Dennis Jay A.

Paras
Remedial Law Review – Block A
Judge Emmanuel Pasal

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

204 SCRA 212 November 21, 1991

Topic: Modes of Discovery

Facts:
The Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG for brevity) filed a complaint
for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages against herein private
respondents Tantoco and Santiago. Private respondents moved to strike out some
portions of the complaint and for bill of particulars of other portions, which was opposed
by the PCGG. Herein respondent Sandiganbayan gave PCGG 45 days to expand its
complaint to make more specific certain allegations against private respondents. Private
respondents then presented a Motion to leave to file interrogatories under Rule 25 of the
Rules of Court. The Sandiganbayan denied private respondents’ motions. Private
respondents filed an Answer to with Compulsory Counterclaim. In response, the PCGG
presented a Reply to Counterclaim with Motion to Dismiss compulsory counterclaim.
Private respondents filed a pleading denominated Interrogatories to Plaintiff, and
Amended Interrogatories to Plaintiff as well as a motion for production and inspection of
documents. It also filed on September 4,1989 an opposition to the Amended
Interrogatories, 19 which the Sandiganbayan treated as a motion for reconsideration of
the Resolution of August 21, 1989. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the said interrogatories are not specific and do not name the particular
individuals to whom they are propounded, being addressed only to the PCGG.

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

SECURITY BANK CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 135874 January 25, 2000

Topic: Modes of Discovery

Facts:
Herein private respondents Spouses Uy sought to enjoin Security Bank Corporation (SBC
for brevity) from proceeding with the extra-judicial foreclosure of a mortgage over a piece
of property registered under their name located at Cubao, Quezon City. On February 25,
1997, a temporary restraining order was issued by the RTC of Quezon City, but the same
was lifted on April 8, 1997 when the RTC resolved to deny the spouses’ application for
preliminary injunction. SBC filed its answer on April 7, 1997. Defendant Uy filed an
Omnibus Motion for the production of documents on the ground that all documents,
papers and instruments made and executed by SBC must first be produced before he
could prepare and file the answer to SBC’s cross-claim. In its order dated October 2,
1997, the RTC directed SBC to produce and permit herein respondents to inspect, copy
or photograph the original and additional contracts executed by the said corporation.
Aggrieved, SBC appealed before the CA. In its decision, the CA affirmed the assailed
decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
“Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion 7
when it sustained the Orders of the Respondent Regional Trial Court dated 02 October
1997 and 25 November 1997 which granted the respective Motions [For Production,
Inspection and Copying of Documents] of Respondents Spouses Agustin P. Uy and Pacita
Tang Sioc Ten and Domingo Uy.”

Ruling:
No. In the present case, the CA did not err in affirming the trial court ruling that there was
“good cause” for the grant of the Motions for inspection of documents. The latter’s holding
that the documents were not indispensable to the preparation of the answer of Uy to the
cross-claim did not militate against respondents’ availment of this important mode of
discovery. As he himself averred in his Motion, the subject documents were “material and
important to the issues raised in the case in general, and as between defendant and
defendant SBC in particular.” 10 Verily, the CA noted that the documents would enable
Respondent Uy to “intelligently prepare his defenses against the cross-claim of petitioner
SBC,” 11 and not merely to formulate his answer.
Dennis Jay A. Paras
Remedial Law Review – Block A
Judge Emmanuel Pasal

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MARIA CRISTINA SERGIO & JULIO LACANILAO
G.R. No. 240053 October 09, 2019

Topic: Depositions (Rules 23 and 24)

Facts:
Mary Jane was offered a job as a domestic helper in Malaysia by herein accused Sergio
and Julius Lacanilao. On April 21, 2010, Mary Jane, together with Cristina, eventually left
for Malaysia. Upon their arrival at the country, Mary Jane was told that the job that was
intended for her was no longer available. As a result, she was offered a seven-day holiday
to Indonesia with a promise that she will have a job upon return to Malaysia. Her travel
expenses were shouldered by Cristina as well as her luggage for the trip. Before the trip,
Mary Jane noticed that the suitcase was particularly heavy even though it was empty.
Cristina assured her that it was like that because it was brand new. When Mary Jane
arrived at the Adisucipto International Airport in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, she was
apprehended by the police officers for allegedly carrying 2.6 kilograms of heroin inside
her luggage. She was charged with drug trafficking and was imprisoned. Mary Jane was
supposed to be executed via firing squad, but her execution was postponed indefinitely
by President Joko Widodo to give way for the trial that was being held in the Philippines,
pursuant to the Indonesia’s obligations under the ASEAN Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty
(ASEAN MLAT). The reason behind such is so that Mary Jane would afford the
opportunity to present her case against the persons allegedly responsible for recruiting
her to engage in drug trafficking. Cristina and Julius objected to the motion asserting that
the deposition should be made before and not during the trial. The RTC ruled in favor of
the prosecution. Aggrieved, herein respondents appealed before the CA, which ruled to
reverse the assailed decision. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not Mary Jane's testimony may be validly acquired through deposition by
written interrogatories.

