GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.
15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
PRE-TRIAL
DEFINITION
Pre-trial, by definition, is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit
the basic issues raised by the parties, and to take the trial of case out of the realm
of surprise and maneuvering.
a. It is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of
cases.
b. Pre-trial paves the way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of
the case.
ANSON TRADE CENTER V. PACIFIC BANKING
GR NO. 179999 MARCH 17, 2009
Facts:
Pacific Banking filed a case before the RTC for a collection of sum of
money against Anson trade and VP Chen as the latter executed continuing
suretyship agreements that secured the loans Anson trade secured with Pacific.
After the parties filed their respective answers, a pre-trial conference had been set
by the RTC. At that pre-trial the RTC tried to make the parties enter into an
amicable settlement by referring the case to the Philippine Mediation Board, to no
avail.
Another pre-trial conference was scheduled. However, the bank failed to
attend. Anson trade moved for the dismissal of the case since the bank failed to
appear at the pre-trial. The RTC issued an order granting the motion to dismiss the
case without prejudice. The bank filed a motion for reconsideration, praying that
the rules on non-appearance in the pre-trail be relaxed on the grounds of
execusable negligence and in the interest of justice and equity. However, the
motion for reconsideration was denied.
The bank filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. Apart from asserting
grave abuse of discretion that RTC allegedly committed when it dismissed the
case, the bank averred that its absence was neither deliberate or intentional. It
pointed out that PDIC’s reorganization resulted into the trimming down of the
departments handling litigation work, from four to one, not to mention PDIC’s lack
1
of manpower to handle more than 400 banks closed by the Monetary Board. The
CA granted the petition.
Issue:
1. what is the purpose of pre-trial?
2. did the CA err when it granted the petition?
Held:
2. pre-trial, by definition, is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit
the basic issues raised by the parties, and to take the trial of case out of
the realm of surprise and maneuvering.
a. It is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of
cases.
b. Pre-trial paves the way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of
the case.
3. no.
a. As a rule, non-appearance by the plaintiff in the pre-trial shall
be the cause for the dismissal of the action. However, non-
appearance of the party may be excused if a valid cause is
shown therefore.
i. In this case, since the bank’s closure, the bank has
been represented by PDIC as liquidator. PDIC’s
reorganization from four to one department that
handles ligitation work makes it understandable that
PDIC was still coping and adjusting with the changes
resulting from its re-organization.
ii. the bank was not remiss in its duties to prosecute the
case. Except for the lone instance of pre-trial that it
missed, the bank promptly and religiously attended all
the hearings set by the court, including the first pre-
trial conference. When the RTC did not immediately act
on the Motions to dismiss of Ansons, it was the bank
that filed motions to resolve.
b. In the absence of a pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of
the case or wanton failure to observe the mandatory
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
requirement of the rules, courts should decide to dispense rather
than wield their authority to dismiss.
c. If the civil case is allowed to proceed to trial, it will not clog the
dockets of RTC or run counter to the purposes of pretrial.
i. Inconsiderate dismissals, even without prejudice, do
not constitute a panacea or a solution to the congestion
of court dockets.
ii. They merely postpone the ultimate reckoning between
the parties.
iii. In the absence of clear lack of merit or intention to
delay, justice is better served by a brief continuance,
trial on the merits, and final disposition of cases before
the court.
Notes:
1. pre-trial, by definition, is a procedural device intended to clarify
and limit the basic issues raised by the parties, and to take the
trial of case out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering.
a. It is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy
disposition of cases.
b. Pre-trial paves the way for a less cluttered trial and
resolution of the case.
2. As a rule, non-appearance by the plaintiff in the pre-trial shall be
the cause for the dismissal of the action. However, non-
appearance of the party may be excused if a valid cause is
shown therefore.
INTERLINING CORP ORATION V. PHILTRUST
GR NO. 144190 MARCH 6 2002
Facts:
Pablo Sr, Arsensio and Thomas Gonzales and Elena Tan Chin Sui contests
the decision of the Court of Appeals holding them solidary liable to the obligation
in Philtrust Bank’s favor, pointing out that as per the stipulation of facts in the
pretrial conference order, they are relieved from their solidary obligations.
Held:
2
A review of the pre-trial conference order reveals that Philtrust’s counsel
did not relieve them of their obligation. What appears in the transcript is a mere
enumeration of the proposed stipulations of both parties. There was no
agreement whatsoever on the proposed facts, as bolstered by Philtrust counsel’s
declaration that he does not agree to release them of their solidary liability. The
supplemental pre-trial order, joint stipulation of facts and proceedings and
pleadings subsequent thereto reveal that that the solidary liability remains an
issue.
MADRID AND BERNARDO V SPS MAPOY
GR NO. 150887 AUGUST 14 2009
Facts:
Sps Mapoy filed a complaint for the recovery of possession of properties
through accion publiciana against Miranda, his family and two unnamed
defendants. After the pre-trial conference, the unnamed defendants are later
identified to be Francisco Madrid and Edgardo Bernardo. They were not served
with summons until much later during the course of the proceedings. They were
also not present during the pre-trial. No objections were heard from them about
these matters until the RTC ruled against their favor. They now raise for the first
time on appeal and insist before the CA and later on the SC that the pre-trial order
should not be applied to them since they were not present during the pre-trial
conference.
Held:
While Madrid and Bernardo, having been belatedly served summons and
brought into the case, are entitled to a pre-trial, their failure to bring the matter to
the RTC forfeits this procedural right granted them under the rules. Unless
substantial justice is shown, trial courts failure to schedule the case for pre-trial
does not render the proceedings illegal or void ab initio. In addition, issues raised
for the first time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings in the lower
court are barred by estoppel.
SETTING FOR PRE- TRIAL
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
ESPIRITU V. LAZARO
GR NO. 181020 NOVEMBER 25 2009
Facts:
The trial court dismissed the complaint for recovery of personal property
with damages and preliminary attachment filed by Jazmin Espiritu, Porfirio Lazaro
Jr and Mariquit Lazaro because of their failure to prosecute for an unreasonable
length of time. Despite the lapse of time since the Lazaros filed a cautionary
answer, they failed to file a motion to set the case for pre-trial as imposed by the
rules of court on plaintiffs. Petitioners cite AM No. 03-1-09-SC which provides that
the clerk of court is likewise directed to issue the notice of pre-trial should the
plaintiff fail to do so.
Held:
Since the incident occurred before AM No.03-1-09-SC became effective,
the memorandum circular is not applicable. As section 1 Rule 18 of the Rules of
Court imposes upon plaintiffs the duty to set the case for pre-trial after the last
pleading is served and filed, Petitioners failure to set the case for pre-trial for an
unreasonable length of time, after the respondents filed their cautionary answer
renders the case susceptible to dismissal for failure to prosecute for an
unreasonable length of time or failure to comply with the rules.
POLANCO V. CRUZ
GR NO. 182426 FEBRUARY 13, 2009
Facts:
Cruz filed a complaint for damages against Polanco et al for allegedly
destroying her crops. Cruz prosecuted her action with utmost diligence and with
reasonable dispatch since she filed the complaint- from her filing an opposition to
Polanco’s motion to dismiss the complaint, comment on petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration; answer to counterclaim, motion for reconsideration upon learning
of the dismissal of her case. From her filing of answer to counterclaim until the
trial court’s order, parties and the court were threshing out her motion for
reconsideration. Despite such efforts, the court dismissed the complaint on the
ground that she failed to promptly move her case for pretrial.
3
Held:
The dismissal is improper. Even if the plaintiff fails to promptly move for
pre-trial without justifiable cause for such delay, the extreme sanction of dismissal
of the complaint might not be warranted if no substantial prejudice would be
caused to the defendant, and there are special and compelling reasons which
would make the strict application of the rule unjustified. While heavy pressures of
work are not a persuasive reason to justify the failure to set the case for pre-trial,
Cruz’ failure to file a motion to set the case for pre-trial was her first and only
technical lapse during the entire proceedings. Absent evident pattern to delay the
disposition of her case or wanton failure to observe the mandatory requirement of
the rules, the ends of justice and fairness would be served if parties are given a
chance to litigate, not to mention that petitioner are neither stripped of any
affirmative defenses or deprived of due process of law should the case proceed.
FAILURE OF DEFENDANT TO APPEAR
- WILL RESULT IN PLAINTIFF PRESENTING HIS EVIDENCE EX PARTE AND FOR THE COURT TO
RENDER JUDGEMENT THEREON
- THIS IS DISSIMILAR TO DEFAULT FROM FAILURE TO PLEAD WHERE THE SANCTION IS FOR
THE COURT TO RENDER JUDGEMENT BASSED ON THE COMPLAINT.
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS POSSIBLE IF FACTS ARE DISCOVERED IN
PRE-TRIAL TO WARRANT SUCH ACTION
EFFECT OF PRE-TRIAL ORDER
AS A RULE BINDING ON ALL PARTIES
A.M. NO. 03-1-09 –SC
EXCEPTION
HEIRS OF REYES V. CA
GR NO. 157959 MARCH 28 2007
Facts:
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
During pre-trial, the parties agreed that the sole issue to be resolved in
the case for partition and accounting with receivership was whether the sale of the
property to private respondents Anatalia Reyes and Gloria Reyes- Paulino was
simulated or fictitious. When the RTC ruled in favor of petitioners based on a
finding that the deed suffered a fatally defect i.e. lack of Magno’s conformity to the
sale, Anatalia and Gloria appealed before the CA. The CA reversed the lower
court’s decision. It pointed out that notwithstanding the limitation of issue as to
whether the sale of property was simulated or fictitious, the RTC showed undue
bias when it proceeded in determining the true nature of the property and whether
it is paraphernal or conjugal.
Held:
While parties are expected to disclose at a pre-trial conference all issues
of law and fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except such as may involve
privileged or impeaching matters, this rule should not be applied with rigidity. In
this case, the issue on the nature of the property was embodied in the pleadings
filed by the parties subsequent to the complaint and was actively litigated by them
without being objected to by Anatalia and Gloria. In view thereof, they are deemed
to have given their implied consent for the RTC to try the case. The RTC also
found that the focal point was the character of the property at the time of transfer
to Anatalia and Gloria, after its categorical finding that the question on whether
the deed was simulated is unnecessary. The dismissal was not also based on the
whether the deed was simulated or fictitious, rather on the absence of Magno’s
conformity that rendered the deed fatally defective.
INTERVENTION
NORDIC ASIA LTD. V. CA
G.R. NO. 111159, JUNE 10, 2003
DOCTRINE:
The purpose of intervention is not to obstruct nor
unnecessarily delay the placid operation of the machinery
of trial, but merely to afford one not an original party, yet
having a certain right or interest in the pending case, the
4
opportunity to appear and be joined so he could assert or
protect such right or interest.
Nordic Asia and Bankers Trust loaned money to Sextant Maritime, S.A.
and the amount was used to purchase M/V Fylyppa. Sextant defaulted on the loan
so the lenders extrajudicially foreclosed the same. Nam Ung Marine Co. Ltd. and
crew members of the vessel filed a complaint for sum of money against the vessel
to claim their preferred maritime liens. Then, the lenders filed a motion for leave to
intervene, alleging their possession of a Panamanian First Preferred Ship Mortgage
over the vessel and their purpose for intervention is to merely oppose the
unfounded and/or grossly exaggerated claim. The motion for leave to intervene
was granted and the complaint-in-intervention was filed.
ISSUE:
WoN whether a claimant or creditor should be allowed to intervene in a collection
case filed by a co-claimant/co-creditor possessing a superior lien or preferred
credit, solely for the purpose of opposing such claims in order that the intervenors
share may not be diminished substantially, or to prevent it from being diminished
at all.
HELD:
NO.
A cursory reading of their complaint-in-intervention plainly shows that
Nordic Asia’s intention in intervening in the collection case was not to enforce their
maritime lien against the defendants therein, it already being enforced through
extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, but solely to oppose the claims of
respondents. The higher the claims awarded to respondents in the collection case,
which would be recovered from the attached vessel, the lesser the amount
petitioners can obtain from their extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings given that
respondents lien is superior to petitioners mortgage lien.
Petitioners failed to meet both requirements. Thus, SC ruled that the
complaint-in-intervention failed to state a cause of action. They only merely
alleged that they possess a mortgage lien and that they are as to be adversely
affected by the collection case.
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
SALANDANAN v. SPS MENDEZ
G.R. No. 160280, March 13, 2009
DOCTRINE:
Intervention is allowed at any time before rendition of
judgment by the trial court. After the lapse of this period, it
will not be warranted anymore because intervention is not
an independent action but is ancillary and supplemental to
an existing litigation.
FACTS
Sps Mendez filed an ejectment suit against the Sps Fernandez over a
house and lot. Sps Fernandez denied the allegations and averred that Sps
Salandanan were the registered owners of the property and improvements. The
MeTC, RTC and CA ruled in favor of Sps Mendez and ordered Fernandez to vacate
the premises.
Sofia Salandanan filed a Motion for Clarification and Intervention and
attached a MR. She alleged that she and her deceased husband were the real
owners of the property and that by fraud, she signed papers that were purportedly
copies of a SPA but were actually a deed of donation.
ISSUE:
WoN Salandanan’s motion for intervention should still be allowed even if it was
filed after the CA rendered a decision
HELD:
NO.
The permissive tenor of the provision on intervention shows the intention
of the Rules to give to the court the full measure of discretion in permitting or
disallowing the same, but under S1R19 of the ROC, the courts are nevertheless
mandated to consider several factors in determining whether or not to allow
5
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.
The SC ruled that Salandanan’s intervention at the late stage of the
ejectment proceedings would only cause undue delay without affording her the
relief sought since the issue of ownership cannot be determined with finality in the
UD case.
MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MCIAA) v.
HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MIOZA
G.R. No. 186045, February 2, 2011
DOCTRINE:
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 issues in
the action and expand the scope of the remedies;
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.
Leila Hermosisima filed a complaint for herself and on behalf of the heirs
of Estanislao Mioza. She claimed that her predecessors-in-interest executed a Deed
of Sale over the lots on the assurance that they can buy the properties back if the
lots are no longer needed. More than 40 years later, they informed MCIAA that
they were exercising the buy-back option but the latter refused.
The other heirs of Mioza filed a Motion for Intervention, with an attached
complaint-in-intervention contesting the ownership of the lots. The RTC denied the
motion saying that ownership was merely a collateral issue. The CA reversed the
RTC’s decision, saying that the determination of the true heirs is the focal issue of
the case, for if the intervenors can prove that they are indeed the true heirs of
Estanislao, there would be no more need to determine whether the right to buy
back the lots exists.
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
The SC ruled that the legal interest needed in an Intervention 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.
Moreover, the intervenors’ contentions would unnecessarily complicate and change
the nature of the proceedings therefore would 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.
GSIS v. NOCOM
G.R. No. 175989, February 4, 2008
DOCTRINE:
A party has the right to intervene when he has an interest
in the outcome of the case before the trial court; the legal
interest which entitles a person to intervene must be in the
matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate
character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by
direct legal operation and effect of judgment.
Previously, the SC remanded the cases of GSIS v. Bengson Commercial
Buildings, Inc. and GSIS v. CA to the trial court. Mariano Nocom filed a motion for
intervention in the course of the proceedings and GSIS opposed the same. The
RTC denied the Opposition and admitted the Complaint-in-Intervention. GSIS filed
a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the CA, contending grave abuse of
discretion in allowing Nocom to intervene. The CA denied the petition of GSIS.
The SC ruled that the trial court correctly allowed the intervention of
Nocom as the 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.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. MAXIMO SISON
6
G.R. No. 185954, February 16, 2010
DOCTRINE:
The Office of the Ombudsman is not an appropriate party
to intervene in the case as it must remain partial and
detached. More importantly, it must be mindful of its role
as an adjudicator, not an advocate.
A letter-complaint was filed at the Office of the Ombudsman accusing the
governor and other local public officials of Samar of highly anomalous transactions.
Respondent Sison was the provincial budget officer. The Ombudsman found basis
to proceed with the administrative case against the impleaded provincial officials. A
decision was rendered finding the officials guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty,
and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and dismissing him from
service. Sison appealed to the CA and the CA reversed the decision the
Ombudsman against him. The Ombudsman filed an Omnibus Motion for
Intervention and to Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration, which was
subsequently denied.
ISSUE:
WoN the Office of the Ombudsman has the right to intervene in the appeal of its
decision
HELD:
NO.
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.
It is an established doctrine that judges should detach themselves from
cases where their decisions are appealed to a higher court for review. The raison
detre for such a doctrine is the fact that judges are not active combatants in such
proceeding and must leave the opposing parties to contend their individual
positions and the appellate court to decide the issues without the judges active
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
participation. When judges actively participate in the appeal of their judgment,
they, in a way, cease to be judicial and have become adversarial instead.
Likewise, the facts reveal that this case was elevated to the CA via a
verified Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and Supreme Court
Administrative Circular No. 1-95, which govern appeals to the CA from judgments
or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies.
Rule 43, as well as Admin. Cir. No. 1-95, provides that the petition for
review shall state the full names of the parties to the case without impleading
the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents. Thus, the only
parties kin such an appeal are the appellant as petitioner and appellee as
respondent. The court or, in this case, the administrative agency that rendered the
judgment appealed from, is not a party in the said appeal.
Therefore, the Office of the Ombudsman does not have the legal interest
to intervene.
PAJARILLAGA v. CA
G.R. No. 163515, October 31, 2008
DOCTRINE:
Deposition should be allowed absent any showing that
taking it would prejudice any party. There is no rule that
limits deposition-taking only to the period of pre-trial or
before it; no prohibition exists against the taking of
depositions after pre-trial. There can be no valid objection
to allowing them during the process of executing final and
executory judgments, when the material issues of fact
have become numerous or complicated.
FACTS:
A collection for sum of money case was filed by Kalengeg against
Pajarillaga. At several instances, Pajarillaga and his counsel did not appear during
scheduled hearings. Kalengeg was then allowed by the court to present his
witnesses and formally offer his evidence. Pajarillaga again moved to reset the
7
hearing and days before the scheduled December 15 hearing, he filed a Motion
for Leave of Court to Take the Deposition of the Defendant Upon Written
Interrogatories on the grounds that Pajarillaga resides in Manila which is more
than 400 km from Bontoc, Mt. Province and that he is suffering from an illness
which prohibits him from doing strenuous activities. The RTC dismissed the Motion
and the same was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Motion for Leave of Court to take Deposition was properly
denied
HELD:
YES.
There is no rule that limits deposition-taking only to the period of pre-trial
or before it; no prohibition exists against the taking of depositions after pre-
trial.thing in the ROC that restricts the taking of a deposition to the sole function
of being a mode of discovery before trial. Under certain conditions and for limited
certain purposes, it may be taken even after trial has commenced and may be
used without the deponent being actually called on the witness stand.
However, due to the numerous postponements made by Pajarillaga for
the initial presentation of evidence, the SC views that his timing is suspect and
finds that he has not sufficiently shown an exceptional or unusual case to reverse
the decisions of the lower courts.
While the rules on discovery are liberally constructed so as to ascertain
truth and expedite the disposal of cases, the trial court may disallow a deposition if
there are valid reasons for so ruling.
SIME DARBY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. NLRC
G.R. 148021, December 6, 2006
DOCTRINE:
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.

