This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-10-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the primary function of which is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of disclosing the real points of dispute between the parties and affording an adequate factual basis during the preparation for trial.[9] It should be allowed absent any showing that taking it would prejudice any party. It is accorded a broad and liberal treatment and the liberty of a party to make 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 law. It is allowed as a departure from the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open court where their demeanor could be observed by the trial judge, consistent with the principle of promoting just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding; and provided it is taken in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, i.e., with leave of court if summons have been served, and without such leave if an answer has been submitted; and provided further that a circumstance for its admissibility exists.[10] | |||||
|
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. | |||||