Lawyerly

GR No. 204089

2015-07-29

GRACE BORGOÑA INSIGNE v. ABRA VALLEY COLLEGES

BERSAMIN, J.

In our view, the CA thereby grossly erred. The rules of discovery, including Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court[41] governing the production or inspection of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things not privileged, which contain or constitute evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in the other party’s possession, custody or control, are to be accorded broad and liberal interpretation.[42] In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, [43] the Court has dwelt on the breadth of discovery in the following tenor: What is chiefly contemplated is the discovery of every bit of information which may be useful in the preparation for trial, such as the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts; those relevant facts themselves; and the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things. Hence, the “deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment. No longer can the time-honored cry of ‘fishing expedition’ serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent’s case. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession. The deposition-discovery procedure simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing the possibility, of surprise,”...

GR No. 204700

2014-11-24

EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT

LEONEN, J.

The availment of a motion for production, as one of the modes of discovery, is not limited to the pre-trial stage. Rule 27 does not provide for any time frame within which the discovery mode of production or inspection of documents can be utilized. The rule only requires leave of court "upon due application and a showing of due cause."[39] Rule 27, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Court, states: SECTION 1. Motion for production or inspection order Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor the court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession, custody or control[.] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 204700

2014-11-24

EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT

LEONEN, J.

"The modes of discovery are accorded a broad and liberal treatment."[46] The evident purpose of discovery procedures is "to enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials"[47] and, thus, facilitating an amicable settlement or expediting the trial of the case.[48]

GR No. 188881

2014-04-21

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

SERENO, C.J.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, without pronouncement as to costs. The temporary restraining order issued on October 27, 1989 is hereby LIFTED AND SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.[4]

GR No. 182738

2014-02-24

CAPITOL HILLS GOLF v. MANUEL O. SANCHEZ

PERALTA, J.

A person guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court[39] or commits any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice[40] 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." Thus, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan,[41] We said:To ensure that availment of the modes of discovery is otherwise untrammeled and efficacious, the law imposes serious sanctions on the party who refuses to make discovery, such as dismissing the action or proceeding or part thereof, or rendering judgment by default against the disobedient party; contempt of court, or arrest of the party or agent of the party; payment of the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining a court order to compel discovery; taking the matters inquired into as established in accordance with the claim of the party seeking discovery; refusal to allow the disobedient party support or oppose designated claims or defenses; striking out pleadings or parts thereof; staying further proceedings.[42]

GR No. 204700

2013-04-10

EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT

LEONEN, J.

The provision on production and inspection of documents is one of the modes of discovery sanctioned by the Rules of Court in order to enable not only the parties, but also the court to discover all the relevant and material facts in connection with the case pending before it.[22]

GR No. 159402

2011-02-23

AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE v. SPS. DAVID

BERSAMIN, J.

We further observe the doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot be successfully invoked to defeat a valid claim for compensation arising from the taking without just compensation and without the proper expropriation proceedings being first resorted to of the plaintiffs' property.[16] Thus, in De los Santos v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[17] the trial court's dismissal based on the doctrine of non-suability of the State of two cases (one of which was for damages) filed by owners of property where a road 9 meters wide and 128.70 meters long occupying a total area of 1,165 square meters and an artificial creek 23.20 meters wide and 128.69 meters long occupying an area of 2,906 square meters had been constructed by the provincial engineer of Rizal and a private contractor without the owners' knowledge and consent was reversed and the cases remanded for trial on the merits. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of sovereign immunity was not an instrument for perpetrating any injustice on a citizen. In exercising the right of eminent domain, the Court explained, the State exercised its jus imperii, as distinguished from its proprietary rights, or jus gestionis; yet, even in that area, where private property had been taken in expropriation without just compensation being paid, the defense of immunity from suit could not be set up by the State against an action for payment by the owners.

GR No. 159127

2008-03-03

RAMON GERARDO B. SAN LUIS v. vs. PABLITO M. ROJAS in his capacity as Presiding Judge

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

SECTION 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken. - By leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is the subject of the action, or without such leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of any party, by depositions upon oral examination or written interrogatories. Unequivocally, 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.[22]

GR NO. 156605

2007-08-28

EDWARD T. MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

GARCIA, J.

To be sure, the Rules of Court prescribes the procedures and defines all the consequence/s for refusing to comply with the different modes of discovery. The case of Republic v. Sandiganbayan,[47] a case for recovery of ill-gotten wealth where the defendants served upon the PCGG written

GR NO. 147143

2006-03-10

HYATT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORP. v. LEY CONSTRUCTION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

On this point, it is well to reiterate the Court's pronouncement in Republic v. Sandiganbayan[48]:What is chiefly contemplated is the discovery of every bit of information which may be useful in the preparation for trial, such as the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts; those relevant facts themselves; and the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things. Hence, "the deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment. No longer can the time-honored cry of "fishing expedition" serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent's case. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession. The deposition-discovery procedure simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing the possibility, of surprise.[49] It also does not escape this Court's attention that the trial court, before dismissing LCDC's complaint, gave LCDC two options: (a) enter into a pre-trial conference, advising LCDC that what it would like to obtain at the deposition may be obtained at the pre-trial conference, thus expediting early termination of the case; and (b) terminate the pre-trial conference and apply for deposition later on. The trial court erred in forcing LCDC to choose only from these options and in dismissing its complaint upon LCDC's refusal to choose either of the two.

