Case Digest Rules in Civil Procedure

8/17/2019 Case Digest Rules in Civil Procedure

1/47

RULES 23 – 32:

DASMARIÑAS GARMENTS, INC., petitioner,vs.HON. RUBEN T. REYES, Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila,Branch 50, and AMERICAN RE!I"ENT #INE!, #T"., respondents.$.R. No. %0&''( August '), %((*

FACTS: A+erican resident #ines A#- instituted an actionagainst "as+a to recover the su+ o /! 5*,''&.)5 as 1ell asan a+ount e2uivalent to t1ent34ve percent '56- thereo asattorne37s ees and litigation e8penses

A# led a +otion during the hearing pra3ing that it intended tota9e the depositions o :. #ee and ;eong e issued addressed to the consul, vice4consulor consular agent o the Repu>lic o the hilippines in Taipei . . .=

eing in lieuthereo an o?ce set up >3 the resident =presentl3 occupied >3"irector Joa2uin Roces 1hich is the Asia E8change Center, Inc.,=it 1as necessar3 @ and it thereore pra3ed @ =that co++issionor letters rogator3 >e issued addressed to "irector Joa2uinRoces, E8ecutive "irector, Asian E8ecutive E8change Center,

Inc., Roo+ (0%, %%' Chunghsiao, E. Road, !ection %, Taipei,Repu>lic o China, to hear and ta9e the oral deposition o theaorena+ed persons.

"as+a opposed the +otion on the groundsa- the +otion 1as =atall3 deective in that it does not see9 . . .that a oreign court e8a+ine a person 1ithin its urisdiction=>- issuance o letters rogator3 1as unnecessar3 >ecause the1itnesses =can >e e8a+ined >eore the hilippine Court= andc- the Rules o Court =e8pressl3 re2uire that the testi+on3 o a1itness +ust >e ta9en orall3 in open court and not >3deposition.=

#ater on, AC su>+itted the D to the RTCa- the letter received >3 its counsel ro+ "irector Joa2uin R.Roces o the Asian E8change Center, Inc., dated Nove+>er '0,%(&(, advising that =this ?ce can onl3 ta9e deposition uponprevious authorit3 ro+ the "epart+ent o eing =in consonance 1ith the !upre+e Court Ad+inistrativerder re2uiring courts or udicial >odies to course their re2ueststhrough the "epart+ent o - a letter sent >3 =a8= to the sa+e counsel >3 a la1 r+ in Taipei, #in F Associates Mariti+e #a1 ?ce, trans+ittinginor+ation inter alia o the +ode >3 1hich, under the =Rules o Court Civil rocedure Code,= =a cop3 or an a>ridged cop3= o docu+ents on le 1ith a Tai1an Court +a3 >e o>tained.

The RTC ruled in avor o AC and opined that =the AsianE8change Center, Inc. >eing the authoriGed hilippinerepresentative in Tai1an, +a3 ta9e the testi+onies o plaintiD7s1itnesses residing there >3 deposition, >ut onl3 upon 1ritteninterrogatories so as to give deendant the opportunit3 to cross4e8a+ine the 1itnesses >3 serving cross4e8a+ination.=

n appeal, the CA a?r+ed the trial court.

ISSUES HN Asia E8change Center, Inc. +a3 properl3 >eauthoriGed to ta9e depositions

HELD: ;es. "epositions are chie3 a +ode o discover3. The3are intended as a +eans to co+pel disclosure o acts resting inthe 9no1ledge o a part3 or other person 1hich are relevant inso+e suit or proceeding in court. Deposiio!s, "!# $e o$e%&o#es o' #is(o)e%* interrogatories to parties re2uests orad+ission >3 adverse part3 production or inspection o docu+ents or things ph3sical and +ental e8a+ination o persons- "%e &e"! o e!"+e " p"%* o e"%! " $e&"e%i" "!# %ee)"! '"(s, !o o!* -!o! o $i& "!#$is i!esses +/ "so $ose -!o! o $e "#)e%se p"%*

"!# $e "e%0s o! i!esses. In ne, $e o+1e( o#is(o)e%* is o &"-e i possi+e 'o% " $e p"%ies o "("se o e"%! " $e &"e%i" "!# %ee)"! '"(s, '%o&$oe)e% &"* $")e -!oe#e $e%eo', o $e e!# $"$ei% pe"#i!s o% &oio!s &"* !o s/e% '%o&i!"#e4/"(* o' '"(/" 'o/!#"io!, "!# " $e %ee)"!'"(s &"* +e (e"%* "!# (o&pee* "i# +e'o%e $eCo/%, i$o/ o&issio! o% s/pp%essio!.

"epositions are principall3 +ade availa>le >3 la1 to the partiesas a +eans o inor+ing the+selves o all the relevant acts$e* "%e !o $e%e'o%e e!e%"* &e"! o +e " s/+si/e

'o% $e "(/" esi&o!* i! ope! (o/% o' " p"%* o%i!ess. T$e #epo!e! &/s "s " %/e +e p%ese!e# 'o%o%" e5"&i!"io! i! ope! (o/% " $e %i" o% $e"%i! This is a re2uire+ent o the rules o evidence.

Indeed, an3 deposition oDered to prove the acts therein set outduring a trial or hearing, in lieu o the actual oral testi+on3 othe deponent in open court, +a3 >e opposed and e8cluded onthe ground that it is hearsa3 the part3 against 1ho+ it isoDered has no opportunit3 to cross4e8a+ine the deponent at theti+e that his testi+on3 is oDered. It +atters not that thaopportunit3 or cross4e8a+ination 1as aDorded during theta9ing o the deposition or nor+all3, the opportunit3 or crosse8a+ination +ust >e accorded a part3 at the ti+e that thetesti+onial evidence is actuall3 presented against hi+ duringthe trial or hearing.

:o1ever, depositions +a3 >e used 1ithout the deponent >eingactuall3 called to the 1itness stand >3 the proponent, undecertain conditions and or certain li+ited purposes. Thesee8ceptional situations are governed >3 !ection ), Rule ') o theRules o Court.

The principle conceding ad+issi>ilit3 to a deposition 1hen thedeponent is dead, out o the hilippines, or other1ise una>le toco+e to court to testi3, is consistent 1ith another rule oevidence, ound in !ection )K, Rule %*' o the Rules o Court.

!ec. )K. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. @ Thetesti+on3 or deposition o a 1itness deceased or una>le totesti3, given in a or+er case or proceeding, udicial oad+inistrative, involving the sa+e parties and su>ect +atter+a3 >e given in evidence against the adverse part3 1ho hadthe opportunit3 to cross4e8a+ine hi+.

I is "pp"%e! $e! $" $e #eposiio! o' "!* pe%so! &"*+e "-e! $e%e)e% $e &"* +e, i! $e 6$iippi!es o%"+%o"#. I the part3 or 1itness is in the hilippines, hisdeposition =shall >e ta9en >eore an3 udge, +unicipal or notar3pu>lic= !ec. %0, Rule '), Rules o Court-. I in a oreign state orcountr3, the deposition =shall >e ta9en a- on notice >eore asecretar3 or e+>ass3 or legation, consul general, consul, viceconsul, or consular agent o the Repu>lic o the hilippines, or>- >eore such person or o?cer as +a3 >e appointed >3co++ission or under letters rogator3= !ec. %%, Rule ')-.

