CASE DIGESTS DISCOVERY

PAJARILLAGA V CA
Case: PR filed a complaint for a sum of money
against Pet. PR presented witness but
petitioner nor his counsel was absent. Upon
motion of PR, TC declared pet to have waived
his right of cross examination and allowed
private respondent to make a formal offer of
evidence.
Pet filed a Motion for leave of our to
take the deposition of the defendant on the
grounds that: petitioner resides in Manila which
is more than 400km and is suffering from
illness. Which was denied by the TC. Elevated
to CA which affirmed TC.
Issue: Wether the taking of petitioners
deposition by written interrogatories is proper
under the circumstances obtaining in this
case?
Held: No. Deposition is chiefly a mode of
discovery, the primary function of which is to
supplement the pleadings for the purpose
of disclosing the real points of dispute
between the parties and affording an adequate
factual basis during the preparation for trial.
Discovery is very liberal in its
application and is not allowed only because of
limited grounds. There is no rule that limits
deposition taking only in pre-trial. Depositions
may be taken at any time after the institution of
any action whenever necessary or convenient.
But when viewed with the several
postponements by the petitioner the court s of
the view that his timing is, in fact, suspect. Pet
offered no excuse for his and counsels
absence and merely moved for resetting
without invoking the grounds that was set
before the appeal.
Grounds not proven. As to distance, pet
could have asked for a change in venue early
in the proceedings. For illness, the med cert
did not specify that it would endanger his
health if he went to Mt. Province.

MONTEALTO | 1
The court finds 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.

CASE DIGESTS DISCOVERY

SIME DARBY V NLRC
Case: Union and Company did not agree on
the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
Company president which led to the Company
filing a Notice of Lockout to the NCMB. Union
filed for illegal lockout.
Meanwhile, company sold the tire operation
which they filed in DOLE and individually
served termination notices to all the
employees. Pet filed for illegal dismissal which
was consolidated with illegal lockout.
Labor Arbiter found valid dismissal and
therefore dismissed the complaint. NLRC
affirmed. CA affirmed. Union argues that the
Labor arbiter erred when it failed to consider
as admitted the matters contained in their
request for admission after respondents failed
to file a sworn answer thereto.
Issue: Whether the request for admission
should have been granted and the evidence
included therein should have been admitted
since respondents reply/objection thereto were
not made under oath?
Held: Petitioner argues that the reply of
Company was unsworn, and under Rule 26,
the matters of which admission were
requested should be deemed admitted. This
argument must fail.
Why? The Request for Admission does not fall
under Rule 26. Rule 26 as a mode of
discovery, contemplates of interrogatories that
would clarify and tend to shed light on truth or
falsity of the allegation in a pleading. Upon
review of the RFA, it merely reiterated the
issues in the consolidated cases.
Petitioners
RFA
constitutes
an
utter
redundancy and a useless, pointless process
which respondent should not be subjected to.
Mode of discoveries are intended to expedite
trial and to relieve parties of the costs of

MONTEALTO | 2
proving facts which will not be disputed on trial
and the truth which can be ascertained by
reasonable inquiry.
Note on another issue: It is in the discretion of
labor arbiter if there will be a formal case.
Documents passed will be understood that
they have included the pieces of evidence
needed to establish their case.

CASE DIGESTS DISCOVERY

REPUBLIC V SANDIGANBAYAN (1991)
Case: PR Tantoco and Santiago was involved
in a civil case denominated as for
reconveyance,
reversion,
accounting,
restitution, and damages which was
commenced by the PCGG. After having been
served with summons, PR filed for BOP and to
strike out some portions in the pleading. This
was opposed by the Pet. In addition, PR filed a
motion for leave to file interrogatories under
Rule 25. They sought answer to the question
Who are the commissioners who approved
and authorised the inclusion of PR? The
sandiganbayan denied said motions. (Reason
of Sandiganbayan: The other matters sought
for particularisation are evidentiary in nature
which should be ventilated in the pre-trial and
was filed without leave of court).
After pre-trial, PR filed Interrogatories to
Plaintiff and Motion for Production and
Inspection of Documents. (Interrogatories:
specific properties, specific acts. Documents:
official records and evidences, minutes.)
Sandiganbayan granted the motion.
PCGG filed for reconsideration (Reason:
purposeless and unecessary, already know the
existence of documents, privileged in
character, not specific as to who should
answer, frivolous since they inquire matter of
facts which through their aborted BOP). PCGG
granted motion of PR.
Issue: Whether or not interrogatories and
production of documents should be granted?
Review on Discovery: Resolution of
controversies is the raison dtre of courts.
This essential function is accomplished by (1)
ascertainment of all the material and relevant
facts and (2) application of the law.
It is the duty of each contending party to lay
before the court the facts in issue - fully and
fairly. Initially, the facts presented are only