	GR No. 204089 2015-07-29	GRACE BORGOÑA INSIGNE v. ABRA VALLEY COLLEGES BERSAMIN, J.
In our view, the CA thereby grossly erred. The rules of discovery, including Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court[41] governing the production or inspection of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things not privileged, which contain or constitute evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in the other party’s possession, custody or control, are to be accorded broad and liberal interpretation.[42] In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, [43] the Court has dwelt on the breadth of discovery in the following tenor: What is chiefly contemplated is the discovery of every bit of information which may be useful in the preparation for trial, such as the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts; those relevant facts themselves; and the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things. Hence, the “deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment. No longer can the time-honored cry of ‘fishing expedition’ serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent’s case. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession. The deposition-discovery procedure simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing the possibility, of surprise,”...
	GR No. 204700 2014-11-24	EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT LEONEN, J.
The availment of a motion for production, as one of the modes of discovery, is not limited to the pre-trial stage. Rule 27 does not provide for any time frame within which the discovery mode of production or inspection of documents can be utilized. The rule only requires leave of court "upon due application and a showing of due cause."[39] Rule 27, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Court, states: SECTION 1. Motion for production or inspection order Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor the court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession, custody or control[.] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 204700 2014-11-24	EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT LEONEN, J.
"The modes of discovery are accorded a broad and liberal treatment."[46] The evident purpose of discovery procedures is "to enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials"[47] and, thus, facilitating an amicable settlement or expediting the trial of the case.[48]
	GR No. 188881 2014-04-21	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN SERENO, C.J.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, without pronouncement as to costs. The temporary restraining order issued on October 27, 1989 is hereby LIFTED AND SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.[4]
	GR No. 182738 2014-02-24	CAPITOL HILLS GOLF v. MANUEL O. SANCHEZ PERALTA, J.
A person guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court[39] or commits any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice[40] 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." Thus, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan,[41] We said:To ensure that availment of the modes of discovery is otherwise untrammeled and efficacious, the law imposes serious sanctions on the party who refuses to make discovery, such as dismissing the action or proceeding or part thereof, or rendering judgment by default against the disobedient party; contempt of court, or arrest of the party or agent of the party; payment of the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining a court order to compel discovery; taking the matters inquired into as established in accordance with the claim of the party seeking discovery; refusal to allow the disobedient party support or oppose designated claims or defenses; striking out pleadings or parts thereof; staying further proceedings.[42]
	GR No. 204700 2013-04-10	EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT LEONEN, J.
The provision on production and inspection of documents is one of the modes of discovery sanctioned by the Rules of Court in order to enable not only the parties, but also the court to discover all the relevant and material facts in connection with the case pending before it.[22]
	GR No. 159402 2011-02-23	AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE v. SPS. DAVID BERSAMIN, J.
We further observe the doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot be successfully invoked to defeat a valid claim for compensation arising from the taking without just compensation and without the proper expropriation proceedings being first resorted to of the plaintiffs' property.[16] Thus, in De los Santos v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[17] the trial court's dismissal based on the doctrine of non-suability of the State of two cases (one of which was for damages) filed by owners of property where a road 9 meters wide and 128.70 meters long occupying a total area of 1,165 square meters and an artificial creek 23.20 meters wide and 128.69 meters long occupying an area of 2,906 square meters had been constructed by the provincial engineer of Rizal and a private contractor without the owners' knowledge and consent was reversed and the cases remanded for trial on the merits. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of sovereign immunity was not an instrument for perpetrating any injustice on a citizen. In exercising the right of eminent domain, the Court explained, the State exercised its jus imperii, as distinguished from its proprietary rights, or jus gestionis; yet, even in that area, where private property had been taken in expropriation without just compensation being paid, the defense of immunity from suit could not be set up by the State against an action for payment by the owners.
	GR No. 159127 2008-03-03	RAMON GERARDO B. SAN LUIS v. vs. PABLITO M. ROJAS in his capacity as Presiding Judge AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
SECTION 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken. - By leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is the subject of the action, or without such leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of any party, by depositions upon oral examination or written interrogatories. Unequivocally, 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.[22]
	GR NO. 156605 2007-08-28	EDWARD T. MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN GARCIA, J.
To be sure, the Rules of Court prescribes the procedures and defines all the consequence/s for refusing to comply with the different modes of discovery. The case of Republic v. Sandiganbayan,[47] a case for recovery of ill-gotten wealth where the defendants served upon the PCGG written
	GR NO. 147143 2006-03-10	HYATT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORP. v. LEY CONSTRUCTION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On this point, it is well to reiterate the Court's pronouncement in Republic v. Sandiganbayan[48]:What is chiefly contemplated is the discovery of every bit of information which may be useful in the preparation for trial, such as the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts; those relevant facts themselves; and the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things. Hence, "the deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment. No longer can the time-honored cry of "fishing expedition" serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent's case. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession. The deposition-discovery procedure simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing the possibility, of surprise.[49] It also does not escape this Court's attention that the trial court, before dismissing LCDC's complaint, gave LCDC two options: (a) enter into a pre-trial conference, advising LCDC that what it would like to obtain at the deposition may be obtained at the pre-trial conference, thus expediting early termination of the case; and (b) terminate the pre-trial conference and apply for deposition later on. The trial court erred in forcing LCDC to choose only from these options and in dismissing its complaint upon LCDC's refusal to choose either of the two.

REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES v. SANDIGANBAYAN