#eave o court is not necessar3 1here the deposition is to >eta9en >eore =a secretary or embassy or legation, consugeneral, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of

the Philippines,= and the deendant7s ans1er has alread3 >eenserved !ec. % Rule ')-. Ater ans1er, 1hether the deposition4ta9ing is to >e acco+plished 1ithin the hilippines or outsidethe la1 does not authoriGe or conte+plate an3 intervention >3the court in the process, all that is re2uired >eing tha=reasona>le notice= >e given =in 1riting to ever3 other part3 tothe action . . . stating- the ti+e and place or ta9ing thedeposition and the na+e and address o each person to >ee8a+ined, i 9no1n, and i the na+e is not 9no1n, a generadescription su?cient to identi3 hi+ or the particular class ogroup to 1hich he >elongs. . . . = !ec. %5, Rule ')-. The courtintervenes in the process onl3 i a part3 +oves %- to =enlarge orshorten the ti+e= stated in the notice id.-, or '- =upon noticeand or good cause sho1n,= to prevent the deposition4ta9ing, oi+pose conditions thereor, e.g., that =certain +atters shall not>e in2uired into= or that the ta9ing >e =held 1ith no one presen

%


2/47

e8cept the parties to the action and their o?cers or counsel,=etc. !ec. %L, Rule ')-, or*- to ter+inate the process on +otion and upon a sho1ing that=it is >eing conducted in >ad aith or in such +anner asunreasona>l3 to anno3, e+>arrass, or oppress the deponent orpart3= !ec %&, Rule ')-.

7$e%e $e #eposiio! is o +e "-e! i! " 'o%ei! (o/!%*$e%e $e 6$iippi!es $"s !o 8se(%e"%* o% e&+"ss* o%e"io!, (o!s/ e!e%", (o!s/, )i(e9(o!s/, o% (o!s/"%"e!,8 $e! o+)io/s* i &"* +e "-e! o!* 8+e'o%e s/($pe%so! o% o(e% "s &"* +e "ppoi!e# +* (o&&issio! o%

/!#e% ee%s %o"o%*.

A (o&&issio! +a3 >e dened as 8;"e# i! " ("/sepe!#i! +e'o%e $e 'o%&e%, " i!ess $o is i$i! $e

1/%is#i(io! o' $e 1/#e o% (o/% o $o& s/($ ee%s"%e "##%esse#=. !ection %', Rule ') ust 2uoted states that aco++ission is addressed to =o?cers . . . designated . . . either>3 na+e or descriptive title,= 1hile letters rogator3 areaddressed to so+e =appropriate udicial authorit3 in the oreign

state.= Note1orth3 in this connection is the indication in theRules that letters rogator3 +a3 >e applied or and issued onl3ater a co++ission has >een =returned unexecuted= as isapparent ro+ e availed o >eore the actionco+es to trial.= Not so. Deposiio!s &"* +e "-e! " "!*i&e "'e% $e i!si/io! o' "!* "(io!, $e!e)e!e(ess"%* o% (o!)e!ie!. T$e%e is !o %/e $" i&is#eposiio!9"-i! o!* o $e pe%io# o' p%e9%i" o% +e'o%ei? !o p%o$i+iio! ""i!s $e "-i! o' #eposiio!s "'e%p%e9%i"l. Indeed, the la1 authoriGes the ta9ing o depositions o1itnesses >eore or ater an appeal is ta9en ro+ the udg+ento a Regional Trial Court =to perpetuate their testi+on3 or use inthe event o urther proceedings in the said court= Rule %*),Rules o Court-, and even during the process o e8ecution o anal and e8ecutor3 udg+ent East Asiatic Co. v. C.I.R., )0 !CRA5'%, 5))-.

"as+ariOas urther clai+s that the ta9ing o deposition undethe circu+stances is a =departure ro+ the accepted and usua udicial proceedings o e8a+ining 1itnesses in open court 1herethe de+eanor could >e o>served >3 the trial udge= that it is=inherentl3 unair= to allo1 A#, =a oreign entit3 suing in thehilippines, to present its evidence >3 +ere deposition o its1itnesses a1a3 ro+ the 7penetrating scrutin37 o the trial Judge1hile petitioner is o>ligated to >ring and present its 1itnesses inopen court su>ect to the pr3ing e3es and pro>ing 2uestions othe Judge.=

course the deposition4ta9ing in the case at >ar is a=departure ro+ the accepted and usual udicial proceedings oe8a+ining 1itnesses in open court 1here their de+eanor could>e o>served >3 the trial udge= >ut the procedure is not on thataccount rendered illegal nor is the deposition there>3 ta9eninad+issi>le. I p%e(ise* '"s i$i! o!e o' $e e5(epio!s$e%e $e " pe%&is s/($ " si/"io!, i.e., $e /se o'#eposiio! i! ie/ o' $e "(/" "ppe"%"!(e "!#esi&o!* o' $e #epo!e! i! ope! (o/% "!# i$o/+ei! 8s/+1e( o $e p%*i! e*es "!# p%o+i! 4/esio!so' $e @/#e.8 This is allo1ed provided the deposition is ta9enin accordance 1ith the applica>le provisions o the Rules oCourt and the e8istence o an3 o the e8ceptions or itsad+issi>ilit3 @ e.g., =that the 1itness i out o the province andat a greater distance than t3 50- 9ilo+eters ro+ the place otrial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless it appearsthat his a>sence 1as procured >3 the part3 oDering thedeposition or . . . that the 1itness is una>le to attend to testi3>ecause o age, sic9ness, inr+it3, or i+prison+ent, etc.= !ec) Rule '), supra, e+phasis supplied- @ is rst satisactoril3esta>lished !ee #opeG v. Maceren, (5 hil. K5)-.

The Regional Trial Court sa1 t to per+it the ta9ing o thedepositions o the 1itnesses in 2uestion onl3 >3 1ritteninterrogatories, re+oving the proponent7s option to ta9e the+>3 oral e8a+ination, i.e., >3 going to Taipei and actuall32uestioning the 1itnesses ver>all3 1ith the 2uestions andans1ers and o>servations o the parties >eing recordedstenographicall3. The i+position o such a li+itation, and thedeter+ination o the cause thereo, are to >e sure 1ithin theCourt7s discretion. The ostensi>le reason given >3 the Trial Courtor the condition @ that the deposition >e ta9en =onl3 upon1ritten interrogatories= @ is =so as to give deendant"as+ariOas- the opportunit3 to cross4e8a+ine the 1itnesses >3serving cross4interrogatories.= The state+ent i+plies thaopportunit3 to cross4e8a+ine 1ill not >e accorded the deendanti the depositions 1ere to >e ta9en upon oral e8a+ination1hich, o course, is not true.


3/47

>e ta9en on oral e8a+ination in Taipei, the adverse part3 is stillaccorded ull right to cross4e8a+ine the deponents >3 the la1,either >3 proceeding to Taipei and there conducting the cross4e8a+ination orall3, or opting to conduct said cross4e8a+ination+erel3 >3 serving cross4interrogatories.

HARRY L. GO, TNN; N$, JERR; N$ AN" JANE $,etitioners,vs. THE 6EO6LE OF THE 6HILI66INES and :I$:"NE CMAN;,#T"., ET A#., Respondents.G.R. No. !""#$ %uly !, #&#

The procedure for ta'ing depositions in criminal casesrecognizes the prosecution(s right to preserve testimonialevidence and prove its case despite the unavailability of its)itness. *t cannot, ho)ever, give license to prosecutorialindi+erence or unseemly involvement in a prosecution )itness(absence from trial. To rule other)ise )ould e+ectively deprivethe accused of his fundamental right to be confronted )ith the)itnesses against him.

FACTS: etitioners 1ere charged 1ith ther "eceits under Art*%& o RC >eore MeTC Manila and pleaded not guilt3.