Request for Admission as a mode of discovery a. DEPOSITION

contemplates of interrogatories that would clarify and tend i. FUNCTIONS
to shed light on the truth or falsity of the allegations in the ii. WHEN MAY DEPOSITIONS BE AVAILED OF
pleading. iii. DE BENE ESSE ( PENDING ACTION)
iv. PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM ( PRIOR TO ACTION)
ISSUE: v. WHO DO YOU DEPOSE
b. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
WoN the Request for Admission should have been granted i. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SERVE WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
c. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
HELD: d. PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF THINGS
e. EXAMINATION OF PERSONS
NO.

A request for admission is a remedy which allows the party to REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SANDIGANBAYAN
serve upon any other party a written request for the admission of: (i) the GR NO. 112710 MAY 30 2001
genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and
exhibited with the request; or (ii) the truth of any material and relevant Doctrines:
matter of fact set forth in the request. Their Request for Admission does not
fall under the R26 of the ROC because the same contained matters which are 1. A deposition, in its technical and appropriate sense, is the
precisely the issues in the consolidated cases, and/or irrelevant matters. written testimony of a witness given in the course of the
proceeding, in advance of the trial or hearing upon oral
Otherwise stated, petitioners’ request constitutes an utter redundancy examination or in response to written interrogatories and
and a useless, pointless process which the respondent should not be subjected to. where an opportunity is given for cross-examination. A
The same is intended to expedite trial and to relieve the parties of the costs of deposition may be taken at any time after the institution
proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be of any action, whenever necessary or convenient.
ascertained by reasonable inquiry.
2. Depositions pending action may be conducted by oral
DISCOVERY examination or written interrogatories, and may be taken
- COMPULSORY PROCESS WHEREIN LITIGANTS ARE FORCED, BY COURT RULES OR ORDERS, at the instance of any party, with or without leave of
TO DISGORGE PRIVATE INFORMATION TO ADVERSE PARTY court.
- PURPOSE OF DISCOVERY IS TO: a. Leave of court is not necessary to take a
a. OBTAIN KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS WITHIN THE deposition after an answer to the complaint has
KNOWLEDGE OF THE ADVERSE PARTY OR THIRD PARTIES; been served.
b. OBTAIN ADMISSIONS FROM ADVERSE PARTIES b. It is only when an answer has not yet been filed
c. TO INSPECT RELEVANT DOCUMENTS , OBJECTS AND PROPERTY. (but jurisdiction has been obtained over any
- WHAT ARE DISCOVERABLE? defendant or over the property subject of the
a. LIMITATIONS ON DISCOVERABILITY action) that prior leave is required.
- MODE OF DISCOVERY

