an advocate.
The Office of the Ombudsman is not a third party who has a
legal interest in the administrative case against the
petitioner such that it would be directly affected by the
judgment that this Court had rendered. It must be
remembered that the legal interest required for an
intervention must be direct and immediate in character.
Lest it be forgotten, what was brought on appeal before this
Court is the very Decision by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Plainly, the Office of the Ombudsman, as an adjudicator,
and not an advocate, has no legal interest at stake in the
outcome of this Rule 43 Petition.[21]

Discovery
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC
Trial courts are directed to issue orders requiring parties to
avail of Modes of Discovery within 5 days from the filing of
the Answer.
WHEN PROPER
A fact relevant to a case is known only to an opposing
party or a witness.
Said fact is not privileged
Discovery is not prejudicial to the other party or witness.
Purpose:
To make it possible for all the parties to a case to learn all
the material and relevant facts, from whoever may have
knowledge thereof, to the end that their pleadings or
motions may not suffer from inadequacy of factual
foundation, and all the relevant facts may be clearly and
completely laid before the Court, without omission or
suppression.
DEPOSITION
Testimony of a witness reduced in writing
PURPOSES

Assist parties ascertain the truth and check and


prevent perjury

Provide an effective means of detecting and


exposing false and fraudulent claims and defenses.

Make available in a simple, convenient and


inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be
proved except with great difficulty.
Educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real
value of their claims and defenses thereby
encouraging settlements.

Expedite litigation.
Safeguard against surprise.
Prevent delay
Simplify and narrow the issues
Expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial (Ayala
Land vs. Tagle 466 SCRA 521)
DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION
may be availed of by leave of court after jurisdiction over
the defendant is obtained or over his property that is
subject of the action OR
without leave of court after an answer has been served
testimony of a person, whether a party or not, may be
taken, at the instance of any party, by DEPOSITION UPON
ORAL EXAMINATION or WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
examination shall on any matter that is not privileged,
which is relevant to the subject of the pending action,
whether relating to the claim or defense of any other party
Can be availed of anytime, not only during pre-trial

Pajarillaga vs CA
ISSUE: the issue is whether the taking of petitioners
deposition by written interrogatories is proper under the
circumstances obtaining in this case.
But when viewed vis the several postponements made by
petitioner for the initial presentation of his evidence, we are
of the view that his timing is, in fact, suspect. The records
before us show that petitioner stopped attending the
hearings after private respondent presented his first
witness. Petitioner offered no excuse for his and his
counsels absences. Moreover, the trial court has set four
(4) hearing dates for the initial presentation of his evidence.
But he merely moved for its resetting without invoking the
grounds which he now presents before us.
Besides, even as we scrutinize petitioners arguments, we
think that he has not sufficiently shown an "exceptional" or
"unusual" case for us to grant leave and reverse the trial
and appellate courts.
Under Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, depositions
may be used for the trial or for the hearing of a motion or
an
interlocutory
proceeding,
under
the
following
circumstances:
SEC. 4. Use of depositions.
xxxx
(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may
be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: (1)
that the witness is dead; or (2) that the witness resides at a
distance more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the
place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless it
appears that his absence was procured by the party
offering the deposition; or (3) that the witness is unable to
attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or
imprisonment; or (4) that the party offering the deposition
has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness

by subpoena; or (5) upon application and notice, that such


exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in
the interest of justice and with due regard to the
importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally
in open court, to allow the deposition to be used; and
x x x x13
In this case, petitioner invokes distance and illness to avail
of the discovery measure.1avvphi1 We agree with private
respondent that the matter of distance could have been
settled had petitioner requested for a change of venue
earlier in the proceedings. Petitioner has attended the pretrial and the hearing where private respondent presented
his first witness. He need not await his turn to present
evidence before realizing the great inconvenience caused
by the enormous distance between his place of residence
and the place of hearing.
Nor are we inclined to accept petitioners claim of illness. As
aptly observed by the Court of Appeals, the medical
certificate submitted by petitioner merely contained a
remark that the "patient is advised to avoid strenuous
activity." It was not alleged that the travel from Manila to
Mt. Province for the scheduled hearings was too strenuous
to endanger petitioners health.
Finally, we must emphasize that while the rules on
discovery are liberally constructed so as to ascertain truth
and to expedite the disposal of cases, the trial court may
disallow a deposition if there are valid reasons for so
ruling.14 Here, we find the protracted delay in the litigation
at petitioners instance coupled with the belated and
unsubstantiated allegations of illness and threats to
petitioners life, more than sufficient reasons for the trial
court to deny petitioners motion.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of
merit.