Trial dates 1ere postponed due to the unavaila>ilit3 o privateco+plainant #i #uen ing, a rail old >usiness+an ro+ #aos,Ca+>odia.

The rosecution led a Motion to Ta9e ral "eposition o #i #uening, alleging that he 1as >eing treated or lung inection at theCa+>odia Charit3 :ospital in #aos, Ca+>odia and that, upondoctor7s advice, he could not +a9e the long travel to thehilippines >3 reason o ill health.

The MTC granted the +otion. N certiorari, the RTC reversed theMTC. :olding that !ection %K, Rule '* on the ta9ing o depositions o 1itnesses in civil cases cannot appl3 suppletoril3to the case since there is a specic provision in the Rules o Court 1ith respect to the ta9ing o depositions o prosecution1itnesses in cri+inal cases, 1hich is pri+aril3 intended tosaeguard the constitutional rights o the accused to +eet the1itness against hi+ ace to ace.

n appeal, the CA reversed the RTC holding that no grave a>useo discretion can >e i+puted upon the MeTC or allo1ing thedeposition4ta9ing o the co+plaining 1itness #i #uen ing>ecause no rule o procedure e8pressl3 disallo1s the ta9ing o depositions in cri+inal cases and that, in an3 case, petitioners1ould still have ever3 opportunit3 to cross4e8a+ine theco+plaining 1itness and +a9e ti+el3 o>ections during theta9ing o the oral deposition either through counsel or throughthe consular o?cer 1ho 1ould >e ta9ing the deposition o the1itness.

ISSUES HN the ta9ing o deposition o private co+plainant1ould >e a violation o petitioenrPs right to a pu>lic trial and tocongront the 1itness ace to ace

HELD: ;es. T$e 6%o(e#/%e 'o% Tesi&o!i" E5"&i!"io! o' "! U!")"i"+e 6%ose(/io! 7i!ess is Co)e%e# /!#e%

Se(io! , R/e .

T$e e5"&i!"io! o' i!esses &/s +e #o!e o%"* +e'o%e" 1/#e i! ope! (o/%. T$is is %/e espe(i"* i! (%i&i!"("ses $e%e $e Co!si/io! se(/%es o $e "((/se# $is%i$ o " p/+i( %i" "!# o &ee $e i!essess ""i!s$i& '"(e o '"(e. The re2uire+ent is the =saest and +ostsatisactor3 +ethod o investigating acts= as it ena>les the udge to test the 1itness7 credi>ilit3 through his +anner anddeport+ent 1hile testi3ing. It is not 1ithout e8ceptions,ho1ever, as the Rules o Court recogniGes the conditionale8a+ination o 1itnesses and the use o their depositions astesti+onial evidence in lieu o direct court testi+on3.

Even in cri+inal proceedings, there is no dou>t as to theavaila>ilit3 o (o!#iio!" e5"&i!"io! o' i!esses Q >oth

or the >enet o the deense, as 1ell as the prosecution. TheCourt7s ruling in the case o da. de Manguerra v. Risos e8plicitl3states that Q

=8 8 8 As e8ceptions, Rule '* to '& o the Rules o Court provideor the diDerent +odes o discover3 that +a3 >e resorted to >3a part3 to an action. These rules are adopted either toperpetuate the testi+onies o 1itnesses or as +odes odiscover3. In cri+inal proceedings, !ections %', %* and %5, Rule%%( o the Revised Rules o Cri+inal rocedure, 1hich too9eDect on "ece+>er %, '000, allo1 the conditional e8a+inationo >oth the deense and prosecution 1itnesses.= /nderscoring

supplied-

The procedure under Rule '* to '& o the Rules o Court allo1sthe ta9ing o depositions in civil cases, either upon orae8a+ination or 1ritten interrogatories, >eore an3 udge, notar3pu>lic or person authoriGed to ad+inister oaths at an3 ti+e orplace 1ithin the hilippines or >eore an3 hilippine consularo?cial, co++issioned o?cer or person authoriGed to ad+inisteroaths in a oreign state or countr3, 1ith no additionare2uire+ent e8cept reasona>le notice in 1riting to the othepart3.

B/ 'o% p/%poses o' "-i! $e #eposiio! i! (%i&i!"("ses, &o%e p"%i(/"%* o' " p%ose(/io! i!ess $oo/# 'o%see"+* +e /!")"i"+e 'o% %i", $e esi&o!i"e5"&i!"io! s$o/# +e &"#e +e'o%e $e (o/%, o% " e"s

+e'o%e $e 1/#e, $e%e $e ("se is pe!#i! "s %e4/i%e#+* $e (e"% &"!#"e o' Se(io! , R/e o' $eRe)ise# R/es o' C%i&i!" 6%o(e#/%e. The pertinenprovision reads thus

!EC. %5. E8a+ination o 1itness or the prosecution. Q Hhen itsatisactoril3 appears that a 1itness or the prosecution is toosic9 or inr+ to appear at the trial as directed >3 the court, orhas to leave the hilippines 1ith no denite date o returning, he+a3 orth1ith >e conditionall3 e8a+ined >eore the court 1herethe case is pending. !uch e8a+ination, in the presence o theaccused, or in his a>sence ater reasona>le notice to attend thee8a+ination has >een served on hi+ shall >e conducted in thesa+e +anner as an e8a+ination at the trial. econsidered a 1aiver. The state+ent ta9en +a3 >e ad+itted in>ehal o or against the accused.

!ince $e (o!#iio!" e5"&i!"io! o' " p%ose(/io!i!ess &/s "-e p"(e " !o o$e% p"(e $"! $e (o/%$e%e $e ("se is pe!#i!, the RTC properl3 nullied theMeTC7s orders granting the +otion to ta9e the deposition o ##uen ing >eore the hilippine consular o?cial in #aosCa+>odia. He 2uote 1ith approval the RTC7s ratiocination in this1ise

The condition o the private co+plainant >eing sic9 and oadvanced age alls 1ithin the provision o !ection %5 Rule %%( othe Rules o Court. :o1ever, said rule su>stantiall3 provides thathe should >e conditionall3 e8a+ined >eore the court 1here thecase is pending. Thus, this Court concludes that the language o!ection %5 Rule %%( +ust >e interpreted to re2uire the parties topresent testi+on3 at the hearing through live 1itnesses, 1hose

de+eanor and credi>ilit3 can >e evaluated >3 the udgepresiding at the hearing, rather than >3 +eans o deposition. No1here in the said rule per+its the ta9ing o deposition outsidethe hilippines 1hether the deponent is sic9 onot. /nderscoring supplied-

Certainl3, to ta9e the deposition o the prosecution 1itnesselse1here and not >eore the ver3 sa+e court 1here the case ispending 1ould not onl3 deprive a detained accused o his rightto attend the proceedings >ut also deprive the trial udge o theopportunit3 to o>serve the prosecution 1itness7 deport+ent andproperl3 assess his credi>ilit3, 1hich is especiall3 intolera>le1hen the 1itness7 testi+on3 is crucial to the prosecution7s caseagainst the accused. This is the i+port o the Court7s ruling inda. de Manguerra 1here 1e urther declared that Q

*


4/47

Hhile 1e recogniGe the prosecution7s right to preserve thetesti+on3 o its 1itness in order to prove its case, 1e cannotdisregard the rules 1hich are designed +ainl3 or the protectiono the accused7s constitutional rights. T$e i)i! o' esi&o!*#/%i! %i" is $e e!e%" %/e. T$e (o!#iio!"e5"&i!"io! o' " i!ess o/si#e o' $e %i" is o!* "!e5(epio!, "!# "s s/($, ("s 'o% " s%i( (o!s%/(io! o' $e %/es.