8
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
i. Before filing the answer, the issues are
not yet joined and disputed facts are not
clear.
3. A plaintiff may not be permitted to take depositions
before answer is served.
a. Plaintiff must await the joinder of issues because
if the discovery is to deal with matters relevant
to the case, it is difficult to know exactly what is
relevant until some progress has been made
toward developing the issues.
b. Ordinarily the issues are made up before the
need for discovery arises, hence prior to the time
of delineation of the issues, the matter is in
control of the court.
4. There are instances when a deposition is allowed to be
taken before service of answer once jurisdiction has been
acquired over the person or thing.
a. Leave of court may be granted only in
exceptional or unusual cases and the decision is
entirely within the discretion of the court
i. It should be granted only under special
circumstances where conditions point to
the necessity of presenting a strong case
for allowance of the motion.
ii. There must be some necessity or good
reason for taking the testimony
immediately or that it would be
prejudicial to the party seeking the order
to be compelled to await the joinder of
issue
iii. If the witness is age or infirm or about to
leave the court’s jurisdiction, or is only
temporarily in the jurisdiction, leave may
granted.
9
5. A general examination by deposition before answer is
premature and ordinarily not allowed, and neither is
mere avoidance of delay a sufficient reason.
Facts
Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint for reversion, reconveyance,
restitution accounting and damages against a number of respondents involved in
the Sps Marcos systematic plan of accumulating wealth while serving their term as
President and First lady of the Republic.
During the proceedings, the Republic filed a motion of leave to take the
deposition of Rolando C Gapud upon oral examination in hongkong, pointing out
that Mr. Gapud, the former financial adviser of sps marcos, was willing to testify on
matters subject of the case. It also noted that Mr. Gapud executed sworn
statements setting forth the business interest of the Marcoses and their cronies. In
view of the indispensability of these statements in establishing the unlawful
business practices, the desire of Mr Gapud to help the government recover the
hidden wealth, and the nature of his testimony and personal risks, the Republic
prayed that Mr Gapud’s testimony be taken by deposition upon oral examination in
any Philippine Consulate in HK or in other Phiippine Foreign Office.
In a resolution, Sandiganbayan denied the Republic’s prayer with respect
to taking the deposition of Mr Gapud, averring that the taking of deposition is
premature because not all defendants have been summoned or have filed their
answers to the complaint. No special circumstances existed that warranted the
taking of the deposition because not all defendants have summons or have filed
their answers to the complaint.
Issue:
1. Does the deposition of Mr. Gapud require prior leave of court?
2. Did the Sandiganbayan err when it denied the Republic’s Motion
for leave to take the deposition of Gapud?
Held:
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
Yes.
1. The case at bar involved two sets of defendants. While the
parties in the original complaint have been served with
summons, and had filed their answers, not all of the defendants
additionally impleaded in the amended complaint had been
served with summons and filed their answer. As for the corporate
defendants who received the summons, they only filed a motion
for a more definite statement or bill of particulars, not an
answer.
2. the allegations between two sets of defendants are different
too.
a. The second amended complaint rests on entirely
different facts, was made on different occasions and is
separate and distinct from the other. The acts
committed by 22 parties in the original complaint are
different too.
i. The allegations against additional defendants
do not arise from their having acted as
dummies or alter-egos of the Marcoses but as
government officials who facilitated Lucio Tan’s
acquisition of private corporation despite non-
compliance with legal requirements.
ii. The allegations in the second amended
complaint are not clear for they have adopted
the motion for a more definite statement or bill
of particulars.
b. The additional defendants should at the very least be
given the opportunity to respond to the allegations
against them and clarify the disputed facts before
discovery procedures may be resorted to.
No.
1. No special circumstances exist that warrant the taking of deposition before
answer is served.
a. The Republic has not cited any fact other than Mr.
Gapud’s cooperation with the Philippine government in the
10
recovery of ill-gotten wealth that would support the
deponent’s claim of fear for his safety.
b. The reasons cited by the Republic do not amount to an
exceptional or unusual case to grant the leave and reverse
the Sandiganbayan.
c. It has not no sufficiently shown the necessity of taking Mr.
Gapud’s deposition at this point in time before the other
defendants have served their answers.
d. It has not alleged that Mr. Gapud is old, sick or infirm as
to necessitate the taking of his deposition.
e. No urgency has been cited and no ground given that
would make it prejudicial for the Republic to await the
joinder of issues.
f. The Court also noted that the Republic could have worked
on summoning all the defendants and have their answers
filed.
DASMARINAS GARMENTS INC V. HON RUBEN REYES
GR NO. 108229 AUGUST 24, 1993
Doctrine
1. the deposition of any person may be taken wherever he may
be, in the PH or abroad. If the party or witness is in the
Philippines, his deposition shall be taken before any judge,
municipal or notary public.
2. If in a foreign state or country, the deposition shall be taken
before a secretary or embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the Republic of
Philippines or before such person or officer as may be
appointed by commission or under letters rogatory.
3. where the deposition is to be taken in a foreign country
were the Philippines has no secretary or embassy, legation,
consul general, vice consul or consular agent, it may be taken
only by a person or officer as may be appointed by
commission or under letters rogatory.
a. A commission may be defined as an instrument
issued by a court of justice or other competent
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
tribunal, to authorize a person to take the
depositions, or do any act or by authority of such
court or tribunal.
b. Letters rogatory is an instrument sent in the name
and by authority of a judge or court to another,
requesting that court to cause to be examined, upon
interrogatories filed in a cause pending before the
former, a witness who is within the jurisdiction of the
judge or court to whom such letters are addressed.
c. A commission is addressed to “officers designated …
either by name or descriptive title”, while letters
rogatory are addressed to some appropriate judicial
authority in the foreign state”.
i. Noteworthy is the indication in the rules that
letters may be applied for and issued only
after a commission has been returned
unexecuted as is apparent from the “judicial
standard forms” appended to the Rules of
Court.
Facts
American President Lines filed a collection case against Dasmarinas
Garments. During the course of trial, APL filed a motion praying that it intended to
take the depositions of H. Lee and Yeong Fang Yeh in Taipai 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 PH in taipai. APL amended
its motion stating that in view of the one china policy, it prayed that letters
rogatory be issued addressed to Director Joaquin Roces, the executive director of
the office that APL set up, Asian Executive Exchange Center at taipai to hear and
take the oral depositions of H Lee and Yeong Fang Yeh.
The trial court granted the motion. It held that the “asian exchange
center being the authorized PH representative in Taiwan may take the testimonies
the APL”s witnesses residing there by deposition, but only upon written
interrogatories as to give Dasmarinas the opportunity to cross-examine the witness
by serving cross-examination. Dasmarinas filed a motion for reconsideration which
was denied, as it was filed out of time.
11
Dasmarinas filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. CA only denied
the petition.
Issue
Did the trial court err in granting the motion to take the depositions of H Lee and
Yeong Fany Yeh?
Held
No.
1. where the deposition is to be taken in a foreign country where the Philippines
has no secretary, embassy or legation, consul, vice-consul or consular agent,
it may be taken only by a person or officer as may be appointed by
commission or under letters rogatory.
a. Letters rogatory may be applied for and issued only after a
commission has been "returned unexecuted" as is apparent
from Form 21 of the "Judicial Standard Forms" appended to
the Rules of Court, which requires the inclusion in a "petition
for letters rogatory" in the commission.
b. the Regional Trial Court has issued a commission to the
"Asian Exchange Center, Inc. thru Director Joaquin R.
Roces" "to take the testimonies of . . . Kenneth H. Lee and
Yeong Fah Yeh, by deposition (upon written interrogatories)
. . . ." It appears that said Center may, "upon request and
authority of the Ministry (now Department) of Foreign
Affairs, Republic of the Philippines" issue a "Certificate of
Authentications" attesting to the identity and authority of
Notaries Public and other public officers of the Republic of
China, Taiwan (eg., the Section Chief, Department of
Consular Affairs of the latter's Ministry of Foreign Affairs)—
a prima facie showing of compliance therewith not rebutted
by petitioner.
c. It further appears that the commission is to be coursed
through the Department of Foreign Affairs conformably with
Circular No. 4 issued by Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee on
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
April 6, 1987, pursuant to the suggestion of the Department
of Foreign Affairs — directing "ALL JUDGES OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS" "to
course all requests for the taking of deposition of witnesses
residing abroad through the Department of Foreign Affairs"
to enable it and "the Philippine Foreign Service
establishments to act on the matter in a judicious and
expeditious manner;" this, "in the interest of justice," and to
avoid delay in the deposition-taking.
2. deposition-taking is a departure from the accepted and usual judicial
proceedings of examining the witnesses in open court where their demeanor
could be observed by trial judge, but the procedure is not on account
rendered illegal nor is the deposition thereby taken, inadmissible.
a. It precisely falls within the exceptions where the law permits
such a situation.
b. However, the deposition should be taken:
i. in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
Rules of Court and
ii. the existence of the exceptions for its admissibility:
1. that the witness if out of the province and at a greater distance
than 50 km from the place of trial or hearing or
2. is out of the Philippines unless it appears that the witness’ absence
was procured by the party offering the deposition, or the witness is
unable to attend to testify by reason of age, sickness, infirmity or
imprisonment.
3. The trial court saw it fit to permit the taking of the depositions of the witness
in question only by written interrogatories, removing the proponent’s option to
take them by oral examination i.e. by going to Taipei and questioning the
witnesses verbally with the questions and answers, and observations of the
parties being recorded stenographically.
a. The imposition of such a limitation and the determination of
the cause therefore are within the court’s discretion.
b. The ostensible reason given by the trial court for the
condition that deposition be taken only upon written
12
interrogatories is to give Dasmarinas the opportunity to
cross-examine the witness by serving cross-interrogatories.
c. Even if the depositions were to be taken on oral examination
in Taipei, the adverse party is still accorded full right to cross
examine the deponents by the law, either by proceeding to
Taipei and conduct the cross-examination orally, or opting to
conduct the cross-examination merely by serving counter-
interrogatories.
Notes:
1. 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.
2. 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.
a. 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
3. Depositions are principally made available by law to the parties as a
means of informing themselves of all the relevant facts;
a. they are not therefore generally meant to be a substitute for
the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness.
b. The deponent must as a rule be presented for oral
examination in open court at the trial or hearing. This is a
requirement of the rules of evidence.
4. Any deposition offered to prove the facts therein set out during a trial
or hearing, in lieu of the actual oral testimony of the deponent in
open court, may be opposed and excluded on the ground that it is
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.

hearsay; the party against whom it is offered has no opportunity to therefor, e.g., that "certain matters shall not be
cross-examine the deponent at the time that his testimony is offered. inquired into" or that the taking be "held with no
a. It matters not that that opportunity for cross-examination one present except the parties to the action and
was afforded during the taking of the deposition; for their officers or counsel," etc. (Sec. 16, Rule 24), or
normally, the opportunity for cross-examination must be iii. to terminate the process on motion and upon a
accorded a party at the time that the testimonial evidence is showing that "it is being conducted in bad faith or
actually presented against him during the trial or hearing. in such manner as unreasonably to annoy,
5. However, depositions may be used without the deponent being embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party" (Sec
actually called to the witness stand by the proponent, under certain 18, Rule 24).
conditions and for certain limited purposes.
6. The principle conceding admissibility to a deposition when the AYALA LAND INC. V. TAGLE
deponent is dead, out of the Philippines, or otherwise unable to come GR NO. 153667 AUGUST 11 2005
to court to testify, is consistent with another rule of evidence1.
7. Leave of court is not necessary where the deposition is to be taken Doctrine
before "a secretary or embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines," and 1. A deposition is the testimony of a witness, put or taken in
the defendant's answer has already been served (Sec. 1 Rule 24). writing, under oath or affirmation, before a commissioner,
a. After answer, whether the deposition-taking is to be examiner or other judicial officer, in answer to interlocutory
accomplished within the Philippines or outside, the law does and cross-interlocutory, and usually subscribed by the
not authorize or contemplate any intervention by the court witnesses.
in the process, all that is required being that "reasonable 2. the purposes of taking depositions are to:
notice" be given "in writing to every other party to the action a. Give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining
. . . (stating) the time and place for taking the deposition the truth and in checking and preventing perjury;
and the name and address of each person to be examined, if b. Provide an effective means of detecting and exposing
known, and if the name is not known, a general description false, fraudulent claims and defenses;
sufficient to identify him or the particular class or group to c. Make available in a simple, convenient and
which he belongs. . . . " (Sec. 15, Rule 24). inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be
b. The court intervenes in the process only if a party moves proved except with great difficulty;
i. to "enlarge or shorten the time" stated in the d. Educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real
notice (id.), or value of their claims and defenses thereby
ii. "upon notice and for good cause shown," to encouraging settlements;
prevent the deposition-taking, or impose conditions e. Expedite litigation;
f. Safeguard against surprise;
g. Prevent delay;
h. Simplify and narrow the issues; and
1 Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. — The testimony or deposition of a
i. Expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial
witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against 3. Depositions maybe taken at anytime after the institution of
the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him any action, whenever necessary or convenient.