Sime Darby Employees Association vs NLRC


WON PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION SHOULD
HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE EVIDENCE INCLUDED
THEREIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENTS REPLY/OBJECTION WAS NOT MADE UNDER
OATH
The submission that petitioners Request for Admission
should have been deemed admitted in their favor after
respondents had failed to file a sworn reply or objection
thereto cannot be sustained.
A request for admission is a remedy provided by Rule 26 of
the Rules of Court, which allows a party to file and serve
upon any other party a written request for the admission
of : (i) the genuineness of any material and relevant
document described in and exhibited with the request; or
(ii) the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set
forth in the request. Said request must be answered under
oath within the period indicated in the request, otherwise
the matters of which admission were requested should be
deemed admitted. Petitioners claim that respondents,
instead of filing an answer under oath, filed an unsworn
reply/objection thereto. Thus, the admissions should be
deemed admitted in their favor.

Petitioners Request for Admission does not fall under Rule


26 of the Rules of Court. A review of said Request for
Admission shows that it contained matters which are
precisely the issues in the consolidated cases, and/or
irrelevant matters; for example, the reasons behind the
lockout, the companys motive in the CBA negotiations, lack
of notice of dismissal, the validity of the release and
quitclaim, etc.39 Rule 26 as a mode of discovery
contemplates of interrogatories
that would clarify and tend to shed light on the truth or
falsity of the allegations in a pleading. That is its primary

function. It does not refer to a mere reiteration of what has


already been alleged in the pleadings.40
Otherwise stated, petitioner's request constitutes "an utter
redundancy and a useless, pointless process which the
respondent should not be subjected to." The rule on
admission as a mode of discovery is intended "to
expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of
proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and
the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable
inquiry." Thus, if the request for admission only
serves to delay the proceedings by abetting
redundancy in the pleadings, the intended purpose
for the rule will certainly be defeated.41
More importantly, well-settled is the rule that hearings and
resolutions of labor disputes are not governed by the strict
and technical rules of evidence and procedure observed in
the regular courts of law. Technical rules of procedure are
not applicable in labor cases, but may apply only by
analogy or in a suppletory character, for instance, when
there is a need to attain substantial justice and an
expeditious, practical and convenient solution to a labor
problem.42 In view of the nature of the matters requested
for admission by the petitioners, their request for admission
would have only served to delay the proceedings.

Republic vs Sandigabayan
ISSUE: WON the motion for leave to file Interragotiries was
correct
that it was correct for them to seek leave to serve
interrogatories, because discovery was being availed of
before an answer had been served. In such a situation, i.e.,
"after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or
over property subject of the action" but before answer,
Section 1 of Rule 24 (treating of depositions), in relation to
Section 1 of Rule 25 (dealing with interrogatories to parties)
explicitly requires "leave of court." 42 But there was no
need for the private respondents to seek such leave to
serve their "Amended Interrogatories to Plaintiff" (dated
August 2, 1989 43) after they had filed their answer to the
PCGG's complaint, just as there was no need for the
Sandiganbayan to act thereon
ISSUE: WON THE INTERROGATORIES ARE DEFECTIVE
because of its failure to address particular individual
The first part of petitioner's submission is adequately
confuted by Section 1, Rule 25 which states that if the party
served with interrogatories is a juridical entity such as "a
public or private corporation or a partnership or
association," the same shall be "answered . . by any
officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf."
There is absolutely no reason why this proposition should
not be applied by analogy to the interrogatories served on
the PCGG. That the interrogatories are addressed only to
the PCGG, without naming any specific commissioner o
officer thereof, is utterly of no consequence, and may not
be invoked as a reason to refuse to answer. As the rule
states, the interrogatories shall be answered "by any officer
thereof competent to testify in its behalf."
That the matters on which discovery is desired are the
same matters subject of a prior motion for bill of particulars
addressed to the PCGG's amended complaint and denied
for lack of merit is beside the point. Indeed, as already

pointed out above, a bill of particulars may elicit only


ultimate facts, not so-called evidentiary facts. The latter are
without doubt proper subject of discovery. 44
Neither may it be validly argued that the amended
interrogatories lack specificity. The merest glance at them
disproves the argument. The interrogatories are made to
relate to individual paragraphs of the PCGG's expanded
complaint and inquire about details of the ultimate facts
therein alleged. What the PCGG may properly do is to object
to specific items of the interrogatories, on the ground of
lack of relevancy, or privilege, or that the inquiries are
being made in bad faith, or simply to embarass or oppress
it. 45 But until such an objection is presented and
sustained, the obligation to answer subsists.
ISSUE: WON making the PCGG commissioner and officers
witnesses in in contravention of EO no. 14
Section 6, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
Sec. 6. Direct examination of unwilling or hostile witnesses.
A party may . . . call an adverse party or an officer,
director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation or of a partnership or association which is an
adverse party, and interrogate him by leading questions
and contradict and impeach him in all respects as if he had
been called by the adverse party, and the witness thus
called may be contradicted and impeached by or on behalf
of the adverse party also, and may be cross-examined by
the adverse party only upon the subject-matter of his
examination in chief.
WHEREFORE,
the
petition
is
DENIED,
without
pronouncement as to costs. The temporary restraining
order issued on October 27, 1989 is hereby LIFTED AND SET
ASIDE.