The Conditional Examination of a Prosecution WitnessCannot Defeat the Rights of the Accused to Public Trial and Confrontation of Witnesses.

The CA too9 a si+plistic vie1 on the use o depositions incri+inal cases and overloo9ed unda+ental considerations noless than the Constitution secures to the accused, i.e., the rightto a pu>lic trial and the right to conrontation o 1itnesses.

In dis+issing petitioners7 apprehensions concerning thedeprivation o their constitutional rights to a pu>lic trial andconrontation, the CA opined that petitioners 1ould still >eaccorded the right to cross4e8a+ine the deponent 1itness andraise their o>ections during the deposition4ta9ing in the sa+e+anner as in a regular court trial.

He disagree. There is a great deal o diDerence >et1een theace4to4 ace conrontation in a pu>lic cri+inal trial in thepresence o the presiding udge and the cross4e8a+ination o a

1itness in a oreign place outside the courtroo+ in the a>senceo a trial udge. In the aptl3 cited case o eople v. EstenGo, theCourt noted the uni2ueness and signicance o a 1itnesstesti3ing in open court.

As the right o conrontation is intended =to secure the accusedin the right to >e tried as ar as acts prova>le >3 1itnesses as+eet hi+ ace to ace at the trial 1ho give their testi+on3 in hispresence, and give to the accused an opportunit3 o cross4e8a+ination,= it is properl3 vie1ed as a guarantee against theuse o unrelia>le testi+on3 in cri+inal trials.

CONCE6CION CUENCO DA. DE MANGUERRA and T:E :N.RAMN C. C"I##A, JR., residing Judge o the Regional TrialCourt o Ce>u Cit3, Branch %(, petitioners,vs.RAUL RISOS, !/!ANA ;N$C, #EA: ABARS/E and ATT;.$AMA#IE# ".B. BNJE, respondents.G.R. No. "# /ugust #!, #&&!

FACTS: Respondents 1ere charged 1ith Estaa Throughlic "ocu+ent >eore RTC Ce>u 1hich arosero+ the alsication o a deed o real estate +ortgage allegedl3co++itted >3 respondents 1here the3 +ade it appear thatConcepcion, the o1ner o the +ortgaged propert3 9no1n as the$orordo propert3, a?8ed her signature to the docu+ent.

etitioner Concepcion 1as then une8pectedl3 conned at theMa9ati Medical Center due to upper gastro4intestinal >leedingand 1as advised to sta3 in Manila or urther treat+ent.

Respondents led a Motion or !uspension o the roceedings inCri+inal Case No. CB/45'')& on the ground o preudicial

2uestion.

The3 argued that Civil Case No. CEB4'0*5(, 1hich 1as an actionor declaration o nullit3 o the +ortgage, should rst >eresolved 1hich 1as granted >3 the RTC.

The certiorari led to 2uestion said order is still pending 1henthe case 1as elevated to the !C.

ConcepcionPs counsel led a +otion >eore the RTC to ta9e herdeposition e8plaining the need to perpetuate ConcepcionPstesti+on3 due to her ph3sical condition and old age, 1hichli+ited her reedo+ o +o>ilit3 Q 1hich 1as granted >3 the RTC.

Ater several +otions or change o venue o the depositionta9ing, ConcepcionPs deposition 1as nall3 ta9en on March ('00% at her residence

n certiorari, the CA reversed the RTC holding that there 1as adeect in the respondentsP petition >3 not i+pleading the eopleo the hilippines, an indispensa>le part3. This not1ithstandingthe appellate court resolved the +atter on its +erit, declaringthat the e8a+ination o prosecution 1itnesses, as in the presencase, is governed >3 !ection %5, Rule %%( o the Revised Ruleso Cri+inal rocedure and not Rule '* o the Rules o Court. Thelatter provision, said the appellate court, onl3 applies to civi

cases. ursuant to the specic provision o !ection %5, Rule %%(,ConcepcionPs deposition should have >een ta9en >eore the udge or the court 1here the case is pending, 1hich is the RTC oCe>u, and not >eore the Cler9 o Court o Ma9ati Cit3 and thusin issuing the assailed order, the RTC clearl3 co++itted gravea>use o discretion.

ISSUES: HN Rule '* on depositions in civil actions +a3 appl3in the present cri+inal action

HELD: No. I is +"si( $" " i!esses s$" i)e $ei%esi&o!ies " $e %i" o' $e ("se i! $e p%ese!(e o' $e

1/#e. T$is is espe(i"* %/e i! (%i&i!" ("ses i! o%#e%$" ;< $e "((/se# &"* +e "o%#e# $e oppo%/!i* o(%oss9e5"&i!e $e i!esses p/%s/"! o $is(o!si/io!" %i$ o (o!'%o! $e i!esses '"(e o

'"(e. ;2< I "so i)es $e p"%ies "!# $ei% (o/!se $e($"!(e o p%opo/!# s/($ 4/esio!s "s $e* #ee&&"e%i" "!# !e(ess"%* o s/ppo% $ei% posiio! o% oes $e (%e#i+ii* o' s"i# i!esses. ;3< L"s*, $is %/ee!"+es $e 1/#e o o+se%)e $e i!esses #e&e"!o%.

This rule, ho1ever, is not a>solute. As exceptions, R/es 23o 2 o' $e R/es o' Co/% p%o)i#e 'o% $e #ie%e!&o#es o' #is(o)e%* $" &"* +e %eso%e# o +* " p"%* o"! "(io!. T$ese %/es "%e "#ope# ei$e% o pe%pe/"e$e esi&o!ies o' i!esses o% "s &o#es o' #is(o)e%* . Incri+inal proceedings, !ections %', %* and %5, Rule %%( o theRevised Rules o Cri+inal rocedure, 1hich too9 eDect on"ece+>er %, '000, allo1 the conditional e8a+ination o >oththe deense and prosecution 1itnesses.

In the case at >ench, in issue is the e8a+ination o aprosecution 1itness, 1ho, according to the petitioners, 1as toosic9 to travel and appear >eore the trial court. !ection %5 oRule %%( thus co+es into pla3.

etitioners contend that ConcepcionPs advanced age and healthcondition e8e+pt her ro+ the application o !ection %5, Rule%%( o the Rules o Cri+inal rocedure, and thus, calls or theapplication o Rule '* o the Rules o Civil rocedure.

The contention does not persuade.

T$e )e%* %e"so! oe%e# +* $e peiio!e%s o e5e&pCo!(ep(io! '%o& $e (o)e%"e o' R/e is " o!(e $e%o/!# $i($ p"(es $e% s4/"%e* i$i! $e (o)e%"e o'$e s"&e p%o)isio!. Rule %%( specicall3 states that a 1itness+a3 >e conditionall3 e8a+ined

%- i the 1itness is oo si(- o% i!>%& o "ppe"% at the trial or'- i the 1itness $"s o e")e $e 6$iippi!es 1ith no denitedate o returning.

Thus, 1hen Concepcion +oved that her deposition >e ta9enhad she not >een too sic9 at that ti+e, her +otion 1ould have>een denied. Instead o conditionall3 e8a+ining her outside thetrial court, she 1ould have >een co+pelled to appear >eore thecourt or e8a+ination during the trial proper.

/ndou>tedl3, the procedure set orth in Rule %%( applies to thecase at >ar. It is thus re2uired that the conditional e8a+ination>e +ade before the court )here the case is pending. It is alsonecessar3 that the accused >e notied, so that he can attendthe e8a+ination, su>ect to his right to 1aive the sa+e ater

)


5/47

reasona>le notice. As to the +anner o e8a+ination, the Rules+andate that it >e conducted in the sa+e +anner as ane8a+ination during trial, that is, through 2uestion and ans1er.