13
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.

a. A deposition not signed does not preclude its use ALI filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with TRO and injunction
during trial before the CA to restrain Judge Tagle from setting the case for cross examination
i. A deponent’s signature to the deposition and to declare null and void the entire deposition proceedings. The CA rendered its
is not in all events indispensable since decision dismissing the petition. CA denied ALI’s motion for reconsideration as
the presence of the signature goes well.
primarily to the form of deposition.
1. That the deposition must be When Emerito Ramos Sr died at the age of 92 yrs old, ASB filed before
examined and signed by the the RTC a motion to introduce in evidence the old man’s deposition. ALI filed its
witness only ensures that the opposition. The trial court issued an order admitting in evidence the deposition.
deponent is given the Since ALI’s motion for reconsideration had been denied, it elevated the matter
opportunity to correct any errors before the CA via petition for certiorari. The Appellate court dismissed the petition.
therein and ensure the
deposition’s accuracy. Issue
ii. In any event, the admissibility of the
deposition does not preclude the 1. Was there compliance with the requirements of valid deposition?
determination of its probative value at 2. was ALI deprived of due process?
the appropriate time.
4. deposition discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and Held
liberal treatment and the liberty of a party to make a
discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired yes.
into are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the
inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of the 1. The depositions of Ramos Sr were substantially made in accordance with the
law. requirements of the Rules.
a. ALI confirmed the taking of depositions, and that it was duly
Facts represented by its counsel during the proceedings.
b. As to the manner by which the deposition was taken in
ASB Realty and EM Ramos and Sons filed an action for nullification of compliance with the rules, the deposition was taken inside
contract to sell the real properties, cancellation of annotations against Ayala Land ( the courtroom of the trial court, before the clerk of court. A
ALI). After ALI filed its answer with compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim, ASB stenographer was present, tape recorders and a video
filed a motion for leave to take testimony by deposition upon oral examination of camera were even utilized to record the proceedings, in the
Emerito Ramos Sr as he was already 87 yrs old and that although he was of sound presence of all the opposing counsels of record.
mind, he may not be able to testify on the ASB’s behalf. The trial court granted the c. A deposition not signed does not preclude its use during
motion. ALI objected to the depositions conducted with Emerito Ramos Sr with trial
respect to their propriety, admissibility and conformity of the deposition i. A deponent’s signature to the deposition is not in all
proceedings. The trial court sustained some of its objections, while it overruled events indispensable since the presence of the
the others. It upheld the propriety of the presentation of evidence through signature goes primarily to the form of deposition.
deposition. 1. That the deposition must be examined and
signed by the witness only ensures that

14
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
the deponent is given the opportunity to
correct any errors therein and ensure the
deposition’saccuracy.
ii. In any event, the admissibility of the deposition
does not preclude the determination of its probative
value at the appropriate time.
2. deposition discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment
and the liberty of a party to make a discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if the
matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the
inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of the law.
No.
1. ALI was given more than enough opportunity to cross-examine the deponent
and its failure to exercise such right is solely attributable to its own inaction.
a. ALI cannot feign prejudice and denial of due process.
b. The right to cross examine is not an absolute one which a
party can demand at all times. The right is a personal one
which may be waived by conduct amounting to a
renunciation of the right to cross-examination.
i. Despite knowledge of deponent’s old age and frail
health, ALI chose to squander its right to subject
under appropriate tests the assertions raised by the
witnesses in his deposition.
ii. Following the termination of direct examination,
Atty ramos requested for a setting of the cross
examination.
1. during the supposed date of cross-
examination, instead of seizing the chance
to exercise the right to cross examine, ALI
moved for the postponements of the
proceedings.
HYATT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORP AND YU HE CHING
GR NO. 147143 MAY 10 2006
Facts
Doctrine
15
1. Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the primary
function of which is to supplement the pleadings for the
purpose of disclosing the real matters of dispute between
the parties and affording an adequate factual basis during
the preparation for trial;
2. Evidentiary matters may be inquired into and learned by
the parties before the trial. Deposition-discovery
mechanism makes this possible. It not only eliminates
unessential issues from trials thereby shortening them
considerably, but also require parties to play the game with
the cards on the table so that the possibility of fair
settlement before trial is measurably increased.
3. the various modes of discovery are meant to serve:
a. as a device, along with the pre-trial hearing under
Rule 20, to narrow and clarify the basic issues
between the parties;
b. as a device for ascertaining the acts relative to
those issues.
4. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by
both parties is essential to proper liigation.
a. To that end, either party may compel the other to
disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession.
b. The deposition-discovery procedure simply
advances the stage at which disclosure can be
compelled from the time of trial to the period
preceding it, thus reducing the possibility of
surprise.
5. the deposition serves the double function of a method of
discovery – with use on trial not necessarily contemplated-
and a method of presenting the testimony;
6. No limitations other than relevancy and privileged have
been placed on the taking of depositions, while the use at
the trial is subject to circumscriptions looking toward the
use of oral testimony whenever practicable.
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
LCDC filed a complaint for specific performance against Hyatt for reneging
its obligation to transfer a pro-indiviso share of the property in its favour, Princeton
as it bought the property in fraud of LCDC and Yu, President of Hyatt.
LCDC requested the depositions of Yu, the account officer of RCBC and
the Hyattt’s finance manager. Hyatt filed a notice to take the deposition of Ley,
president of LCDC while princeton filed notice to take the depositions of Manuel
and Janet Ley. The RTC ordered the deposition taking to proceed. At the
scheduled deposition of Sy, Hyatt and Yu prayed to cancel all the settings for
depositions and set the case for pre-trial instead, contending that the taking of
depositions only delay the resolution of the case. The RTC ordered all depositions
cancelled and proceeded with the pre-trial. LCDC’s motion for reconsideration had
been denied. Upon denial of LCDC’s motion for reconsideration, the case reached
the CA via petition for certiorari. CA only denied the petition, averring that the
orders questioned by LCDC have become pointless with the dismissal of its
complaint.
At the scheduled date of pre-trial, LCDC filed an urgent motion to
suspend the proceedings due to pendency for certiorari in the court of appeals.
Nonetheless, RTC continued with the pre-trial notwithstanding LCDC’s refusal to
enter into pre-trial. Upon motion of Hyatt, Yu and Princeton, LCDC was declared
non-suited. The court dismissed the complaint and all the corresponding
counterclaims. Upon denial of LCDC’s motion for reconsideration, the case
reached the CA via petition for certiorari. CA remanded the case for further
hearing, given that LCDC complied with Sec 1 Rule 23 of the Rules [on depositions
without leave of court after the answer has been served].
Issue
Did the CA err when it remanded the case for further proceedings?
Held
No.
16
1. LCDC complied with Sec 1 Rule 23 of the Rules of court, as it made its
notice to take depositions after answers of defendants have been served.
LCDC having complied with the rules then prevailing, the trial court erred in
cancelling the previously scheduled depositions.
2. While it is true that depositions may be disallowed by trial courts if the
examination is conducted in bad faith, or in such manner as to annoy,
embarrass or oppress the person who is the subject of the inquiry, or when
the inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches domains of privilege,
such circumstances are absent in the case at bar.
a. While the speedy disposition of cases is important, such
consideration however should not outweigh a thorough
and comprehensive evaluation of cases, for the ends of
justice are reached not only through speedy disposition of
cases but more importantly through meticulous and
comprehensive evaluation of the merits of the case.
b. Records show that the delay of the case is not attributable
to the depositions sought by LCDC but was caused by
many pleadings filed by all parties including Hyatt et al.
3. That the taking of depositions would cause unnecessary duplicity as the
intended deponents shall be called as witnesses during trial has no merit.
a. the deposition serves the double function of a method of
discovery – with use on trial not necessarily contemplated-
and a method of presenting the testimony;
b. No limitations other than relevancy and privileged have
been placed on the taking of depositions, while the use at
the trial is subject to circumscriptions looking toward the
use of oral testimony whenever practicable.
4. what is chiefly comtemplated is the discovery of every bit of information
which may be useful in the preparation for trial i.e. identity and location of
persons having knowledge of relevant facts; those relevant facts
themselves; and the existence, descriptions, nature, custody, condition and
location of any books, documents, or other tangible things.
a. The deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded broad
and liberal treatment.
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
i. No longer can the cry of fishing expedition serve to
preclude a party from inquiring into the facts
underlying his opponents case
ii. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered
by both parties is essential to proper liigation.
iii. Either party may compel the other to disgorge
whatever facts he has in his possession
b. The deposition-discovery procedure simply advances the
stage at which disclosure can be compelled from the time
of trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing the
possibility of surprise.
c. the trial court, before dismissing LCDC’s complaint gave it
two options: (a) to enter into a pre-trial conference, thus
expediting the early termination of the case (b) terminate
the pre-trial conference and apply for deposition early on.
The trial court erred in forcing LCDC to choose only from
these options and in dismissing the complaint upon LCDC
chose neither.
5. The information LCDC seeks to obtain through the depositions of Finance
officer of Hyatt and the account officer of RCBC may not be obtained at the
pre-trial conference, as they are not parties to the pre-trial conference.
a. To unduly restrict the modes of discovery during trial,
would defeat the very purpose for which it is intended, as
a pre-trial device.
i. By then, the issues would have been confined only
on matters defined during pre-trial.
b. The importance of the modes of discovery cannot be
gainsaid in this case in view of the nature of the
controversy involved and the conflicting interest claimed
by the parties.
6. the information sought to be obtained through the depositions of finance
officer of hyatt and the account officer of RCBC are necessary to fully equip
LCDC in determining what issues will be defined at the pre-trial.
SIME DARBY EMPLOYEES V. NLRC
17
GR NO. 148021 DECEMBER 6 2006
Doctrine
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:
a. the genuineness of any material and relevant
document described in and exhibited with the
request; or
b. 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.
Facts
Entangled with a labor dispute against Sime Darby, the union avers among others,
that the labor arbiter erred when it denied their request for admission
notwithstanding the fact that Sime Darby failed to filed a sworn reply or objection
on the request for admission.
Issue:
Must the request for admission be admitted?
Held
No.
1. The union’s request for admission does not fall under Rule 26 of the Rules
of Court.
a. It contained matters which are precisely the issues in the
consolidated cases and/or irrelevant matters;
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
i. i.e. reasons behind the lockout, the company’s
motive in the CBA negotiation, lack of notice of
dismissal, the validity of the release and quitclaim
b. 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. This is its primary function.
i. It does not refer to a mere reiteration of what
has already been alleged in the pleadings.
2. Their request constitutes “an utter redundancy and a useless, pointless
process that Sime Darby should not be subject to.
a. The rule on admission as a mode of discovery is intended
to expedite the trial and to relieve the parties of the costs
of proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the
truth of which can only be ascertained by reasonable
inquiry.
b. If the request for admission only serves to delay the
abetting redundancy in the pleadings, the intended
purpose for the rule will certainly be defeated.
3. in view of the nature of the matters requested for admission by the union,
the admission would have only served to delay the proceedings.
SECURITY BANK CORPORATION V. CA
GR NO. 135874 JANUARY 25 2000
Doctrine
1. Litigants, therefore, must welcome every opportunity to
achieve this goal; they must act in good faith to reveal
documents, papers and other pieces of evidence material to
the controversy.
2. a party may be compelled to produce or allow the inspection
of documents if six procedural requisites are complied with:
a. the party must file a motion for the production or
inspection of documents or things, showing good
cause therefore
b. notice of the motion must be served the documents,
papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs objects
18
or tangible things which the party wishes to be
produced and inspected.
c. Such documents are not privileged
d. Such documents etc constitute or contain evidence
material to any matter involved in the action
e. Such documents etc are in the possession, custody or
control of the other party.
Facts
Sps Uy filed a case annulling the two deeds of real estate mortgage
between Jackvivi and Security Bank, alleging that the purpose of SPA in Uy’s
favour is to mortgage their property for their benefit. The SPAs are not intended to
secure the loans owed by jackvivi to Security Bank. Security bank filed a cross
claim against Uy as it relied on the representations and documents Uy submitted
that prove his authority to mortgage the property. Sps Uy filed a motion for
production, inspection and copying of documents for them to inspect the
documents presented by Uy, which are in the bank’s possession. The trial court
granted the motion. Upon the denial of the motion for reconsideration, the bank
filed a case before the CA, which only affirmed the lower court’s order.
Security Bank questions the CA for focusing only on the requirement of
“good cause” which Domingo Uy relied upon in filing his answer to the cross claim
against him, while disregarding the prerequisite of relevancy.
Issue
Did the Court err in affirming the lower court’s ruling that there was good cause
for the grant of the Motions for inspection of documents?
Held
No.
1. courts are given wide latitude in granting motions for discover in order to
enable parties to prepare for trial or otherwise settle the controversy prior
thereto.
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
a. the lower court’s holding that the documents were not
indispensable to the preparation of the answer of Uy to the
cross-claim did not militate against his availment of the
motion for inspection of documents.
b. The subject documents are material and important to the
issues raised in the case in general and as between Uy and
Security Bank.
c. Since the documents would enable Uy to intelligently
prepare his defenses against the cross-claim of Security
Bank and not merely to formulate his answer.
d. The motion filed by Sps Uy was indeed for a good cause,
because the documents are necessary for a full
determination of the issues raised in the civil case.
e. Litigation is essentially an abiding quest for truth undertaken
by the judge alone, but jointly with the parties.
i. Litigants must welcome every opportunity to
achieve this goal. They must act in good faith to
reveal documents, papers and other pieces of
evidence material to the controversy.
2. Sps Uy have shown that the subject documents are indeed material to the
present action.
a. The relevance of the documents sought by sps uy is readily
apparent.
b. The papers executed by Security Bank in evaluating and
processing the real estate mortgage are manifestly useful in
his defense against the cross-claim.
c. The trial court’s ruling that he could file his answer without
examining the documents does not prove that they are
immaterial to the present action.
i. Those documents enable him to intelligently
prepare his defenses against the cross claim of
Security bank.
d. The additional mortgage contracts executed by Jackvivi are
material to the present action.
i. Because the witness of Security bank admitted in
court that there was a 3rd mortgage contract
between jackvivi and the bank, fair play demands
19
that Sps Uy be given a chance to examine the
additional mortgage contracts.
1. in so doing, they can determine why
Security was going after the property
invalidly mortaged by Uy while the
properties of Jackvivi had been touched.
SOLIDBANK CORPORATION V. GATEWAY ELECTRONICS
GR NO. 164805 APRIL 30 2008
Doctrine
1. a 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.
Facts
Solidbank filed a motion for production and inspection of documents on
the ground that gateway has already received from Alliance the
proceeds/payments of the Bank-end services agreement. The trial court granted
the motion. After several postponements, gateway presented the invoices
representing the billings sent to Alliance in relation to the Back-end services
agreement.
Unsatisfied with the documents gateway produced, Solidbank filed a
motion to cite Gateway and its responsible officers in contempt for the alleged
refusal to produce the documents. Gateway parried, stating that the billings sent
to alliance are the only documents they have pertaining to the back-end services
agreement. The trial court issued an order denying the motion to cite gateway in
contempt. However, it ordered that matters regarding the contents of the
documents sought to be produced which gateway failed to produce shall be taken
to be “established” in accordance with Solidbank’s claim, but only for the purpose
of this action. Upon denial of Gateway’s motion for reconsideration, it filed a
petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA nullified the order of trial court on the
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
ground of the lower court’s failure to comply with the provisions of Sec 1 Rule 27
of the Rules of court. It also ruled that RTC erred when it held that matters
regarding the contents that Gateway failed to produced are deemed established, in
accordance with Solidbank’s claim.
Issue
1. Was Solidbank’s motion for inspection of documents and things compliant with
the rules?
2. did the lower court err in ruling that matters regarding the contents that
gateway failed to produced are deemed established in accordance with
Solidbank’s claim?
Held
No.
1. solidbank’s motion was fatally defective and must be struck down because of
its failure to specify with particularity the documents it required gateway to
produced.
a. The motion for production and inspection of documents
called for a blanket inspection
b. The request for inspection of all documents “pertaining to,
arising from, in connection with or involving the back end
service agreement” was simply too broad and too
generalized in scope.
2. a motion for production and inspection of documents should not demand a
roving inspection of a promiscuous mass of documents.
a. 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.
3. 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, until it shall have discharged the same.
yes.
20
1. it is not fair to penalize gateway for not complying with the request of the
production and inspection of documents, considering that the documents
sought were not particularly described.
2. gateway and its officers can only be held liable for unjust refusal to comply
with the modes of discovery of it is shown that the documents sought to
produced were specifically described, material to the action and in the
possession, custody or control of gateway.
3. neither can it be said the gateway did not exert effort, since it presented the
invoices representing the billings it sent to Alliance.
a. Good faith effort to produce the required documents must be
accorded to gateway, absent finding that it acted wilfully in bad faith.
Note:
1. In this case, the CA decision nullifying the orders of the trial court
was without prejudice to the filing a new motion for production and
inspection of Documents.
SALES V. SABINO
GR NO. 133154 DECEMBER 9 2005
Doctrine
1. While depositions may be used in court proceedings, they are
not generally meant to be a substitute for the actual
testimony in open court of a party or witness. A deposition is
not to be used when the deponent is at hand.
2. The inadmissibility of testimony taken by deposition is
anchored on the ground that such testimony is hearsay, as
the party against whom the deposition is offered had no
opportunity to cross-examine the deponent.
a. The act of cross-examining the deponent during the
taken of deposition cannot without more be
considered a waiver of the right to object to its
admissibility as evidence in the trial proper.
b. Objections to the competency of a witness or the
competency, relevancy, or materiality may be made
for the first time at the trial and need not be made at
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.