Dasmarinas Garments vs Reyes


Simple facts
A case for a sum of money filed by American
President Lines, Ltd. against Dasmarias Garments
2 witnesses of American President Lines were in
Taiwan, thus filed motion to take deposition of
witnesses
Dasmarias opposed alleging that testimony must be
taken in open court not by deposition
HELD: Taking of deposition allowed
General rule: Testimony must be given
examination in Court, otherwise hearsay.

by

way

of

Exception: deposition may be allowed when deponent is


dead, out of the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify
(Section 4, Rule 23 Rules of Court)
Rule 130, Section 47 of the Rules of Court, which speaks of
the exceptions to the hearsay rule, specifically allows the
testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to
testify

HYATT INDUSTRIAL VS LEY


WON THE DEPOSITIONS SHOULD BE DISREGARDED AND
PRETRIAL SHOULD BE SET INSTEAD
Availability of proposed deponent to testify in Court not
good cause to justify court order that deposition not be
taken
The right to take statements (deposition) and the right to
use them in Court have been kept entirely distinct
Utmost freedom is allowed in taking deposition; restrictions
are imposed upon their use
Deposition is limited only by relevancy and privilege
Use of deposition in trial is circumscribed looking towards
the use of oral testimony when practicable.

Security Bank vs CA
(d) Such documents, etc. are not privileged;
ISSUE: WON GRANT OF MOTION FOR PRODUCTION AND
INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

(e) Such documents, etc. constitute or contain


evidence material to any matter involved in the
action; and

Section 1 Rule 27
"SECTION 1. Motion for production or inspection; order.
Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the
court in which 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 possession,
custody or control; or (b) order any party to permit entry
upon designated land or other property in his 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 manner of making the inspection and
taking copies and photographs, and may prescribe such
terms and conditions as are just."
Materiality of the Subject Documents
"(a) The party must file a motion for the production
or inspection of documents or things, showing good
cause therefor;
(b) Notice of the motion must be served to all other
parties of the case;
(c) The motion must designate the documents,
papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs,
objects or tangible things which the party wishes to
be produced and inspected;

(f) Such documents, etc. are in the possession,


custody or control of the other party.
Section 1 of Rule 27 clearly provides that the documents
sought must be "material to any matter involved in the
action." Respondents have shown that the subject
documents are indeed material to the present action.
Indeed, the factual backdrop of the case strengthens
respondents cause. The civil action instituted by the
Spouses Uy sought the annulment of two deeds of Real
Estate Mortgage between Jackivi and petitioner. They
allegedly issued a Special Power of Attorney to Respondent
Uy to mortgage their property only for their benefit, not for
that of Jackivi. Because he mortgaged the property as
security for Jackivis loan, they contend that he exceeded his
authority and that the contracts of real estate mortgage
were consequently invalid. Petitioner, on the other hand,
filed a cross-claim against him, because it "relied on the
representations and documents submitted by [the latter]
that he was duly authorized to mortgage the subject
property."[18]
In this light, the relevance of the documents sought by
Respondent Domingo Uy is readily apparent. The papers
executed by the petitioner bank in evaluating and
processing the real estate mortgage are manifestly useful in
his defense against its cross-claim. The trial courts ruling
that he could file his answer without examining those
documents does not prove that they are immaterial to the
present action. The CA has held that those documents
would enable him to "intelligently prepare his defenses
against the cross-claim of Petitioner SBC."

So also, the additional mortgage contracts executed by


Jackivi are material to the present action. Because a witness
of petitioner admitted in court that there was a third
mortgage contract between Jackivi and the bank, fair play
demands that herein respondents must be given the chance
to examine such additional mortgage contracts. In so doing,
they can determine why petitioner was going after their
property which was invalidly mortgaged by Respondent Uy,
while the properties of the actual borrower, Jackivi, have not
been touched or foreclosed by the bank.
Solidbank vs Gateway
ISSUE: WON CA ERRED IN RULING THAT BOTH MOTION FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THE OF TC FAILED TO
COMPLY WITH SECTION 1 RULE 27
(a) The party must file a motion for the production or
inspection of documents or things, showing good cause
therefor;
(b) Notice of the motion must be served to all other parties
of the case;
(c) The motion must designate the documents, papers,
books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
things which the party wishes to be produced and
inspected;
(d) Such documents, etc., are not privileged;
(e) Such documents, etc., constitute or contain evidence
material to any matter involved in the action, and
(f) Such documents, etc., are in the possession, custody or
control of the other party.[35]
Solidbank was able to show good cause for the production
of the documents. It had also shown that the said