/nli9e an e8a+ination o a deense 1itness 1hich, pursuant to!ection 5, Rule %%( o the previous Rules, and no1 !ection %*,Rule %%( o the present Revised Rules o Cri+inal rocedure,+a3 >e ta9en >eore an3 =udge, or, i not practica>le, a+e+>er o the Bar in good standing so designated >3 the udgein the order, or, i the order >e +ade >3 a court o superior urisdiction, >eore an inerior court to >e designated therein,=$e e5"&i!"io! o' " i!ess 'o% $e p%ose(/io! /!#e%

Se(io! o' $e Re)ise# R/es o' C%i&i!" 6%o(e#/%e;De(e&+e% , 2< &"* +e #o!e o!* 8+e'o%e $e (o/%$e%e $e ("se is pe!#i!.=

Rule %%( categoricall3 states that the conditional e8a+ination o a prosecution 1itness shall >e +ade >eore the court 1here thecase is pending. Contrar3 to petitionersP contention, there isnothing in the rule 1hich +a3 re+otel3 >e interpreted to +eanthat such re2uire+ent applies onl3 to cases 1here the 1itness is1ithin the urisdiction o said court and not 1hen he is9ilo+eters a1a3, as in the present case. Thereore, the court+a3 not introduce e8ceptions or conditions. Neither +a3 itengrat into the la1 or the Rules- 2ualications notconte+plated. Hhen the 1ords are clear and categorical, thereis no roo+ or interpretation. There is onl3 roo+ or application.

etitioners urther insist that Rule '* applies to the instant case,>ecause the rules on civil procedure appl3 suppletoril3 tocri+inal cases.

It is true that !ection *, Rule % o the Rules o Court providesthat the rules o civil procedure appl3 to all actions, civil orcri+inal, and special proceedings. In eDect, it sa3s that the ruleso civil procedure have suppletor3 application to cri+inal cases.:o1ever, it is li9e1ise true that $e (%i&i!" p%o(ee#i!s "%ep%i&"%i* o)e%!e# +* $e Re)ise# R/es o' C%i&i!"6%o(e#/%e. Co!si#e%i! $" R/e "#e4/"e* "!#s4/"%e* (o)e%s $e si/"io! i! $e i!s"! ("se, e >!#!o (oe! %e"so! o "pp* R/e 23 s/ppeo%i* o%o$e%ise.

To reiterate, the conditional e8a+ination o a prosecution1itness or the purpose o ta9ing his deposition should >e +ade>eore the court, or at least >eore the udge, 1here the case ispending. !uch is the clear +andate o !ection %5, Rule %%( o the Rules. He nd no necessit3 to depart ro+, or to rela8, thisrule. As correctl3 held >3 the CA, i the deposition is +adeelse1here, the accused +a3 not >e a>le to attend, as 1hen heis under detention. More i+portantl3, this re2uire+ent ensuresthat the udge 1ould >e a>le to o>serve the 1itnessPdeport+ent to ena>le hi+ to properl3 assess his credi>ilit3. Thisis especiall3 true 1hen the 1itnessP testi+on3 is crucial to theprosecutionPs case.

Hhile 1e recogniGe the prosecutionPs right to preserve its1itnessP testi+on3 to prove its case, 1e cannot disregard rules1hich are designed +ainl3 or the protection o the accusedPsconstitutional rights. The giving o testi+on3 during trial is thegeneral rule. The conditional e8a+ination o a 1itness outside o

the trial is onl3 an e8ception, and as such, calls or a strictconstruction o the rules.

6EO6LE OF THE 6HILI66INES, petitioner,vs.HUBERT @EFFREY 6. 7EBB, respondent.G.R. No. #"$$. /ugust $, 000

FACTS: He>> 1as the accused in the cri+inal case entitledeople vs. He>> then pending >eore RTC arana2ue.

"uring the proceedings, He>> led a Motion To Ta9e Testi+on3B3 ral "eposition, pra3ing that he >e allo1ed to ta9e thetesti+onies o certain persons >ased in /! >eore the generalconsul, consul, vice4consul or consular agent o the hilippinesin lieu o presenting the+ as 1itnesses in court alleging that the

said persons are all residents o the /nited !tates and +a3 notthereore >e co+pelled >3 su>poena to testi3 since the courthad no urisdiction over the+.

The rosecution led its opposition, alleging, a+ong others thaRule '), !ec. ) o the Rules o Court has no application incri+inal cases that Rule %%(, !ec. ), >eing a +ode o discover3,onl3 provides or conditional e8a+ination o 1itnesses or theaccused >eore trial and not during trial and that conditionae8a+ination o 1itnesses outside the hilippine urisdiction isnot sanctioned under !ec. 5 o Rule %((.

The RTC denied the +otion o He>>. n certiorari, the CAreversed the RTC.

ISSUE: HN Rule '* is applica>le in cri+inal cases

HELD: No. As dened, a deposition is @

T$e esi&o!* o' " i!ess "-e! /po! o%" 4/esio! o%%ie! i!e%%o"o%ies, !o i! ope! (o/%, +/ i!p/%s/"!(e o' " (o&&issio! o "-e esi&o!* iss/e# +*(o/%, o% /!#e% " e!e%" " o% (o/% %/e o! $es/+1e(, "!# %e#/(e o %ii! "!# #/* "/$e!i("e#"!# i!e!#e# o +e /se# i! p%ep"%"io! "!# /po! $e%i" o' " (i)i o% " (%i&i!" p%ose(/io!. A p%e%i"#is(o)e%* #e)i(e +* $i($ o!e p"%* ;$%o/$ $is o% $e%"o%!e*< "s- o%" 4/esio!s o' $e o$e% p"%* o% o' "

i!ess 'o% $e o$e% p"%*. The person 1ho is deposed iscalled the deponent. The deposition is conducted under oathoutside o the court roo+, usuall3 in one o the la13er7s o?cesA transcript @ 1ord or 1ord account @ is +ade o thedeposition. Testi+on3 o UaV 1itness, ta9en in 1riting, under oathor a?r+ation, >eore so+e udicial o?cer in ans1er to2uestions or interrogatories . .

and the p/%poses o' "-i! #eposiio!s are to%.V $ive greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining thetruth and in chec9ing and preventing perur3'.V rovide an eDective +eans o detecting and e8posing alseraudulent clai+s and deenses*.V Ma9e availa>le in a si+ple, convenient and ine8pensive 1a3,acts 1hich other1ise could not >e proved e8cept 1ith greatdi?cult3).V Educate the parties in advance o trial as to the real value otheir clai+s and deenses there>3 encouraging settle+ents5.V E8pedite litigationL.V !aeguard against surpriseK.V revent dela3&.V !i+pli3 and narro1 the issues and(.V E8pedite and acilitate >oth preparation and trial.As can >e gleaned ro+ the oregoing, " #eposiio!, i!-eepi! i$ is !"/%e "s " &o#e o' #is(o)e%*, s$o/#+e "-e! +e'o%e "!# !o #/%i! %i". In act, rules oncri+inal practice @ particularl3 on the deense o ali>i, 1hich isrespondent7s +ain deense in the cri+inal proceedings againsthi+ in the court >elo1 @ states that $e! " pe%so! i!e!#so %e* o! s/($ " #e'e!se, $" pe%so! &/s &o)e 'o% $e"-i! o' $e #eposiio! o' $is i!esses i$i! $e i&ep%o)i#e# 'o% >i! " p%e9%i" &oio!.