MONTEALTO | 3
those that are essential (ultimate facts) and not
evidentiary facts. If the ultimate facts is
insufficient or ambiguous, ask for BOP.
However, BOP is limited to making more
particular or definite the ultimate facts and not
supply the evidentiary facts. (Common
perception: evidentiary details are made
know only during trial which is WRONG).
Evidentiary matters may be inquired into and
learned by the parties before trial. Depositiondiscovery procedure was designed to remedy
the
conceded
inadequacy
and
cumbersomeness of the pre-trial functions of
notice-giving, issue-formulation and fact
revelation. It is meant to serve as (1) a device,
along with pre-trial hearing to narrow and
clarify the basic issues bet parties and (2)
as a device for ascertaining facts relative to
the issue.
Leave of Court is required when an answer
has not yet been filed. Also with regard to
production or inspection of documents and
physical and mental examination of persons.
Sanctions on the party who refuses to make
discovery: (1) dismissing the action or
proceeding or part thereof; (2) rendering
judgement by default against the disobedient
party; (3) contempt of court; (4) arrest of the
party or agent; (5) payment of the amount of
reasonable expenses; (6) taking the matters
inquired into as established in accordance with
the claim of the party seeking discovery; (7)
refusal to allow the disobedient party support
or oppose designated claims or defences; and
(8) striking out pleadings.
Limitations to discovery: (1) when it can be
shown that the examination is being conducted
in bad faith or in such a manner as to annoy or
embarrass, or oppress the person subject to
inquiry; (2) irrelevant; and (3) privileged.
No need to file for a motion of leave for
amendment.

CASE DIGESTS DISCOVERY

Held:
As to specificity: Section 1 Rule 26 points out
that if the party served with interrogatories is a
juridical entity, it shall be answered by any
officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf.
What the PCGG may do is to object to specific
items in the interrogatories, the grounds of
which are the limitations.
As to it being factual matters: Purpose of
discovery is to ensure mutual knowledge of the
relevant facts even before trial. Party may
compel either to disgorge facts.
As to the adverse party becoming a
witness: There is nothing wrong in a partys
making his adversary his witness. This was
expressly allowed in Sec 6 Rule 132.
As to PCGGs members not required to
testify: The act of bringing a suit must entail a
waiver of the exemption from giving evidence,
by bringing a suit it brings itself within the
operation and scope of all the rules governing
civil actions.
As to the production of evidence: Since the
PR has seen it and made objection thereto, no
serious objection can therefore be presented
to the desire of the private respondents to have
copies of those documents in order to study
them some more. These documents the basis
of several material allegations.

MONTEALTO | 4

CASE DIGESTS DISCOVERY

DASMARINAS GARMENTS V REYES
Case: American President Lines sued
Dasmarias Garments to recover the sum of
$53k + 25% for attorneys fees and litigation
expenses. Garments denied any liability to the
plaintiff.
Trial ensued and APL presented its first
witness. APL was supposed to present another
2 witnesses but changed and filed a motion
praying that it intended to take depositions of
Lee and Yeh. 5 days later, APL filed an
amended motion stating that since the
Philippine Government has no consulate office
in Taiwan. In lieu of the office, there is Asian
Exchange Center occupied by Director Roces
and therefore prayed for commission o letters
of rotary be issued addressed to Roces.
Dasmarinas contends that the motion was
defective in that it does not seek that a foreign
court examine a person within its jurisdiction,
witnesses can be examined in the PH, and
Rules of Court expressly requires that a
testimony of a witness must be taken orally in
open court. RTC and CA granted prayer.
Issue: Whether or not the prayer should be
granted?
Review on Discovery: Depositions are
principally made available by law to the parties
as a means of informing themselves of all the
relevant facts; they are not therefore generally
meant to be a substitute for the actual
testimony in open court of a party or witness
Any deposition offered to prove facts therein
set out during a trial, in lieu of the actual oral
testimony of the deponent may be opposed
and excluded on the ground that it is hearsay.
However, depositions may be used without the
deponent being actually called to the witness
stand which is provided under certain
conditions and for certain limited purposes
under Par 3, Sec 4, Rule 24.

