This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-12-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery whose primary function 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.[114] Since depositions are principally made available to the parties as a means of informing themselves of all the relevant facts, depositions are not meant as substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness. Generally, the deponent must be presented for oral examination in open court at the trial or hearing. This is a requirement of the rules on evidence under Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.[115] | |||||
|
2008-10-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| used without the deponent being actually called to the witness stand.[11] 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.[12] | |||||
|
2006-10-12 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the Court has not hesitated to affirm the dismissals of complaints or the allowance of plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte on account of the absence of a party during pre-trial. In United Coconut Planters Bank v. Magpayo,[27] the complaint was dismissed because although the counsel for complainant was present during the pre-trial hearing, the Court affirmed such dismissal on account of said counsel's failure to present any special power of attorney authorizing him to represent the complainant during pre-trial.[28] In Jonathan Landoil International Co. v. Mangudadatu,[29] the defendant and its counsel failed to appear during pre-trial, and the complainants were allowed to present evidence ex parte. After an adverse decision was rendered against the defendant, it filed a motion for new trial in which it cited the illness of defendant's counsel as the reason for his non-appearance during pre-trial. While the Court acknowledged that such argument was not a proper ground for a motion for new trial, it also noted that the appearance of the defendant during pre-trial was also mandatory, and that the defendant failed to justify its own absence during pre-trial.[30] | |||||