It needs to >e stressed that the onl3 reason o respondent orsee9ing the deposition o the oreign 1itnesses is =to oreclosean3 o>ection andWor reection o, as the case +a3 >e, thead+issi>ilit3 o "eense E8hi>its ='%&= and ='%(=.= This issuehas, ho1ever, long >een rendered +oot and acade+ic >3 thead+ission o the aore+entioned docu+entar3 e8hi>its >3 thetrial court in its order dated Jul3 %0, %((&.

In act, a circu+spect scrutin3 o the record discloses that theevidence to >e o>tained through the deposition4ta9ing 1ould >esuperuous or corro>orative at >est. A careul e8a+ination oE8hi>its ='%&= and ='%(= readil3 sho1s that these are o thesa+e species o docu+ents 1hich have >een previousl3introduced and ad+itted into evidence >3 the trial court in itsorder dated Jul3 %&, %((K 1hich He noted in 1ebb, et al. vPeople of the Philippines, et al. 1herein He pointed out, a+ong

5


6/47

others, =UtVhat respondent udge reversed this erroneous rulingand alread3 ad+itted these %*' pieces o evidence ater ndingthat =the deects in their- ad+issi>ilit3 have >een cured thoughthe introduction o additional evidence during the trial on the+erits=.

It need not >e overe+phasiGed that the oregoing are actualcircu+stances onl3 serves to underscore the i++uta>le actthat the depositions proposed to >e ta9en ro+ the ve /.!.>ased 1itnesses 1ould >e +erel3 corro>orative or cu+ulative innature and in den3ing respondent7s +otion to ta9e the+, thetrial court 1as >ut e8ercising its udg+ent on 1hat it perceived

to >e a superuous e8ercise on the >elie that the introductionthereo 1ill not reasona>l3 add to the persuasiveness o theevidence alread3 on record. In this regard, it >ears stressing thatunder !ection L, Rule %%* o the Revised Rules o Court

!ec. L. Po)er of the court to stop further evidence . @ The court+a3 stop the introduction o urther testi+on3 upon an3particular point 1hen the evidence upon it is alread3 so ull that+ore 1itnesses to the sa+e point cannot >e reasona>l3e8pected to >e additionall3 persuasive. But this po1er should >ee8ercised 1ith caution. e+phasis and italics supplied.-

Needless to state, the trial court can not >e aulted 1ith lac9 o caution in den3ing respondent7s +otion considering that underthe prevailing acts o the case, respondent had +ore thana+ple opportunit3 to adduce evidence in his deense. Certainl3,

a part3 can not eign denial o due process 1here he had theopportunit3 to present his side. It +ust >e >orne in +ind in thisregard that due process is not a +onopol3 o the deense.Indeed, the !tate is entitled to due process as +uch as theaccused. e prosecutedin accordance 1ith the prescri>ed procedure to insure an orderl3and speed3 ad+inistration o ustice.

The use o discover3 procedures is directed to the sounddiscretion o the trial udge. The deposition ta9ing can not >e>ased nor can it >e denied on i+s3 reasons. "iscretion has to>e e8ercised in a reasona>le +anner and in consonance 1iththe spirit o the la1. There is no indication in this case that inden3ing the +otion o respondent4accused, the trial udge actedin a >iased, ar>itrar3, capricious or oppressive +anner. $ravea>use o discretion =. . . i+plies such capricious, and 1hi+sicale8ercise o udg+ent as is e2uivalent to lac9 o urisdiction, or,in other 1ords 1here the po1er is e8ercised in an ar>itrar3 anddespotic +anner >3 reason o passion or personal hostilit3, andit +ust >e so patent and gross as to a+ount to an evasion o positive dut3 or to a virtual reusal to peror+ the dut3 enoinedor to act all in conte+plation o #a1.X

Hhether or not the respondent4accused has >een given a+pleopportunit3 to prove his innocence and 1hether or not a urtherprolongation o proceedings 1ould >e dilator3 is addressed, inthe rst instance, to the sound discretion o the trial udge. I there has >een no grave a>use o discretion, onl3 aterconviction +a3 this Court e8a+ine such +atters urther. It ispointed out that the deense has alread3 presented at least t34seven 5K- 1itnesses and our hundred si8t34our )L)-docu+entar3 e8hi>its, +an3 o the+ o the e8act nature as

those to >e produced or testied to >3 the proposed oreigndeponents. /nder the circu+stances, 1e sustain the propositionthat the trial udge co++its no grave a>use o discretion i shedecide that the evidence on the +atter sought to >e proved inthe /nited !tates could not possi>l3 add an3thing su>stantial tothe deense evidence involved. There is no sho1ing or allegationthat the A+erican pu>lic o?cers and the >ic3cle store o1nercan identi3 respondent :u>ert He>> as the ver3 person+entioned in the pu>lic and private docu+ents. Neither is itsho1n in this petition that the3 9no1, o their o1n personal9no1ledge, a person 1ho+ the3 can identi3 as the respondent4accused 1ho 1as actuall3 present in the /nited !tates and notin the hilippines on the specied dates.

ALLIED AGRI9BUSINESS DEELO6MENT CO., INC.,vs.

COURT OF A66EALS and C:ERR; A##E; er %(&5ad+itted 3our inde>tedness in the su+ o English !terlingounds Y5%,')5.%'.

It is urther re2uested that said s1orn ad+ission >e +ade 1ithin%0 da3s ro+ receipt o this re2uest.

Allied led its Co++entWpposition stating the Da- the ad+issions re2uested 1ere +atters 1hich the privaterespondent had the >urden to prove through its o1n 1itnessduring the trial and thus petitioner need not ans1er and,>- the re2uest or ad+ission regarding the o1nership set4up opetitioner corporation 1as i++aterial and i+proper or nohaving >een pleaded in the co+plaint.

Cherr3 led its Repl3 +aintaining that there 1as no need on itspart to produce a 1itness to testi3 on the +atters re2uested orad+ission, or these pertained to incidents personal to and1ithin the 9no1ledge o petitioner alone.

RTC issued an rder disregarding AlliedPs Co++entWpposition

denied ensuring MR directed the latter to ans1er the re2uestor ad+ission 1ithin a none8tendi>le period o ve 5- da3s ro+receipt o the order and that in vie1 o its non4co+pliance 1ith!ec. ', Rule 'L, o the Rules o Court and directing A##IE" toans1er the re2uest or ad+ission 1ithin ten %0- da3s ro+receipt o the order, other1ise, the +atters contained in there2uest 1ould >e dee+ed ad+itted.

Allied ailed to co+pl3 1ith the order and Cherr3 +oved osu++ar3 udg+ent. The RTC rendered a decision against Alliedn appeal, the CA a?r+ed the RTC.

ISSUE: HN ailure o Allied to ans1er the re2uest oad+ission is an i+plied ad+ission on its part

L


7/47

HELD: ;es. The purpose o the rule governing re2uests orad+ission o acts and genuineness o docu+ents is to e8peditetrial and to relieve parties o the costs o proving acts 1hich 1illnot >e disputed on trial and the truth o 1hich can >eascertained >3 reasona>le in2uir3. E"($ o' $e &"e%s o' $i($ "! "#&issio! is %e4/ese# s$" +e #ee&e#"#&ie# /!ess i$i! " pe%io# #esi!"e# in the re2uest1hich shall not >e less than teen %5- da3s ater servicethereo, or 1ithin such urther ti+e as the court +a3 allo1 on+otion, $e p"%* o $o& $e %e4/es is #i%e(e# >es"!# se%)es /po! $e p"%* %e4/esi! $e "#&issio! "so%! s"e&e! ei$e% #e!*i! spe(i>("* $e &"e%s

o' $i($ "! "#&issio! is %e4/ese# o% sei! 'o%$ i!#e"i $e %e"so!s $* $e ("!!o %/$'/* ei$e% "#&io% #e!* $ose &"e%s.