MONTEALTO | 5
Who may take deposition in a foreign
country: on notice before a secretary or
embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice consul or consular agent or before such
person under or officer as may be appointed
by commission or under letters of rogatory.
Commission: issued by the court as a
directive to an official of the Philippines,
authorizing him to take the deposition of the
witness.
Letters of Rogatory: requests to foreign
tribunals to give its aid in securing the desired
information.
Held: RTC and CA affirmed. The RTC has
issued a commission to the Asian Exchange
Centre to take the testimonies. And upon
request and authority of DFA, the latter will
issue a certificate of Authentication. In addition
to that, commission must go thru DFA first
(requests for deposition).
As to foreign jurisdiction not recognised by
PH: What matters is that the deposition is
taken before a Philippine official acting by
authority of the Philippine Department of
Foreign Affairs and in virtue of a
commission duly issued by the Philippine
Court in which the action is pending, and in
accordance, moreover, with the provisions
of the Philippine Rules of Court pursuant to
which opportunity for cross-examination of
the deponent will be fully accorded to the
adverse party.
As to deposition availed before the action
comes to trial: Deposition may be taken at
any time after the institution of any action,
whenever necessary and convenient.
As to departure from the Norm: The
procedure is not on that account rendered
illegal nor is the deposition thereby taken,
inadmissible. It precisely falls within one of the

CASE DIGESTS DISCOVERY

exceptions where the law permits such a
situation

AYALAND V TAGLE
Case: ASB Realty Corp and EMRASON filed
for nullification of Contract to Sell Real
Properties, Cancellation of Annotations on
Transfer Certificates of Title and Damages
against Ayala Land.
ASB alleged that on 21 May 1994, they
entered into a Letter Agreement with
EMRASON for the conditional sale of the
latters property to the former. However ASB
received a letter informing him the EMRASON
entered into a contract to sell, with the same
property, on 18 May 1994 with Ayala Land.
ASB filed a motion for leave to take testimony
by deposition upon oral examination of Emerito
Ramos Sr since he was already 87 years old
and that he may not be able to testify on
plaintiffs behalf in the course of the trial on
merits.
Emerson Sr died at the age of 92 yrs old. ASB
filed before the trial court a motion to introduce
in evidence the deposition of Emerito. The
motion was opposed by Ayala which led to this
petition.
Issue: Whether or not the deposition of
Emerito is admissible?

MONTEALTO | 6
Review on Discovery:
Deposition: In its more technical and
appropriate sense, the meaning of the word is
limited to written testimony of a witness given
in the course of a judicial proceeding in
advance of the trial or hearing upon oral
examination.
Purpose of Deposition: (1) give greater
assistance to the parties in ascertaining the
truth and in checking and preventing perjury
(2) Provide an effective means of detecting
and exposing false, fraudulent claims and
defenses; 3) Make available in a simple,
convenient and inexpensive way, facts which
otherwise could not be proved except with
great difficulty; 4) Educate the parties in
advance of trial as to the real value of their
claims and defenses thereby encouraging
settlements; 5) Expedite litigation; 6)
Safeguard against surprise; 7) Prevent delay;
8) Simplify and narrow the issues; and 9)
Expedite and facilitate both preparation and
trial.
Held:
As to the validity of deposition: The
depositions made by Emerito was made in
accordance with the requirements of the rules.
It was taken inside the courtroom of the trial
court, before the clerk of court. A stenographer
was present, tape recorders and a video
camera were even utilised to record the
proceedings, in the presence of all the
opposing counsels of record including ALIs.
As to lack of signature of deponent: A
deponents signature to the deposition is not in
all events indispensable since the presence of
signature goes primarily to the form of
deposition. The signatures purpose was to
ensure that the deponent is afforded the
opportunity to correct any errors contained
therein. The admissibility of evidence should
not be equated to weight of evidence.