the time of the taking of deposition, unless they deponent in open court may be opposed and
could be obviated at that point. excluded on the ground of hearsay.
b. However, depositions may be used without the deponent being called
Facts to the witness stand by the proponent, provided any of the ff is
present:
Cyril Sabino filed an amended complaint for damages against Jowel Sales, i. Witness is dead
the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident which caused the death of his ii. Witness resides at a distance more than one
son, Elbert. Before any responsive pleading could be filed, Sabino notified Sales et hundred (100) km from place of trial or hearing, or
al that he will take the deposition of Buaneres Corral before the clerk of court. The is out of the Philippines, unless it appears that
deposition on oral examination of Buaneres Corral was taken before the clerk of his absence is procured by the party offering the
court in the presence and with active participation of Atty Villacorta, Sales counsel, deposition;
who even lengthily cross-examined the deponent. Sabino had the depositions iii. The witness is unable to attend or testify because
marked, with submarkings. of age sickness, infirmity or imprisonment;
iv. That the party offering the deposition has been
Sabino made a formal offer of exhibits of the deposition, along with a unable to procure the attendance of the witness by
certification from the Bureau of Immigration attesting that Buaneres Corral left the subpoena;
country. Sales opposed the admission of these deposition, on the ground the sec v. Upon application and notice, the such exceptional
4 Rule 23 of the Rules have not been complied with. circumstances exist and with due regard to the
The trial court admitted the depositions. Upon denial of Sales motion for importance of presenting the testimony of witness
reconsideration, Sales filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. CA denied the orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be
petition, averring that Sales counsel’s active participation in the taking of used.
deposition estopped Sales from assailing the admissibility of the depositions. c. RTC’s factual finding of absence or unavailability of witness to testify
deserves respect, having been adequately substantiated.
Issue i. As it were, the certification from BI provides
evidentiary support.
Can the depositions be admitted in evidence? 1. it is customary for courts to accept
Was Sales estopped from questioning the admissibility of the depositions? statements of parties as to the
unavailability of a witness as a predicate
Held to the use of depositions.
ii. Had Corral indeed returned to PH subsequent to his
1. yes departure, Sales could have presented evidence
a. while depositions may be used in court proceedings, they are not showing it.
generally meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in open
court of a party or witness. A deposition is not to be used when the
deponent is at hand. 2. no.
i. Any deposition offered during a trial to prove the a. as a rule, the inadmissibility of testimony taken by deposition is
facts set out in lieu of actual oral testimony of the anchored on the ground that such testimony is hearsay, as the party

21
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
against whom the deposition is offered had no opportunity to cross-
examine the deponent.
b. The act of cross-examining the deponent during the taken of
deposition cannot without more be considered a waiver of the right
to object to its admissibility as evidence in the trial proper.
i. He is not estopped from challenging the admissibility of the
deposition just because he participated in the taking
thereof.
ii. Sec 29 Rule 23 of the Rules provides that, while errors and
irregularities in depositions as to notice, qualifications of the
officer conducting the deposition, and the manner of taking
the deposition are deemed waived, if not objected to before
or during the taking of the deposition -
1. objections to the competency of a witness or
the competency, relevancy, or materiality
may be made for the first time at the trial
and need not be made at the time of the
taking of deposition, unless they could be
obviated at that point.
ROSETE ET AL V. LIM
GR NO. 136051 JUNE 8 2006
Doctrine
1. the fact that there are two criminal cases pending which are
allegedly based on the same set of facts as that of the civil
case will not give the right to refuse to take the witness
stand and to give their depositions.
2. An answer exe abudanti cautela does not make their answer
less of an answer, given that they contain their respective
defenses.
3. Joinder of issues is required to avail of sec 1 rule 23.
Facts
Julia and Lilia Lim filed a complaint for annulment, specific performance
with damages against AFP Retirement, Espreme Realty, Alfredo and Chito Roseta,
Mapalo, BPI and RD of Mindoro Oriental with respect to several parcels of land
22
registered in the name of Espreme. During the proceedings, Lims filed a notice to
take the deposition upon oral examination as they will cause the deposition of
Oscar Mapalo and Chito Rosete.
Rosete et al filed an urgent ex-parte motion and objection to take the
deposition upon oral examination. They 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 was filed abundanti cautela, pending
the resolution of a petition for certiorari over orders denying Rosete et al motions
to dismiss and for reconsideration respectively. They also contend that since there
are two criminal cases pending before the city prosecutor of Mandaluyong and
Pasif involving the same set of facts as in this case, to permit the taking of
deposition would violate their right against the self incrimination, because by
means of oral deposition, Lim would seek to establish the allegations of fact in the
complaint which are the allegations of fact in the complaint affidavits in the said
criminal cases.
Issue
1. Will the taking of depositions violate Rosete et als right against self-
incrimination?
2. can the taking of oral depositions be allowed without leave of court
as in the case?
Held
4. the case is civil it being a suit for annulment, specific performance with
damages. In order for Rosete et al to exercise the right to refuse to take the
witness stand and to give their depositions, the case must partake the nature
of a criminal proceeding;
a. the fact that there are two criminal cases pending which are
allegedly based on the same set of facts as that of the civil
case will not give the right to refuse to take the witness
stand and to give their depositions.
b. They are not facing criminal charges in the civil case. Like an
ordinary witness, they can invoke the right against self-
incrimination only when the incriminating question is actually
asked of them;
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
c. Only if and when incriminating questions are thrown their
way can they refuse to answer on the ground of their right
to self-incrimination.
5. Once an answer has been served, the testimony of a person, whether a party
or not, may be taken by deposition upon oral examination or written
interrogatories.
a. Contrary the impression that Rosete et al does not consider
the answers filed ex abundanti cautela as the answer that
makes the deposition upon oral examination without leave of
court possible, the court finds the answer adequate.
i. Ex abundanti cautela means out of abundant
caution or to be on the safe side.
ii. An answer exe abudanti cautela does not make
their answer less of an answer, given that they
contain their respective defenses.
1. An answer is a pleading in which a
defending party sets forth his defenses
and the failure to file one within the time
allowed herefore may cause the defending
party to be declared in default;
2. Lims , knowing full well the effect of non-
filing of an answer, filed their answers
despite of their appeal with CA on the
denial of their MTD.
b. Issues are joined when all the parties have pleaded their respective
theories and the terms of the dispute are plain before the court.
i. The issues have been joined when Rosetes et al as
other defendants filed their answers.
ii. The respective claims and defenses of the parties
have been defined and the issues to be decided by
the trial court have been laid down.
c. Joinder of issues is required to avail of sec 1 rule 23.
i. A deposition pending action may be availed of
1. with leave of court when an answer has
not yet been filed but after jurisdiction has
23
been obtained over any defendant or
property subject of the action
2. without leave of court after an answer to
the complaint has been served.
ii. In this case, the taking of deposition may be
availed of even without leave of court because
Rosetes have already served their answers to the
complaint.
- SANCTIONS FOR REFUSAL TO MAKE DISCOVERY
TRIAL
- ORDER OF TRIAL
- REVERSE TRIAL WHEN THE COMPLAINT IS ADMITTED
YU V. MAGPAYO
G.R. NO. L-29742, MARCH 29, 1972
DOCTRINE: A PARTY HAS EVERY RIGHT TO INSIST THAT THE OTHER PARTY COME
FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS SPECIAL DEFENSES BECAUSE OF THE JUDICIAL
ADMISSION HE MADE IN HIS ANSWER.
VINCENT YU FILED A CASE AGAINST EMILIO MAGPAYO TO RECOVER THE UNPAID BALANCE OF A
GRAY MARINE ENGINE. THE CITY COURT, AFTER TRIAL, DISALLOWED THE DEFENSES AND ORDERED
MAGPAYO TO PAY PLAINTIFF P2,500.00 AND COSTS. MAGPAYO APPEALED TO THE CFI WHEREIN
HE FILED AN ANSWER THAT WAS A REPRODUCTION OF HIS PREVIOUS DEFENSES. WHEN, AFTER
SEVERAL CONTINUANCES, THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING ON 13 MARCH 1968, THE
DEFENDANT, AS WELL AS HIS COUNSEL, FAILED TO APPEAR AND THE COURT SCHEDULED THE CASE
FOR HEARING EX PARTE ON THE SAME DAY.
THE COURT ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO PRESENT HIS EVIDENCE BUT HE REFUSED BY REASON THAT HE
WILL SUBMIT HIS EVIDENCE ON THE PLEADING UNTIL AFTER THE DEFENDANT PRESENTS HIS
EVIDENCE. THE COURT THEN DEEMED THE CASE SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION AND IT WAS
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE.
ISSUE: WON THE CASE WAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO
PROSECUTE
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.

