Rule 17. Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff San Luis v. Hon. Rojas G.R. No.
uis v. Hon. Rojas G.R. No. 159127, March 3, 2008
If, for no justifiable reason, the plaintiff:
- - fails to appear on the date of his presentation of evidence in chief,
- - fails to prosecute his action for unreasonable length of time,
- - fails to comply with these Rules or any order of the court,
The complaint may be dismissed:
- upon motion of the defendant, or
- upon the court’s own motion (motu propio)
without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim
- in the same action,
- or in a separate action.
This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless
otherwise declared by the court. Meaning, this dismissal can be a ground for
double jeopardy.
Quintos v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 210252, June 16, 2014
Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 17, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court cannot
defeat the right of a co-owner to ask for partition at any time, provided that
there is no actual adjudication of ownership of shares yet.
Rule 23. Section 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken
A testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may be taken, at the
instance of any party, by deposition upon oral examination or written
interrogatories.
By leave of court – after jurisdiction have been obtained over a person
or over a property, subject of the action;
A person confined in prison may be taken only by
leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes.
Or without such leave of court – after an answer have been served;
The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by subpoena provided in Rule
21.
The rule does not make any distinction or restriction as to who can avail of
deposition. The fact that private respondent is a non-resident foreign
corporation is immaterial. The rule clearly provides that the testimony of any
person may be taken by deposition upon oral examination or written
interrogatories, at the instance of any party. Depositions serve as a device for
ascertaining the facts relative to the issues of the case. The evident purpose is
to enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain the
fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and thus
prevent the said trials from being carried out in the dark.
Rule 29. Section 1. Refusal to answer
If a party or other deponent refuses to answer any question upon oral
examination, the examination may be completed on other matters or
adjourned as the proponent of the question may prefer. The proponent may
thereafter apply to the proper court of the place where the deposition is
being taken, for an order to compel an answer. The same procedure may be
availed of when a party or a witness refuses to answer any interrogatory
submitted under Rules 23 or 25.
Capitol Hills v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 182738, February 24, 2014
A person guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court or
commits any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede,
obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice may be punished for indirect
contempt. In particular, Section 4, Rule 3 of the Interim Rules states that, in
addition to a possible treatment of a party as non-suited or as in default, the
sanctions prescribed in the Rules for failure to avail of, or refusal to comply
with, the modes of discovery shall apply.
Under Section 3, Rule 29 of the Rules, if a party or an officer or managing
agent of a party refuses to obey an order to produce any document or other
things for inspection, copying, or photographing or to permit it to be done,
the court may make such orders as are just. The enumeration of options given
to the court under Section 3, Rule 29 of the Rules is not exclusive, as shown by
the phrase "among others."
Rule 35. Section 1. Summary judgement for claimant
A party – seeking to recover: upon a claim,
counterclaim, or
cross-claim
– or to obtain a declaratory relief may,
at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served,
move with supporting: affidavits, depositions or admissions,
for a summary judgement in his favor as to all or any parts thereof.
Spouses Villuga v. Kelly Hardware, G.R. No. 176570, July 18, 2012
Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid long
drawn out litigations and useless delays. Such judgment is generally based on
the facts proven summarily by affidavits, depositions, pleadings, or
admissions of the parties.
Rule 37. Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or
reconsideration
(b) newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable
diligence have discovered and produced at the trial, and which if
presented would probably alter the result.
Ybiernas v. Gabaldon, G.R. No. 178925, June 1, 2011
New trial is a remedy that seeks to “temper the severity of a judgment or
prevent the failure of justice.” Thus, the Rules allows the courts to grant a new
trial when there are errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial
rights of the accused committed during the trial, or when there exists newly
discovered evidence.
The grant or denial of a new trial is, generally speaking, addressed to the
sound discretion of the court which cannot be interfered with unless a clear
abuse thereof is shown.
This Court has repeatedly held that before a new trial may be granted on the
ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown
(1) that the evidence was discovered after trial;
(2) that such evidence could not have been discovered and produced
at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;
(3) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or
impeaching; and
(4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the
judgment if admitted. If the alleged newly discovered evidence could
have been very well presented during the trial with the exercise of
reasonable diligence, the same cannot be considered newly
discovered.
New trial is a remedy that seeks to “temper the severity of a judgment or
prevent the failure of justice.” Thus, the Rules allows the courts to grant a new
trial when there are errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial
rights of the accused committed during the trial, or when there exists newly
discovered evidence.
The grant or denial of a new trial is, generally speaking, addressed to the
sound discretion of the court which cannot be interfered with unless a clear
abuse thereof is shown.
This Court has repeatedly held that before a new trial may be granted on the
ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown
(1) that the evidence was discovered after trial;
(2) that such evidence could not have been discovered and produced
at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;
(3) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or
impeaching; and
(4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the
judgment if admitted. If the alleged newly discovered evidence could
have been very well presented during the trial with the exercise of
reasonable diligence, the same cannot be considered newly
discovered.
The question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two
aspects: a temporal one, i.e., when was the evidence discovered, and
a predictive one, i.e., when should or could it have been discovered.