Ruling:
No. The deposition by written interrogatories is pursuant to Mary Jane's right to due
process. The benchmark of the right to due process in criminal justice is to ensure that all
the parties have their day in court. It is in accord with the duty of the government to follow
a fair process of decision-making when it acts to deprive a person of his liberty. But just
as an accused is accorded this constitutional protection, so is the State entitled to due
process in criminal prosecutions. It must likewise be given an equal chance to present its
evidence in support of a charge.
Here, the trial court acted within its jurisdiction when it granted the taking of Mary Jane's
deposition by written interrogatories. The grant of the written interrogatories by the
Indonesian Government perceives the State's opportunity to present all its desired
witnesses in the prosecution of its cases against Cristina and Julius. It is afforded fair
opportunity to present witnesses and evidence it deem vital to ensure that the injury
sustained by the People in the commission of the criminal acts will be well compensated
and, most of all, that justice be achieved. Hence, the right of the State to prosecute and
prove its case have been fully upheld and protected.
Dennis Jay A. Paras
Remedial Law Review – Block A
Judge Emmanuel Pasal

DASMARIÑAS GARMENTS, INC. vs. HON. RUBEN T. REYES

G.R. No. 108229 August 24, 1993

Topic: Depositions (Rules 23 and 24)

Facts:
Sometime in September 1987, the American President Lines, Ltd. sued Dasmariñas
Garments, Inc. to recover the sum of US $53,228.45 as well as an amount equivalent to
twenty-five percent (25%) thereof as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. The case
was in due course scheduled for trial on April 27, 1988. At the hearing of May 3, 1989,
instead of presenting its witnesses, APL filed a motion praying that it intended to take the
depositions of H. Lee and Yeong Fang Yeh in Taipei, Taiwan and prayed that for this
purpose, a “commission or letters rogatory be issued addressed to the consul, vice-consul
or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines in Taipei. Five (5) days later APL filed
an amended motion stating that since the Philippine Government has no consulate office
in Taiwan in view of its “one-China policy”. Dasmarinas Garments opposed the motion,
stating that the letters rogatory was unnecessary because the witness can be examined
before the Philippine Court and that the Rules of Court expressly require that the
testimony of a witness must be taken orally in open court and not by deposition. The Court
opined that “the Asian Exchange Center, Inc. being the authorized Philippine
representative in Taiwan, may take the testimonies of plaintiffs witnesses residing there
by deposition, but only upon written interrogatories so as to give defendant the opportunity
to cross-examine the witnesses by serving cross-examination.

Issue:
Whether or not a party could present its evidence by taking the deposition of its witness
in a foreign jurisdiction before a private entity.

Ruling:
Depositions are chiefly a mode of discovery. They are intended as a means to compel
disclosure of facts resting in the knowledge of a party or other person which are relevant
in some suit or proceeding in court. Depositions, and the other modes of discovery
(interrogatories to parties; requests for admission by adverse party; production or
inspection of documents or things; physical and mental examination of persons) are
meant to enable a party to learn all the material and relevant facts, not only known to him
and his witnesses but also those known to the adverse party and the latter’s own
witnesses. In fine, the object of discovery is 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.
Leave of court is not necessary where the deposition is to be taken before “a secretary
or embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the
Republic of the Philippines,” and the defendant’s answer has already been served (Sec.
1, Rule 24). After answer, whether the deposition-taking is to be accomplished within the
Philippines or outside, the law does not authorize or contemplate any intervention by the
court in the process, all that is required being that “reasonable notice” be given “in writing
to every other party to the action ** (stating) the time and place for taking the deposition
and the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and if the name is
not known, a general description sufficient to identify him or the particular class or group
to which he belongs.
Dennis Jay A. Paras
Remedial Law Review – Block A
Judge Emmanuel Pasal

Fortune Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 108119 January 19, 1994

Topic: Refusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery (Rule 29)

Facts:
Herein petitioner Fortune Corporation filed an action for breach of contract against Inter-
Merchants Corporation at the RTC of San Pablo City. Fortune served the private
respondent with written interrogatories pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of Court. The
interrogatories were answered by respondent corporation through its board chairman. On
March 26, 1992, however, petitioner served upon private respondent a Notice to Take
Deposition Upon Oral Examination 2 dated March 26, 1992, notifying the latter that on
April 7, 1992. Private respondent filed an Urgent Motion Not to Take Deposition/Vehement
Opposition to Plaintiffs Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination, 3 dated March
27, 1992. In its April 3, 1992 decision, the RTC ordered that the requested deposition
shall not be taken as it appears unwarranted since the proposed deponent had earlier
responded to the written interrogatories of the plaintiff and has signified his availability to
testify in court. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not, absent the requisite element of “good cause” as mandated by Section 16
of Rule 24, Rules of Court, a trial court has unbridled discretion to forbid the taking of
deposition upon oral examination as authorized under Rule 24, Section 15, Rules of
Court.

Ruling:
The rules providing for pre-trial discovery of testimony, pre-trial inspection of documentary
evidence and other tangible things, and the examination of property and person, were an
important innovation in the rules of procedure. The promulgation of this group of rules
satisfied the long-felt need for a legal machinery in the courts to supplement the
pleadings, for the purpose of disclosing the real points of dispute between the parties and
of affording an adequate factual basis in preparation for trial. The rules are not grounded
on the supposition that the pleadings are the only or chief basis of preparation for trial.
On the contrary, the limitations of the pleadings in this respect are recognized.