HELD: NO. SINCE THE ANSWER ADMITTED DEFENDANT'S OBLIGATION AS STATED IN THE THIS CASE, NO LESS THAN THE PETITIONER, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
COMPLAINT, ALBEIT SPECIAL DEFENSES WERE PLEADED, PLAINTIFF HAD EVERY RIGHT TO INSIST GENERAL THROUGH SPECIAL ATTORNEY VICENTE SERIÑA, AGREED TO DISPENSE WITH A FULL-
THAT IT WAS FOR DEFENDANT TO COME FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS SPECIAL BLOWN TRIAL.
DEFENSES.
- REVERSE TRIAL ALSO IN CRIMINAL CASES SPS CALO V. SPS TAN
- WHEN TRIAL IS DISPENSED WITH: ABSENCE OF PARTY G.R. NO. 151266, NOV. 29, 2005

REPUBLIC V. VDA. DE NERI DOCTRINE: THE ABSENCE OF A PARTY DURING TRIAL CONSTITUTES WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT
G.R. NO. 139588, MARCH 4, 2004 TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND CROSS-EXAMINE THE OPPONENT’S WITNESSES. ALTHOUGH A
DEFENDANT WHO ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT BUT FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED
DOCTRINE: A COURT MAY DISPENSE WITH A FULL-BLOWN TRIAL WHEN THE SAME WAS TRIAL CANNOT BE DECLARED IN DEFAULT, THE TRIAL, HOWEVER, MAY PROCEED WITHOUT
AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES TO THE CASE. HIS PRESENCE. AND IF THE ABSENCE OF A PARTY DURING THE HEARING WAS DUE TO HIS
OWN FAULT, HE CANNOT LATER ON COMPLAIN THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS DAY IN
FACTS: THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO NERI SR. FILED AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION COURT.
OF IMPERFECT OR INCOMPLETE TITLE WITH THE CFI MISAMIS ORIENTAL. THE APPLICATION WAS
LATER AMENDED AND THE OSG AS WELL AS DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF LANDS FAILED TO FILE AN FACTS: LYDIA TAN ENTERED INTO A JOINT
VENTURE AGREEMENT WITH RAYMUNDO CALO, AND
OPPOSITION SO THE CFI GRANTED THE APPLICATION. OCT NO. 0662 WAS THEN ISSUED BY THE FOUR OTHERS REGARDING A SMALL SCALE MINING BUSINESS.
CALO THEN APPLIED FOR A LOAN WITH
REGISTER OF DEEDS AND THE OSG & BUREAU OF LANDS FILED A COMPLAINT FOR ANNULMENT OF DBP FOR P500K, USING AS COLLATERAL SEVERAL EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BY TAN FOR THE
THE SAME AND THE REVERSION OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY IT. BUSINESS WITHOUT THE LATTER’S KNOWLEDGE. CALO DEFAULTED SO THE CHATTEL MORTGAGE WAS
FORECLOSED.
DURING THE HEARING OF MARCH 27, 1989, THE PARTIES AGREED TO FOREGO A FULL-BLOWN
TRIAL AND TO INSTEAD FILE THEIR RESPECTIVE "MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY" AND TO SUBMIT SPS TAN FILED A COMPLAINT FOR REPLEVIN AND DAMAGES AGAINST SPS CALO. SPS CALO AND DBP
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS. THE COURT ISSUED AN ORDER ON THE FLED A JOINT MTD AND SUPPLEMENTAL MTD BUT THE COURT DEFERRED JUDGMENT IN THE SAME.
SAID DATE, GIVING THE PARTIES THIRTY DAYS TO SUBMIT THEIR RESPECTIVE MEMORANDA AND TRIAL ENSUED BUT IT WAS CONSTANTLY SET AND RESET ON MOTION OF THE PARTIES. ANOTHER
EVIDENCE. MTD WAS FILED BY CALO AND DBP, ON THE GROUND OF FAILURE TO PAY ADDITIONAL FILING AND
DOCKET FEES FOR THE AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT WAS ADMITTED BUT THE SAME WAS DENIED BY
THEN THE COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE REPUBLIC FAILED TO THE COURT.
PROVE THE FACTUAL AVERMENTS.
THEY FILED A JOINT MR BUT IT WAS ALSO DENIED BECAUSE THE MOTION DID NOT CONTAIN A
ISSUE: WON THE COURT MAY RENDER A DECISION WHEN A FULL-BLOWN TRIAL WAS DISPENSED NOTICE OF HEARING AND THAT THE DOCKET FEE HAD ALREADY BEEN PAID. SPS CALO AND THEIR
WITH UPON AGREEMENT BY THE PARTIES COUNSEL ALSO FAILED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON EVEN DATE AND WERE DEEMED
TO HAVE WAIVED THEIR RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE SO THE CASE WAS DEEMED SUBMITTED FOR
HELD: YES. THE TRIAL COURT DISPENSED WITH A FULL-BLOWN TRIAL BECAUSE, PRECISELY, THE DECISION. THE RTC RULED IN FAVOR SPS TAN, RELYING ONLY ON THE TESTIMONY OF TAN
PARTIES THEMSELVES AGREED THERETO, ON THE CLAIM THAT THE ISSUES RAISED MAY BE RESOLVED BECAUSE CALO FAILED TO APPEAR DURING THE HEARINGS SET FOR THE PRESENTATION OF THEIR
ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADINGS, THE MEMORANDA AND THE APPENDED DOCUMENTS, WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
NEED OF PRESENTING WITNESSES THEREON. A PARTY MAY WAIVE ITS RIGHT TO PRESENT ISSUE: WON SPS CALO WERE DENIED THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WHEN THE RTC WAIVED
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AND OPT TO ADDUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND THEREAFTER, SUBMIT THEIR RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE DUE TO THEIR NON-APPEARANCE IN THE HEARING ON 3 AUG.
THE CASE FOR RESOLUTION BASED SOLELY ON THEIR PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN 1992

24
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
HELD: NO. SPS CALO EXPLAINED THAT THEY FAILED TO APPEAR BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THAT
THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WOULD BE HEARD FIRST, I.E.,
RESPONDENT SPOUSES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMMENT FIRST ON THE MOTIONS BEFORE THEY
WOULD BE RESOLVED. THEY CONTEND THAT THERE WAS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO
ABANDON THEIR RIGHT.
SC RULED THAT THE ABSENCE OF SPS CALO AND THEIR COUNSEL AT THE AFORESAID HEARINGS
CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY THEIR BELIEF THAT THE TRIAL COURT WOULD FIRST REQUIRE RESPONDENT
SPOUSES TO COMMENT TO OR OPPOSE THE MOTIONS BEFORE RESOLVING THEM. THE RULES OF
COURT REQUIRES ONLY THAT THE MOTION BE HEARD; IT DOES NOT DIRECT THE COURT TO ORDER
THE FILING OF COMMENTS OR OPPOSITIONS TO THE MOTION BEFORE THE MOTION IS RESOLVED.
CONSOLIDATION
- TEST IS COMMON QUESTIONS OF FACT OR OF LAW
ACTIVE WOOD PRODUCTS CO., INC. V. CA
G.R. NO.86603, FEB. 5. 1990
DOCTRINE: A TECHNICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ACTION AND A PROCEEDING BECOMES
INSIGNIFICANT WHEN CONSOLIDATION IS THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO THRESH OUT
THOROUGHLY ALL RELATED ISSUES.
TWO CASES WERE PENDING IN TWO DIFFERENT BRANCHES: THE FIRST BEING CIVIL CASE NO. 6518-
M AND THE SECOND LRC CASE NO. P-39-48, A PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
POSSESSION OVER ACTIVE WOOD’S TWO PARCELS OF LAND. ACTIVE WOOD FILED THE CIVIL CASE DUE
TO THE FORECLOSURE OF THE MORTGAGE AND THE SAME WAS DECLARED NULL AND VOID BY JUDGE
LEGASPI. STATE INVESTMENT THEN FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF POSSESSION PENDING
REDEMPTION OF THE LANDS BY ACTIVE WOOD. JUDGE VILLAJUAN OF BRANCH XIV GRANTED THE
WRIT UPON FILING OF A BOND BUT HE LATER SET ASIDE THIS ORDER.
ACTIVE WOOD FILED A MOTION IN LRC CASE NO. P-39-84 FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF SAID CASE
WITH CIVIL CASE NO. 6518-M. MOREOVER, ACTIVE WOOD FILED A MOTION IN SAID LRC CASE NO.
P-39-84 TO DISMISS AND/OR SUSPEND THE PROCEEDINGS OF THAT CASE UNTIL BRANCH XX
RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF THE MORTGAGE RAISED IN CIVIL CASE NO. 6518-M.
JUDGE VILLAJUAN HELD IN ABEYANCE RESOLUTION OF STATE INVESTMENT'S PETITION AND DIRECTED
THAT SAID LRC CASE NO. P-39-84 PENDING IN HIS BRANCH BE CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL CASE
25
NO. 6518-M PENDING IN RESPONDENT JUDGE'S BRANCH PROVIDED THE LATTER WOULD NOT OBJECT.
HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ISSUED HIS NEW ASSAILED ORDER RETURNING THE LRC CASE
NO. P-39-84 TO BRANCH XIV OBVIOUSLY SIGNIFYING HIS OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED
CONSOLIDATION OF THAT CASE WITH THE CASE PENDING IN HIS BRANCH. ACTIVE WOOD'S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER DENYING CONSOLIDATION WAS ALSO DENIED BY RESPONDENT
JUDGE IN HIS NOW SECOND CHALLENGED ORDER OF JANUARY 9, 1985.
ISSUE: WON CONSOLIDATION OF THE CASES IS ALLOWED
HELD: YES. THE RATIONALE FOR CONSOLIDATION IS TO HAVE ALL CASES, WHICH ARE INTIMATELY
RELATED, ACTED UPON BY ONE BRANCH OF THE COURT TO AVOID THE POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICTING
DECISIONS BEING RENDERED THAT WILL NOT SERVE THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. THE
CONSOLIDATION OF CASES BECOMES MANDATORY BECAUSE IT INVOLVES THE SAME PARTIES AND THE
SAME SUBJECT MATTER WHICH IS THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND. SUCH CONSOLIDATION IS DESIRABLE TO
AVOID CONFUSION AND UNNECESSARY COSTS AND EXPENSES WITH THE MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS.
THUS THE RULES DO NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CASES FILED BEFORE THE SAME BRANCH OR JUDGE
AND THOSE THAT ARE PENDING IN DIFFERENT BRANCHES, OR BEFORE DIFFERENT JUDGES OF THE SAME
COURT, IN ORDER THAT CONSOLIDATION MAY BE PROPER, AS LONG AS THE CASES INVOLVE THE
RESOLUTION OF QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACTS IN COMMON WITH EACH OTHER. THEREFORE IT
APPEARS THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, HAS
SANCTIONED THE DEPARTURE OF THE TRIAL COURT FROM THE USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS, THUS CALLING FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF SUPERVISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT. THE RESPONDENT COURT HAS, INDEED, COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR.
SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. V. HON. LUIS VICTOR
G.R. NO. L-64250, SEPT. 30, 1983
DOCTRINE: A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE DENIED WHEN CONSOLIDATION IS THE MORE
PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES IN BOTH CASES.
FACTS: A COLLISION TRANSPIRED BETWEEN THE BUSES OF PANTRANCO AND SUPERLINES THAT
CAUSED THE DEATH OF A PASSENGER. SUPERLINES THEN FILED A COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST
PANTRANCO AND ITS DRIVER WITH THE CFI GUMACA, QUEZON ALLEGING THE RECKLESSNESS AND
NEGLIGENCE OF THE DRIVER TO BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT. THEREAFTER, THE
WIDOW AND CHILDREN OF THE DECEASED PASSENGER FILED A COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES WITH THE
RTC OF CAVITE AGAINST SUPERLINES AND PANTRANCO AS WELL AS ITS RESPECTIVE DRIVERS.
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.

