This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence on 16 March 2007.[10] On 15 January 2008, the Sandiganbayan ruled that with the exception of some documents,[11] "all Exhibits... are denied admission. The due execution and authenticity of these documents remain challenged since the prosecution failed to show otherwise."[12] On petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan partly relented and admitted Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA" (Second Resolution).[13] As certified to by the Chief Administrative Officer of the PCGG,[14] Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA" were turned over to its Legal Division and include the following: Exh. MMM Memorandum for Hon. Teodoro Pena, signed by Juan C. Tuvera Xerox NNN Undated handwritten letter purportedly written by Glecy R. Tantoco No remarks whether original or photocopy OOO Letter to Ferdinand E. Marcos from Bienvenido Tantoco with handwritten marginal note dated 8 May 1982 No remarks whether original or photocopy PPP Undated letter to "Mam" from "Glecy" Xerox QQQ (missing) | |||||
|
2010-08-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As such, it is the duty of the courts to examine thoroughly the circumstances of each case and to determine the applicability of the modes of discovery, bearing always in mind the aim to attain an expeditious administration of justice.[23] | |||||
|
2006-10-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| This Court has long encouraged the availment of the various modes or instruments of discovery as embodied in Rules 24 to 29 of the Rules of Court.[15] In the case of Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation v. Ley Construction and Development Corporation,[16] we declared: Indeed, the importance of discovery procedures is well recognized by the Court. It approved A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC on July 13, 2004 which provided for the guidelines to be observed by trial court judges and clerks of court in the conduct of pre-trial and use of deposition-discovery measures. Under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, trial courts are directed to issue orders requiring parties to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 45 and request for admission of adverse party under Rule 26 or at their discretion make use of depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rule 27 and 28 within 5 days from the filing of the answer. The parties are likewise required to submit, at least 3 days before the pre-trial, pre-trial briefs, containing among others a manifestation of the parties of their having availed or their intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners. The imposition of sanctions under Section 5 is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Thus, in Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals,[17] we held: The matter of how, and when, the above sanctions should be applied is one that primarily rests on the sound discretion of the court where the case pends, having always in mind the paramount and overriding interest of justice. For while the modes of discovery are intended to attain the resolution of litigations with great expediency, they are not contemplated, however, to be ultimate causes of injustice. It behooves trial courts to examine well the circumstances of each case and to make their considered determination thereafter. x x x WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The January 24, 2006 Decision and the March 31, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89148, which granted respondent China Banking Corporation's petition to annul the April 1, 2004 and October 22, 2004 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Camarines Sur, Branch 30 denying respondent bank's affirmative defenses without a hearing as well as its motion to expunge the complaint because of petitioners' failure to answer the written interrogatories are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The instant case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Camarines Sur, Branch 30, for further proceedings. | |||||