documents are material or contain evidence relevant to an


issue involved in the action. However, Solidbanks motion
was fatally defective and must be struck down because of
its failure to specify with particularity the documents it
required Gateway to produce. Solidbanks motion for
production and inspection of documents called for a blanket
inspection. Solidbanks request for inspection of all
documents pertaining to, arising from, in connection with or
involving the Back-end Services Agreement[36] was simply
too broad and too generalized in scope.
motion for production and inspection of documents should
not demand a roving inspection of a promiscuous mass of
documents. The inspection should be limited to those
documents designated with sufficient particularity in the
motion, such that the adverse party can easily identify the
documents he is required to produce.[37]
Furthermore, Solidbank, being the one who asserts that the
proceeds of the Back-end Services Agreement were already
received by Gateway, has the burden of proof in the instant
case. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by
law.[38] Throughout the trial, the burden of proof remains
with the party upon whom it is imposed,[39] until he shall
have discharged the same.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is
DENIED for lack of merit.

DEPOSITION BEFORE ACTION OR


PENDING APPEAL
Known as perpetuation of testimony
Anticipatory in nature
Object is to preserve testimony for future use
If pending appeal, leave of court necessary

Purpose of the Rule is to expedite trial and relieve parties


of the cost of proving facts which can be ascertained by
reasonable inquiry. (Sime Darby vs. NLRC 510 SCRA 204)
In Sime Darby, the request for admissions was denied
because it contained matters which are precisely the issue
in the case, hence, redundant. Thus, will only result in
delay.

INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
Intended to compel disclosure from adverse party
may be availed of by leave of court after jurisdiction over
the defendant is obtained or over his property that is
subject of the action OR
without leave of court after an answer has been served
Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories: a party not
served with written interrogatories may not be compelled
by the adverse party to give testimony in open court or to
give deposition pending appeal
Effect of failure to answer interrogatories
Striking out of pleadings
Dismissal of action
Judgment by default (Rule 29, Sections 3(c) and 5)
ADMISSIONS BY ADVERSE PARTIES
Available after responsive pleading
Purpose: admission of the genuineness of any material and
relevant document or the truth of any material and relevant
matter of fact set forth in the document.
Subject of admission is deemed admitted unless denied
specifically or to set forth reason party cannot admit or
deny truthfully
Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission: not
permitted to present evidence on such facts unless allowed
by the court for good cause shown (Rule 26, Section 5)
Effect of failure to answer request for admission: matter
subject of request for admission deemed admitted (Rule 26,
Section 2)

PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION
OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
Fishing allowed, the only limitation being that the
documents, papers, sought to be produced are not
privileged,
Documents or things sought to be produced or inspected in
possession of adverse party
Inspection and copying or photographing
Material to any matter involved in the action
Entry upon designated land or other property for
inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the
property
PRODUCTION
1. Motion for production/inspection showing good cause
2. All other parties must be served with motion
3. Motion must designate documents, papers, books
sought to be produced and inspected
4. Such document, etc. are not privileged
5. Such documents must contain evidence material to
any matter involved
6. Such documents are in possession or control of the
other party (Security Bank Corp. vs. Court of Appeals,
323 SCRA 330)
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF
PERSONS
Mental and physical condition of a party is in controversy

Consequence of refusal: physical or mental status of party


sought to be examined as claimed by the party requesting
the examination shall be deemed established
Request by party examined of detailed written report of
examination will mean waiver of privilege in the said action
or any other involving the same controversy, regarding the
testimony of person who has examined or thereafter
examine him in respect of the same mental or physical
examination
REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY
Refusal to answer any question upon oral examination:
proponent may apply for an order to compel an answer.
(Rule 29, Section 1)
Result of Refusal to obey order of court:

Matters subject of the order shall be taken as established


in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the
order (Rule 29, Section 3 (a))
Disobedient party disallowed to support or oppose
designated claims or prohibited from introducing evidence
matters subject of the discovery procedure (Rule 29,
Section 3 (b))
Striking out of pleadings or part thereof (Rule 29, Section 3
(c))
Staying proceedings until obeyed (Rule 29, Section 3 (c))
Dismissing action or proceeding (Rule 29, Section 3 (c))
Rendering judgment by default (Rule 29, Section 3 (c))
Arrest of any party disobeying except an order to submit to
a physical or mental examination (Rule 29, Section 3 (d))

You might also like