SUPERLINES AND ITS DRIVER FILED A MTD IN CIVIL CASE NO. N-4338 ON THE GROUND OF FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES.
EQUITABLE PCI BANK FILED A CREDITOR-INITIATED PETITION TO PLACE
PENDENCY OF ANOTHER ACTION, OBVIOUSLY REFERRING TO CIVIL CASE NO. 1671-G PENDING SCP UNDER CORPORATE REHABILITATION.
BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON, GUMACA BRANCH. JUDGE LUIS VICTOR FOUND
THAT THE TWO CASES INVOLVED DIFFERENT PARTIES AS WELL AS DIFFERENT CAUSES OF ACTION SO HE THE RTC APPROVED THE MODIFIED REHABILITATION PLAN THAT WAS PREPARED BY ATTY. GABIONZA
DENIED THE MTD. THE IAC DENIED THE APPEAL OF SUPERLINES. AND CONFORMED TO BY BDO-EPCIB & OTHER CREDITORS. SEVERAL CREDITORS THEN WENT TO THE
CA VIA SEPARATE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI. THE CA CONSOLIDATED THE PETITIONS OF SCP AND
ISSUE: WON THE DENIAL OF THE MTD FILED BY SUPERLINES WAS PROPER IFPI BUT IT DENIED THE BDO-EPCIB’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE WITH ANOTHER CASE.

HELD: YES. WHILE THE SC RULED THAT SUPERLINES’ CONTENTION WAS IN LINE WITH ITS DECISION ISSUE: WON CA’S DECISION TO NOT CONSOLIDATE THE FOUR CASES WAS IMPROPER
IN A PREVIOUS CASE, IT RULED THAT A MORE PRAGMATIC SOLUTION TO THE CASE AT BAR WAS
CONSOLIDATION. CONSIDERATIONS OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY AND ADMINISTRATION, AS WELL AS THE HELD: YES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ALL FOUR (4) CASES INVOLVE IDENTICAL PARTIES, SUBJECT
CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES FOR WHICH THE RULES ON PROCEDURE AND VENUE WERE FORMULATED, MATTER, AND ISSUES. IN FACT, ALL FOUR (4) AROSE FROM THE SAME DECISION RENDERED BY THE
DICTATE THAT IT IS THE CAVITE COURT, RATHER THAN THE GUMACA COURT, WHICH SERVES AS THE REHABILITATION COURT. AS SUCH, IT BECAME IMPERATIVE UPON THE CA TO CONSOLIDATE THE
MORE SUITABLE FORUM FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES CASES. EVEN THOUGH CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS IS ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE
CONCERNED. COURT AND NORMALLY, ITS ACTION IN CONSOLIDATING WILL NOT BE DISTURBED IN THE ABSENCE OF
MANIFEST ABUSE OF DISCRETION, IN THIS INSTANCE, WE FIND THAT THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN
KAWIT, CAVITE, TO LITIGATE THEIR
TO REQUIRE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WHO ARE ALL RESIDENTS OF FAILING TO ORDER THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE CASES.
CLAIMS IN THEQUEZON COURT WOULD UNNECESSARILY EXPOSE THEM TO CONSIDERABLE EXPENSES.
ON THE OTHER HAND, NO LIKE PREJUDICE WOULD BEFALL THE DEFENDANTS TRANSPORTATION BY REFUSING TO CONSOLIDATE THE CASES, THE CA, IN EFFECT, DISPENSED A FORM OF PIECEMEAL
COMPANIES IF THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PLEAD THEIR CAUSES IN CAVITE, FOR SUCH CHANGE OF JUDGMENT THAT HAS VERITABLY RESULTED IN THE MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS. SUCH ACTION IS NOT
VENUE WOULD NOT EXPOSE THEM TO EXPENSES WHICH THEY ARE NOT ALREADY LIABLE TO INCUR IN REGARDED WITH FAVOR, BECAUSE CONSOLIDATION SHOULD ALWAYS BE ORDERED WHENEVER IT IS
CONNECTION WITH THE GUMACA CASE. THE OBJECTION INTERPOSED BY SUPERLINES THAT IT HAS ITS POSSIBLE.
OFFICES IN ATIMONAN, QUEZON, SHOULD NOT DETRACT FROM THE OVERALL CONVENIENCE AFFORDED
BY THE CONSOLIDATION OF CASES IN THE CAVITE COURT. FOR APART FROM THE FACT THAT DEUTSCHE BANK AG V. CA
PETITIONER AND ITS DRIVER ARE REPRESENTED BY THE SAME COUNSEL WITH OFFICES LOCATED IN GR NO. 1933065 FEBRUARY 27 2012
MANILA, DEFENDANTS TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES CAN READILY AVAIL OF THEIR FACILITIES FOR
CONVEYING THEIR WITNESSES TO THE PLACE OF TRIAL. Facts

STEEL CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES V. EQUITABLE PCI BANK INC. Steel Corporation was in the process of corporate rehabilitation. Three of
G.R. NO. 190462, NOV. 17, 2010 its creditors [Deutsche bank, Investments 2234 and EPCIB] filed petitions for
certiorari respectively before the CA. Steel Corp filed a motion for consolidation of
DOCTRINE: CONSOLIDATION IS PROPER WHEREVER THE SUBJECT MATTER INVOLVED AND the three petitions for certiorari with the petition for certiorari filed by Vitarich on the
RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE DIFFERENT SUITS MAKE IT EXPEDIENT FOR THE COURT TO ground that the cases involved the same question of law : whether creditors could be
DETERMINE ALL OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES BY compelled to disclose the actual assignment price for credits in litigation which were
HEARING THE SUITS TOGETHER. assigned by virtue of the corp rehab proceeding. The CA granted the consolidation of
Deutsche Bank and Vitarich petitions.
STEEL CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (SCP), A CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE
AND DISTRIBUTION OF COLD-ROLLED AND GALVANIZED STEEL SHEETS AND COILS, SUFFERED GRAVE

26
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
Deutsche bank filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA resolution,
arguing that the petitions were not related cases that merit consolidation. It
stressed that consolidation requires the petitions sought to be consolidated have a
common question of law and are related.
Nonetheless the CA agreed with SteelCorp’s conclusion that when two
cases involved the same parties, or related questions of fact or related questions of
law, these cases are considered “related cases” for purposes of consolidation.
Issue:
Can the two petitions be consolidated?
Held:
No. The two petitions having no factual relationship with and no interconnected
transactions on the same subject matter, they cannot be deemed related cases.
The necessity to consolidate does not become imperative. The order of
consolidation by CA is not in order.
1. for consolidation to be proper, the cases sought to be consolidated must be
related.
a. when two or more cases involve the same parties and affect
closely related subject matters, they must be consolidated
and jointly tried, in order to serve the best interests of the
parties and to settle expeditiously the issues involved.
b. Consolidation is proper wherever the subject matter
involved and relief demanded in the different suits make it
expedient for the court to determine all of the issues
involved and adjudicate the rights of the parties by hearing
the suits together.
2. there is no sufficient justification to order the consolidation inasmuch as the
Deutsche Bank AG petition has no relation whatsoever to the Vitarich
petition.
a. To recall, the Deutsche Bank Petition is an appeal on
certiorari from the order of RTC Batangas in a special
proceeding while the vitarich case is an appeal on certiorari
27
and mandamus from the order of RTC Bulacan in a civil
case.
b. That Deutsche Bank AG is party to both cases does not
make the proceedings intimately related.
c. There is no factual relation between the two proceedings.
SteelCorp proceedings originated from SteelCorps rehab
proceedings while vitarich came from Vitarich’s rehab
proceedings.
d. Neither are there interconnected transactions nor identical
subject matter in Deutsche bank and Vitarich petitions. The
former involved an issue resulting from the assignment of
credits of RCBC to Deutsche Bank AG whereas in the latter,
the issue arose from the assignment of receivables of
various creditors of Vitarich to several corporations and
SPVs.
3. the rationale for consolidation is to have all cases intimately related acted
upon by one Court/Division to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions
being rendered. The purpose of the rule on consolidation is to avoid
multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression and abuse; prevent delays; clear
congested dockets and simplify the work of the trial court. Consolidation aims
to attain justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties litigants.
a. the consolidation of Deutsche Bank AG petition with
Vitarich’s does not appear a prudent move ass it serves none
of the purposes above. It will only complicate the resolution
of cases as CA would have to consider the different factual
antecedents of the petitions.
b. The consolidation would unduly prejudice the banks and
would lead to complications, delay or restriction on the right
of banks to immediate dismissal of Vitarich proceedings,
since the question of whether vitarich creditors have become
law of the case.
c. The consolidation will only subject the parties to added
expenses and unjust vexation. The number of parties will
substantially increase so as the cost of furnishing the parties
with pleadings thereby defeating the very rationale behind
the consolidation.
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
4. consolidation of actions is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and
its action in consolidating will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest
abuse of discretion. The CA may prescribe reasonable rules governing the
assignment of cases with similar questions of law of facts to one justice. In
case of consolidation, it may be effected only if the said cases are related.
Assignment is different from consolidation.
PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V EXCELSA INDUSTRIES
GR NO. 173820 APRIL 16 2012
Doctrine
The effect of consolidation would greatly depend on the
sense in which the consolidation is made. Consolidation of
cases may take place in any of the following ways:
1. Where all except one of several actions are stayed
until one is tried, in which case the judgment in the
one trial is conclusive as to the others. This is not
actually consolidation but is referred to as
such. (quasi-consolidation)
2. Where several actions are combined into one, lose
their separate identity, and become a single action
in which a single judgment is rendered. This is
illustrated by a situation where several actions are
pending between the same parties stating claims
which might have been set out originally in one
complaint. (actual consolidation)
3. Where several actions are ordered to be tried
together but each retains its separate character
and requires the entry of a separate judgment. This
type of consolidation does not merge the suits into
a single action, or cause the parties to one action
to be parties to the other. (consolidation for trial)[
28
Facts
Excelsa Industries filed an action for the annulment of extrajudicial
foreclosure with prayer for preliminary injunction and damages against Producers
and RD before RTC Rizal. Producers filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of
possession before the same court. RTC Rizal ordered the consolidation of these
cases and ruled on them in one judgment. However, Excelsa treated the cases
separately and availed of two remedies, namely an appeal on one [ re: the validity
of the foreclosure ] and a petition on certiorari on the other [ re: the issuance of a
writ of possession].
Issue
Did Excelsa commit an error in treating the consolidated cases separately and
availing of separate remedies?
Held
yes.
1. when the two cases were consolidated and a joint decision was rendered, the
cases lost their identities.
2. The effect of consolidation would greatly depend on the sense in which the
consolidation is made.
3. in this case, there was a joint hearing and the RTC eventually rendered a joint
decision disposing of the cases both as to the validity of the foreclosure and
the propriety of the issuance of a writ of possession. This being so, the two
cases ceased to be separate and the parties are left with a single remedy to
elevate the issues to the appellate court.
a. this is bolstered by the fact that when the appeal was
disposed of by the CA by reversing the RTC decision, the
appellate court not only declared the foreclosure of the
mortgage invalid but likewise annulled the issuance of the
writ of possession
b. when the court finally settled the issues in Producers Bank v
Excelsa GR No 152071 May 8 2009, it reversed and set aside
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.

the CA decision and reinstated that of the RTC thereby

disposing of the said two issues. GREGORIO ESPINOZA V UOB
GR NO. 175380 MARCH 22 2010
TESTON V. DBP
GR NO. 144374 NOVEMBER 11 2005 Doctrine

Facts 1. the SC cannot allow a party scheming to defeat the right to a

Teston filed a complaint against DBP, LBP, Secretary of Agrarian Reform
for his just compensation for the lands subject of this case. Another case has been
filed this time against the GSIS. Both cases are raffled to RTC Masbate, without any
order of the RTC consolidating the actions, a notice of hearing to both cases was
sent by the clerk RTC to the parties.
issue
was the consolidation proper?
Held
No.
1. although both cases which were raffled to the same branch of RTC mandate (
Br 48), involve the prayer for determination and payment of just
compensation and petitioner are represented by the same counsel, there are
no real identity of parties, facts or rights asserted..
2. A perusal of the complaints plainly shows that the colarina claims ownership
as redemptioner while the petion claims ownership as buyer.
3. consolidation should be denied when prejudice would result to any of the
parties or would cause complications, delay, cut off or restrict the rights of a
party.
a. A perusal of the complaints shows that Coligado claims
ownership as redemptioner while Dr claims ownership as the
buyer. Causes of action in the two case (arose from
different from events or transactions that involve different
events or transportation involving the different issues, and
such ultimate will depend on different evidence.
writ of possession of a buyer in a foreclosure sale who had
already consolidated his ownership over the property subject
of the foreclosure sale to simply resort to the subterfuge of
filing a petition for nullification of foreclosure proceedings
with motion for consolidation of the petition for issuance of a
writ of possession.
a. It will render nugatory the presumed right of
ownership, as well as the right of possession, of a
buyer in a foreclosure sale, rights which are
supposed to be implemented in an ex party petition
for the issuance of a writ of possession.
2. consolidation cannot be allowed if it would defeat its purpose
and derogate the substantial right of possession as an
incident of ownership.
3. petitions for the issuance of writs of possession, a land
registration proceeding, do not fall within the ambit of the
rules of Court. Hence, the rules on consolidation should not
be applied.
Facts
UOB filed an ex parte petition for the issuance of writ of possession
before RTC br 124 Caloocan. Espinosa et al opposed and moved for the consolidation
of this petition with another action filed before RTC 120 Caloocan praying for the
nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings and certificate of sale over
the property subject of these cases. RTC 124 granted the motion for consolidation,
provided the judge did not object. Upon the denial of UOB’s motion for
reconsideration, it filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the CA. CA
granted the petition.