CASE DIGESTS DISCOVERY

MONTEALTO | 7
proceeded and LCDC was declared non-suit.
LCDC appealed to CA (12th) but was denied.
Meanwhile on another appeal by LCDC
regarding the deposition on the CA (7th)
rendered a judgement granting the appeal of
LCDC and remanding it to the trial court for
further proceeding.
Issue: Whether the CA (7th) exceeded its
authority? Whether the CA erred in remanding
the case to the trial court?
Held: No to both.
As to the authority of CA (7th): It did not
exceed authority. In fact, the CA (12th) foresaw
that this might happen and included in its
judgement that their decision will not produce
legal effect and that the CA(7th) should be left
free to resolve the same.
As to the CA remanding it to the TC: LCDC
filed for deposition after the answer was filed
and therefore mere notice was needed. In the
case, LCDC filed the required notices to the
court. Yes, the depositions may be disallowed
anent showing of bad faith but it was absent in
the case at bar.

HYATT
INDUSTRIAL
CONSTRUCTION

LEY

Case: Ley Construction and Development

Corporation (LCDC) filed a complaint for
specific performance and damages against
Hyatt claiming that the latter reneged in its
obligation to transfer 40% of the pro indiviso
share of a real property in Makati in favour of
LCDC despite full payment. Complaint was
amended to include Princeton (another buyer)
and Yu (president of Hyatt).
Responsive pleadings were filed and LCDC
filed notices to take depositions. Petitioner also
filed notices for deposition but later changed
its mind and prayed for pre-trial which was
granted. LCDC opposed but the pre-trial

The delay was due to the cancelling of

scheduled depositions. In fact, LCDC was
present at the pre-trial to inform the court of
the pending appeal in CA (7th).
As to duplicity: The availability of the
proposed deponent to testify in court does not
constitute good cause to justify the courts
order that his deposition will be taken. It may
serve as a method of discovery and a method
of presenting testimony.

CASE DIGESTS DISCOVERY

MONTEALTO | 8
the issuance of a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction (Sps sought to
enjoin SB, Domingo Uy, and the Sheriff from
proceeding with an extrajudicial foreclosure).
SB filed an answer with compulsory
counterclaim and crossclaim. Before Domingo
filed an answer to defendants crossclaim, he
filed an Omnibus Motion (Production of
Documents and Suspension and/or Extension
of time to file answer to cross claim) on the
ground that these documents must first be
prepared before he could prepare and file his
answer. Spouses also filed for production of
documents.
TC
granted
it
upon
reconsideration. CA affirmed.
Issue: Whether the CA erred in granting the
two motions?
Review on Discovery:
Good cause: does not relate to the substance
in the document but to the reason for procuring
relevant or material matters therein; so that the
enforcement of the rule entails exercise of
sound discretion. The burden is on the moving
party to demonstrate the need for the
documents sought beyond the relevancy or
materiality of the evidence therein.

SECURITY BANK V CA
Case: Security bank was a defendant in a civil
case against Spouses Uy. Spouses sought for
injunction and damages with an application for

Procedural requisites to allow production

of 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; (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.

CASE DIGESTS DISCOVERY

MONTEALTO | 9

Held:
As
to
the
documents
not
being
indispensable: For Domingo, the documents
were material and important to the issues
raised in the case in general and as between
defendant and defendant SBC. It would enable
Domingo to intelligently prepare his defenses
against the cross-claim. For the Spouse, it was
for a good cause because the said documents
were necessary for a full determination of the
issues raised the Case.
As to the relevance: Petitioner contends that
the documents that Spouses sought (the
original and additional mortgage contracts
executed by Jackie Trading) were not relevant
to the case of declaration of nullity. And the
documents sought by Domingo was not
relevant because the trial court ruled that he
could prepare his answer to the cross claim
without those documents.
The court finds the document relevant since
the spouse executed an SPA to Domingo to
mortgage their property for their benefit but the
latter used it as a security to Jackivis loan.The
additional mortgage contracts executed by
Jackie are material. he spouses can determine
why petitioner was going after their property
which was invalidly mortgaged by Domingo.
And the same documents would be useful in
Domingos defines against the cross-claim.

SOLIDBANK V CA
Case: Solidbank filed a complaint for collection
of sum of money against Gateway. The latter
secured a foreign currency loan to the former.
As a security, transferred its rights to the Backend Services Agreement with Alliance to
Solidbank. Gateway then failed to pay the loan.
Solid bank amended the complaint to include
stockholders as they are sureties. They also
filed a motion for production and inspection of
document on the basis of an information that
Gateway received the proceeds of the Backend services. TC granted said motion.
Gateway presented documents but Solidbank
was not satisfied with it. Solidbank filed a
motion to cite Gateway and its officers in
contempt for their refusal to produce the
documents. The court denied the motion but
ruled that the documents sought to be
produced which were not otherwise produced
shall bet taken to be established in accordance
with plaintiffs claim. CA reversed on the
ground that the Motion for Production of
Documents did not comply with Rule 27.
Issue: Whether the Motion for Production of
Documents failed to comply with Rule 27?
Held: There is good cause to Solidbanks
motion but it is fatally defective since it did not
specify with particularity the documents it
required. All documents pertaining to , arising
from, in connection with or involving the Backend Services Agreement.