/pon service o re2uest or ad+ission, the part3 served +a3 doan3 o the ollo1ing actsa- he +a3 ad+it each o the +atters o 1hich an ad+ission isre2uested, in 1hich case, he need not le an ans1er>- he +a3 ad+it the truth o the +atters o 1hich ad+ission isre2uested >3 serving upon the part3 re2uesting a 1rittenad+ission o such +atters 1ithin the period stated in there2uest, 1hich +ust not >e less than ten %0- da3s ater service,or 1ithin such urther ti+e as the court +a3 allo1 on +otionand noticec- he +a3 le a s1orn state+ent. den3ing specicall3 the+atter o 1hich an ad+ission is re2uested or,

d- he +a3 le a s1orn state+ent setting orth in detail thereasons 1h3 he cannot truthull3 either ad+it or den3 the+atters o 1hich an ad+ission is re2uested.

The records sho1 that although petitioner led 1ith the trialcourt its co++ents and o>ections to the re2uest or ad+issionserved on it >3 private respondent, the trial court disregardedthe o>ections and directed petitioner ater den3ing its +otionor reconsideration, to ans1er the re2uest 1ithin ve 5- da3sro+ receipt o the directive other1ise, the +atters o 1hich thead+ission 1as re2uested 1ould >e dee+ed ad+itted.6eiio!e% '"ie# o s/+&i $e %e4/i%e# "!se% i$i!$e pe%io#. T$e &"e%s se 'o%$ i! $e %e4/es e%e$e%e'o%e #ee&e# "#&ie# +* peiio!e%,

T$e +/%#e! o' "%&"i)e "(io! is o! $e p"%* /po!$o& !oi(e is se%)e# o ")oi# $e "#&issio! %"$e%$"! /po! $e p"%* see-i! $e "#&issio!. He!(e, $e!peiio!e% '"ie# o %ep* o " %e4/es o "#&i, i &"*!o "%/e $" $e "#)e%se p"%* $"s $e +/%#e! o' p%o)i! $e '"(s so/$ o +e "#&ie#. 6eiio!e%0ssie!(e is "! "#&issio! o' $e '"(s s"e# i! $e%e4/es.

This Court nds that the +otion or su++ar3 udg+ent led >3respondent C:ERR; A##E; on the ground that $e%e e%e !o4/esio!s o' '"( i! iss/e si!(e $e &"e%i" "e"io!so' $e (o&p"i! e%e !o #isp/e# 1as correctl3 granted>3 the trial court. It is a settled rule that su++ar3 udg+ent+a3 >e granted i the acts 1hich stand ad+itted >3 reason o apart37s ailure to den3 state+ents contained in a re2uest orad+ission sho1 that no +aterial issue o act e8ists. B3 itsailure to ans1er the other part37s re2uest or ad+ission,

petitioner has ad+itted all the +aterial acts necessar3 or udg+ent against itsel.

S6OUSES ICENTE AFULUGENCIA "!# LETICIAAFULUGENCIA, etitioners,vs.METRO6OLITAN BAN TRUST CO. and EMMAN/E# #.RTE$A, Cler9 o Court, Regional Trial Court and E84?cio!heriD, rovince o Bulacan, Respondents.G.R. No. !"" 3ebruary ", #&

FACTS: etitioners led an action or nullication o +ortgage,oreclosure, auction sale, certicate o sale and otherdocu+ents, 1ith da+ages against Metro>an9 >eore RTCMalolos.

Ater the pre4trial 1as concluded, petitioners led a Motion orIssuance o !u>poena "uces Tecu+ Ad Testicandu+ to re2uireMetro>an9Ps o?cers to appear and testi3 as the petitionersinitial 1itnesses during the August *%, '00L hearing or thepresentation o their evidence4in4chie, and to >ring thedocu+ents relative to their loan 1ith Metro>an9, as 1ell asthose covering the e8traudicial oreclosure and sale opetitionersP '004s2uare +eter land in Me3caua3an, Bulacancovered >3 Transer Certicate o Title No. '0)%%

Metro>an9 iled an pposition arguing that or lac9 o aproper notice o hearing, the Motion +ust >e denied that >eing

a litigated +otion, the ailure o petitioners to set a date andti+e or the hearing renders the Motion ineDective and proor+a that pursuant to !ections % and L o Rule '5 o the Rules,Metro>an9Ps o?cers Q 1ho are considered adverse parties Q +a3not >e co+pelled to appear and testi3 in court or thepetitioners since the3 1ere not initiall3 served 1ith 1ritteninterrogatories that petitioners have not sho1n the +aterialit3and relevance o the docu+ents sought to >e produced in courtand that petitioners 1ere +erel3 shing or evidence.

etitioners led a repl3 alleging that that the lac9 o a propernotice o hearing 1as cured >3 the ling o Metro>an9Pspposition that appl3ing the principle o li>eralit3, the deect+a3 >e ignored that leave o court is not necessar3 or theta9ing o Metro>an9Ps o?cersP depositions that or their casethe issuance o a su>poena is not unreasona>le and oppressive

>ut instead avora>le to Metro>an9, since it 1ill present thetesti+on3 o these o?cers ust the sa+e during thepresentation o its o1n evidence that the docu+ents sought to>e produced are relevant and 1ill prove 1hether petitionershave paid their o>ligations to Metro>an9 in ull, and 1ill settlethe issue relative to the validit3 or invalidit3 o the oreclosureproceedings and that the Rules do not prohi>it a part3 ro+presenting the adverse part3 as its o1n 1itness.

The RTC denied the petitionerPs +otion or ailure to co+pl3 1iththe re2uire+ents o valid notice o hearing. Moreover, thedeendant >an9 and its o?cers are adverse parties 1ho cannot>e su++oned to testi3 unless 1ritten interrogatories are rstserved upon the+, as provided in !ections % and L, Rule '5 othe Revised Rules o Court.

n appeal, the CA a?r+ed the RTC.

ISSUE: HN 1ritten interrogatories should have >een servedrst to Metro>an9 and its o?cers >eore the latter +a3 >e calledto testi3

HELD: ;es. As a rule, in civil cases, the procedure o calling theadverse part3 to the 1itness stand is not allo1ed, unless 1ritteninterrogatories are rst served upon the latter. This is e+>odiedin !ection L, Rule '5 o the Rules.

O!e o' $e p/%poses o' $e "+o)e %/e is o p%e)e!>s$i! e5pe#iio!s "!# !ee#ess #e"*s? i is $e%e o&"i!"i! o%#e% "!# '"(ii"e $e (o!#/( o' %i". It 1ill >epresu+ed that a part3 1ho does not serve 1ritteninterrogatories on the adverse part3 >eorehand 1ill +ost li9el3>e una>le to elicit acts useul to its case i it later opts to cal

the adverse part3 to the 1itness stand as its 1itness. Instead,the process could >e treated as a shing e8pedition or anatte+pt at dela3ing the proceedings it produces no signicantresult that a prior 1ritten interrogatories +ight >ring.

Besides, since the calling part3 is dee+ed >ound >3 the adversepart3Ps testi+on3, co+pelling the adverse part3 to ta9e the1itness stand +a3 result in the calling part3 da+aging its o1ncase. ther1ise stated, i' " p"%* ("!!o ei(i '"(s oi!'o%&"io! /se'/ o is ("se $%o/$ $e '"(ii* o'%ie! i!e%%o"o%ies o% o$e% &o#e o' #is(o)e%*, $e!$e ("i! o' $e "#)e%se p"%* o $e i!ess s"!#(o/# o!* se%)e o e"-e! is o! ("se "s " %es/ o'$e ("i! p"%*s +ei! +o/!# +* $e "#)e%se p"%*sesi&o!*, $i($ &"* o!* +e o%$ess "!# i!se"##e%i&e!" o $e ("i! p"%*s ("/se.