29
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
Issue
Can the case for the issuance of a writ of possession be consolidated with the
proceedings for nullification of extrajudicial foreclosure?
Held
No.
1. There are no common questions of fact and law between the two cases.
a. By its very nature, an ex parte petition for issuance of writ of
possession is a non-litigious proceeding. It is a judicial
proceeding for the enforcement of one’s right of possession
as purchaser in a foreclosure sale. It is not an ordinary suit
filed in court, by which one party sues another for the
enforcement of a wrong or protection of a right or redress of
a wrong.
b. By its very nature, a petition for nullification or annulment of
foreclosure proceedings contests the presumed right of
ownership of the buyer in a foreclosure sale and puts in
issue such presumed right of ownership
2. the SC cannot allow a party scheming to defeat the right to a writ of
possession of a buyer in a foreclosure sale who had already consolidated his
ownership over the property subject of the foreclosure sale to simply resort to
the subterfuge of filing a petition for nullification of foreclosure proceedings
with motion for consolidation of the petition for issuance of a writ of
possession.
a. It will render nugatory the presumed right of ownership, as
well as the right of possession, of a buyer in a foreclosure
sale, rights which are supposed to be implemented in an ex
party petition for the issuance of a writ of possession.
3. The mere fact that the presumed right of ownership is contested and made
the basis of another basis of another action does not by itself mean that the
proceedings for the issuance of the writ of possession will become groundless.
30
The grant of a complaint for nullification of foreclosure proceedings is a
resolutory condition.
4. The title to the litigated property had already been consolidated in UOB’s
name, making the issuance of writ of possession as a matter of right.
a. To allow the consolidation would only defeat its purpose ( to
avoid delay) and affect the substantial right of possession as
in incident of ownership.
5. petitions for the issuance of writs of possession, a land registration
proceeding, do not fall within the ambit of the rules of Court. Hence, the rules
on consolidation should not be applied.
- CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CAES
- CONSOLIDATION OF CASES ON APPEAL
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
- CONCEPT OF DEMURRER
- EFFECT OF DENIAL OR GRANT OF DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
NEPOMUCENO V. COMELEC
G.R. NO. L-60601, DEC. 29, 1983
DOCTRINE: THE DEMURRER IS AN AID OR INSTRUMENT FOR THE EXPEDITIOUS
TERMINATION OF AN ACTION, SIMILAR TO A MOTION TO DISMISS, WHICH THE COURT OR
TRIBUNAL MAY EITHER GRANT OR DENY; THUS IF THE DEMURRER IS DENIED, THERE IS NO
NEED TO STATE THE FACTS AND THE LAW THE DENIAL IS BASED ON IN THE ORDER.
THE COMELEC PROCEEDED TO HEAR PDC CASE NO. 35 AFTER THE SC RESOLVING TO REMAND THE
CASE TO THE FORMER IN TWO PREVIOUS PETITIONS. THERE, OSCAR LASERNA FINISHED
PRESENTING HIS EVIDENCE AND NEPOMUCENO ET AL. THEREAFTER FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE
MOTIONS TO DISMISS/DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE. COMELEC DENIED THE DEMURRERS AS IT WOULD
RATHER THE COMPLETE FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES UPON WHICH TO REACH A DECISION
THAN PREMATURELY GO INTO IT NOW UPON THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER ONLY.
ISSUE: WON THE ORDER DISMISSING NEPOMUCENO ET AL.’S DEMURRER WAS INCOMPLETE FOR
FAILURE TO STATE THE FACTS AND THE LAW THE RESOLUTION WAS BASED ON
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.

HELD: NO. NEPOMUCENO ET AL. WERE OBVIOUSLY MISLED BY THE TITLE OF R35 OF ROC. SAID ALLEGED LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE COURT LATER DISMISSED THE CASE FOR FAILURE OF
RULE ALLOWS THE DEFENDANT TO MOVE FOR DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AFTER THE PLAINTIFF HAS RADIOWEALTH TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIMS AS THE EVIDENCE IT PRESENTED WAS MERELY
PRESENTED HIS EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE, AND PROVIDES FOR HEARSAY. THE CA REVERSED THE RTC’S DECISION AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR FURTHER
THE EFFECTS OF THE DISMISSAL OR NON-DISMISSAL, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON THE RIGHT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
DEFENDANT TO PRESENT HIS CAUSE.
ISSUE: WON THE CA WAS INCORRECT IN REMANDING THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT INSTEAD
OTHERWISE STATED, IT AUTHORIZES A JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE WITHOUT THE OF RENDERING A DECISION BASED ON RADIOWEALTH’S EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT HAVING TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE ON HIS PART AS THE RELIEF SOUGHT. THE DEMURRER,
THEREFORE, IS AN AID OR INSTRUMENT FOR THE EXPEDITIOUS TERMINATION OF AN ACTION, HELD: YES. IN THE CASE AT BAR, THE TRIAL COURT, ACTING ON THE SPOUSES’ DEMURRER TO
SIMILAR TO A MOTION TO DISMISS, WHICH THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL MAY EITHER GRANT OR DENY. EVIDENCE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAD ADDUCED MERE
HEARSAY EVIDENCE.HOWEVER, ON APPEAL, THE CA REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT BECAUSE THE
THE REQUIREMENT OF S1R36 WOULD ONLY APPLY IF THE DEMURRER IS GRANTED, FOR IN THIS GENUINENESS AND THE DUE EXECUTION OF THE DISPUTED PIECES OF EVIDENCE HAD IN FACT BEEN
EVENT, THERE WOULD IN FACT BE AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, LEAVING ADMITTED BY DEFENDANTS.
NOTHING MORE TO BE DONE, EXCEPT PERHAPS TO INTERPOSE AN APPEAL. HOWEVER, A DENIAL OF
THE DEMURRER IS NOT A FINAL JUDGMENT, BUT MERELY INTERLOCUTORY IN CHARACTER AS IT DOES APPLYING RULE 33, SECTION 1 OF THE 1997 RULES OF COURT, THE CA SHOULD HAVE RENDERED
NOT FINALLY DISPOSE OF THE CASE, THE DEFENDANT HAVING YET THE RIGHT TO PRESENT HIS JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. WHILE THE CA
EVIDENCE, AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 1 OF RULE 35. THE CHALLENGED ORDER BEING CORRECTLY RULED THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE [PETITIONER] SHOULD
MERELY AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER AND NOT A FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECISION, NO ABUSE OF HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AND APPRECIATED XXX, AND THAT THE PETITIONER PRESENTED QUITE A
DISCRETION WAS COMMITTED BY COMELEC IN ITS FAILURE TO STATE THE FACTS AND THE LAW ON NUMBER OF DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS XXX ENUMERATED IN THE APPEALED ORDER, WE AGREE WITH
WHICH ITS ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IS BASED. PETITIONER THAT THE CA HAD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO DECIDE THE COLLECTION
SUIT. A REMAND IS NOT ONLY FROWNED UPON BY THE RULES, IT IS ALSO LOGICALLY UNNECESSARY
RADIOWEALTH V. SPS DEL ROSARIO ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS ON RECORD.
GR NO. 138739 JULY 6, 2000

DOCTRINE: WHEN A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE GRANTED BY A TRIAL COURT IS

REVERSED ON APPEAL, THE REVIEWING COURT CANNOT REMAND THE CASE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS. RATHER, IT SHOULD RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE
PROFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF. INASMUCH AS DEFENDANTS IN THE PRESENT CASE
ADMITTED THE DUE EXECUTION OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE BOTH IN THEIR ANSWER AND
DURING THE PRETRIAL, THE APPELLATE COURT SHOULD HAVE RENDERED JUDGMENT ON
THE BASES OF THAT NOTE AND ON THE OTHER PIECES OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED DURING THE
TRIAL.
SPS DEL ROSARIO EXECUTED A PROMISSORY NOTE IN FAVOR OF RADIOWEALTH. THE
DEFAULTED ON THE PAYMENT OF MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS AND DID NOT PAY DESPITE REPEATED
DEMANDS. RADIOWEALTH THEN FILED A COMPLAINT FOR SUM OF MONEY WITH THE RTC MANILA.
RADIOWELATH PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND RESTED ITS CASE AFTER FORMALLY OFFERING ITS
EVIDENCE AND EXHIBITS. THEREAFTER, THE SPOUSES FILED A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE FOR
CASENT REALTY V. PHILIPPINE BANKING
GR NO. 150731 SEPTEMBER 14, 2007.
DOCTRINE: Where the defense in an Answer is based on an actionable
document, a Reply specifically denying the same must be made;
otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of the document is
SPOUSES deemed admitted and should be considered in resolving the demurrer to
evidence.
Casent Realty Dev’t. Corp. issued two promissory notes to Rare Realty Corp., who
then assigned the same by a Deed of Assignment to Philbanking Corporation.

31
 GMDP- LCD DIGESTS SESSION VI [UNTIL 3.15 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.

Casent did not pay the promissory notes upon its maturity despite repeated
demands by Philbanking so the latter filed a complaint for collection of sum of
money.

Philbanking then presented its evidence and formally offered its exhibits. On the
other hand, Casent filed a Motion for Judgment on Demurrer to the Evidence,
pointing out that the plaintiffs failure to file a Reply to the Answer which raised the
Dacion and Confirmation Statement constituted an admission of the genuineness
and execution of said documents; and that since the Dacion obliterated petitioners
obligation covered by the promissory notes, the bank had no right to collect
anymore.

The RTC ruled in favor of Casent and dismissed the complaint but the CA ruled
that the RTC erred when it considered the Answer which alleged the Dacion, and
that its genuineness and due execution were not at issue.

ISSUE: WoN judicial admissions should be considered in resolving a demurrer to

evidence

HELD: YES. What should be resolved in a motion to dismiss based on a demurrer

to evidence is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief based on the facts and
the law.The evidence contemplated by the rule on demurrer is that which pertains
to the merits of the case, excluding technical aspects such as capacity to sue.
However, the plaintiffs evidence should not be the only basis in resolving a
demurrer to evidence. The facts referred to in Section 8 should include all the
means sanctioned by the ROC in ascertaining matters in judicial proceedings.
These include judicial admissions, matters of judicial notice, stipulations made
during the pre-trial and trial, admissions, and presumptions, the only exclusion
being the defendants evidence.

Petitioner points out that the defense of Dacion and Confirmation Statement,
which were submitted in the Answer, should have been specifically denied under
oath by respondent in accordance with Rule 8, Section 8 of the Rules of Court.
Since respondent failed to file a Reply, in effect, respondent admitted the
genuineness and due execution of said documents. This judicial admission should
have been considered by the appellate court in resolving the demurrer to evidence.

32