CASE DIGESTS DISCOVERY

A motion for production and inspection of
documents should not demand roving
inspection of a promiscuous mass of
documents.
The sanction given by the TC was a grave
abuse of discretion since Gateway can only be
held liable for unjust refusal if it is shown that
the documents sought to be produced were
specifically described, material to the action,
and in the possession, custody or control go
Gateway.

MONTEALTO | 10

CASE DIGESTS DISCOVERY

ROSETE V LIM
Case: Lim filed a complaint for annulment,
specific performance with damages against
Rosete, AFP-RSBS (retirement and separation
benefits), Espreme Realty, BPI, and Register
of Deeds. They sought to annul the DOS
executed by AFP to Espreme Realty covering
certain parcels of lands in the name of Lim and
tor restore ownership thereof.
Motion to dismiss was filed by Petitioners but
were all denied by the TC. Respondents filed a
notice to take deposition upon oral
examination, they will cause the deposition of
pets. Rosete. Petitioners objected and argued
that the deposition may not be taken without
leave of court as no answer has yet been
served and the issues have not yet been
joined since their Answer ex abutandi causal
(which is pending resolution). And that there is
a criminal case pending, and the taking of
deposition would be violative of their right
against
self-incrimination.
TC
granted
deposition and ordered the sriking out from the
record of the Answer ex abundant causal,
declared Rosete in default. CA affirmed.
Issue: Whether the trial court gravely abused
its discretion in granting the deposition?
Held:
As to self-incrimination: Right against selfincrimination as provided by the constitution
states that only when a question is asked, that
is incriminatory in character. will the party be
able to invoke this right. In a civil case, a party
cannot refuse to take a stand nor give
depositions. They must adhere to subpoenas
and the like, and attend the proceeding, and
only there, upon an incriminatory question, can
they invoke this right. It is different from a
criminal case wherein an accused can refuse
to be a witness. In the case at bar, it is clearly
a civil case.

MONTEALTO | 11
As to no leave of court since their answer
was abutandi cautela: Ex abutandi cautela
means out of abundant caution or to be on
a safe side. An answer ex abutandi causal
does not make their answer less of an answer.
The answers filed by petitioners shows that
they contain their respective defences.
Therefore, the issues in this case have already
been joined.

CASE DIGESTS DISCOVERY

SALES V SABINO
Case: Sabino filed a complaint for damages
against Sales, driver of the vehicle involved in
the accident which ultimately caused the death
of respondents son, Elbert.
Before any responsive pleading could be filed,
respondent notified the plaintiffs that he would
be taking the deposition of one Beaneres
Corral, which was taken in the present of the
Clerk of Court and with the active participation
of Plaintiff;s counsel. After, respondent made a
formal offer of the deposition. Petitioners
opposed on the grounds that Rule 23 was not
complied with. TC admitted the evidence. CA
affirmed on the ground that plaintiff actively
participated and adopting it as his own exhibits
and has thereby estopped him from assailing
the admissibility of the evidence.
Issue: Whether the requirements of Rule 23
was complied with?
Held:
As to non-compliance with Sec 4 Rule 23:
The case at bar falls under the 5 exceptions for
the admissibility of a deposition. The TC had
determined that Corral was abroad coupled
with a certification from Bureau of Immigration
which provides evidentiary support. If Corral
returned to the Philippines, then plaintiffs could
have presented evidence to show that such
was the case.

MONTEALTO | 12
As to estoppel: The petitioners are not
estopped from challenging the admissibility of
the deposition just because they participated in
the taking thereof. While errors and
irregularities in depositions as to notice,
qualifications of the officer conducting the
deposition, and manner of taking the
deposition are deemed waived if not objected
to before or during the taking of the deposition,
objections to the competency of a witness or
the competency, relevancy, or materiality of
testimony may be made for the first time at the
trial and need not be made at the time of the
taking of the deposition, unless they could be
obviated
at
that
point.

Remedy: Appeal from final judgement. Petition

denied.