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