K


8/47

Another reason or the rule is that +* %e4/i%i! p%io% %ie!i!e%%o"o%ies, $e (o/% &"* i&i $e i!4/i%* o $" is%ee)"!, "!# $/s p%e)e! $e ("i! p"%* '%o&s%"*i! o% $"%"ssi! $e "#)e%se p"%* $e! i "-es $e"e% o $e s"!#.

Thus, $e %/e !o o!* p%oe(s $e "#)e%se p"%* '%o&/!"%%"!e# s/%p%ises o% $"%"ss&e!? i i-eisep%e)e!s $e ("i! p"%* '%o& (o!#/(i! " >s$i!e5pe#iio! o% +/!i! is o! ("se. /sing its o1n udg+entand discretion, the court can hold its o1n in resolving a dispute,

and need not >ear 1itness to the parties perpetrating unaircourt practices such as shing or evidence, >adgering, oraltogether ruining their o1n cases. /lti+atel3, such unnecessar3processes can onl3 constitute a 1aste o the courtPs preciousti+e, i not pointless entertain+ent.

In the present case, petitioners see9 to call Metro>an9Ps o?cersto the 1itness stand as their initial and +ain 1itnesses, and topresent docu+ents in Metro>an9Ps possession as part o theirprincipal docu+entar3 evidence. This is i+proper. 6eiio!e%s&"* !o +e "oe#, " $e i!(ipie! p$"se o' $ep%ese!"io! o' $ei% e)i#e!(e9i!9($ie' " $", o p%ese!Me%o+"!-s o(e%s – $o "%e (o!si#e%e# "#)e%sep"%ies "s e, +"se# o! $e p%i!(ipe $" (o%po%"io!s"( o!* $%o/$ $ei% o(e%s "!# #/* "/$o%i=e#"e!s – "s $ei% &"i! i!esses? !o% &"* $e* +e

"oe# o "i! "((ess o Me%o+"!-s #o(/&e!"%*e)i#e!(e 'o% $e p/%pose o' &"-i! i $ei% o! . T$is is"!"&o/! o +/i#i! $ei% $oe ("se '%o& $ee)i#e!(e o' $ei% oppo!e!. The >urden o proo andevidence alls on petitioners, not on Metro>an9 i petitionerscannot prove their clai+ using their o1n evidence, then theadverse part3 Metro>an9 +a3 not >e pressured to hang itsel ro+ its o1n deense.

It is true that under the Rules, a part3 +a3, or good causesho1n and to prevent a ailure o ustice, >e co+pelled to givetesti+on3 in court >3 the adverse part3 1ho has not served1ritten interrogatories. But 1hat petitioners see9 goes againstthe ver3 principles o ustice and air pla3 the3 1ould 1ant thatMetro>an9 provide the ver3 evidence 1ith 1hich to prosecuteand >uild their case ro+ the start. This the3 +a3 not >e allo1edto do.

lind e3e to the possi>leconse2uences o such a +ove >3 petitioners. As one o theircauses o action in their Co+plaint, petitioners clai+ that the31ere not urnished 1ith specic docu+ents relative to their loanagree+ent 1ith Metro>an9 at the ti+e the3 o>tained the loanand 1hile it 1as outstanding. I Metro>an9 1ere to 1illingl3provide petitioners 1ith these docu+ents even >eorepetitioners can present evidence to sho1 that indeed the3 1erenever urnished the sa+e, an3 inerences generated ro+ this1ould certainl3 not >e useul or Metro>an9. ne +a3 >e that >3providing petitioners 1ith these docu+ents, Metro>an9 1ould >ead+itting that indeed, it did not urnish petitioners 1ith thesedocu+ents prior to the signing o the loan agree+ent, and 1hilethe loan 1as outstanding, in violation o the la1.

Hith the vie1 ta9en o the case, the Court nds it unnecessar3to urther address the other issues raised >3 the parties, 1hichare irrelevant and 1ould not +ateriall3 alter the conclusionsarrived at.

@ESUS 6. DISINI, etitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, THE RE6UBLIC OFTHE 6HILI66INES, "s %ep%ese!e# +* $e 6RESIDENTIALCOMMISSION ON GOOD GOERNMENT;6CGGeore the /!

"istrict Court o Ne1 Jerse3 and in the ar>itration case tha

Hestinghouse International roects Co+pan3 and others led

against the Repu>lic >eore the International Cha+>er oCo++erce Court o Ar>itration. "isini 1or9ed or his second

cousin, :er+inio T. "isini :er+inio-, as an e8ecutive in the

latterPs co+panies ro+ %(K% to %(&). The Repu>lic >elieved

that the Hestinghouse contract or the construction o the

Bataan Nuclear o1er lant, >ro9ered >3 one o :er+inioPs

co+panies, had >een attended >3 ano+alies.

n ruar3 %L, %(&( respondent Repu>lic and petitioner "isin

entered into an I++unit3 Agree+ent under 1hich "isin

undertoo9 to testi3 or his govern+ent and provide its la13ers

1ith the inor+ation, a?davits, and docu+ents the3 needed or

prosecuting the t1o cases. Ac9no1ledging "isiniPs concern that

the Repu>lic could >eco+e a part3 to 3et other proceedings

relating to the +atters su>ect o his testi+on3, the Repu>lic

guaranteed that, apart ro+ the t1o cases, it shall not co+pe

"isini to testi3 in an3 other do+estic or oreign proceeding

>rought >3 the Repu>lic against :er+inio.

The Agree+ent included that Zshould the Repu>lic o the

hilippines na+e :er+inio T. "isini a deendant in an3 o the

a>ove4reerenced +atters, or in an3 resulting ar>itration

proceeding, or an3 other proceeding ancillar3 to said +atters

the Repu>lic o the hilippines shall not call Jesus . "isini totesti3 as a 1itness in said +atters on an3 clai+ >rought >3 the

Repu>lic o the hilippines against :er+inio T. "isini. Nothing

herein shall aDect Jesus . "isiniPs o>ligation to provide truthu

inor+ation or testi+on3.X

etitioner "isini co+plied 1ith his underta9ing >ut %& 3ears later

or on ruar3 'K, '00K, upon application o responden

Repu>lic, respondent !andigan>a3an issued a

su>poena duces tecum and ad testicandu+ against "isini

co++anding hi+ to testi3 and produce docu+ents >eore that

court on March L and *0, '00K in an action that the Repu>lic

led against :er+inio. "isini led a +otion to 2uash the

su>poena, invo9ing his i++unit3 agree+ent 1ith the Repu>lic

>ut respondent !andigan>a3an ignored the +otion and issued a

ne1 su>poena, directing hi+ to testi3 >eore it on Ma3 L and

'*, '00K.

n Jul3 %(, '00K the C$$ issued Resolution '00K40*%, revo9ing

and nulli3ing the I++unit3 Agree+ent >et1een petitioner "isin

and respondent Repu>lic insoar as it prohi>ited the latter ro+

re2uiring "isini to testi3 against :er+inio. n August %L, '00K

&


9/47

respondent !andigan>a3an denied "isiniPs +otion to 2uash

su>poena, pro+pting the latter to ta9e recourse to this Court.

ISSUE: HN "isini can >e co+pelled to testi3 despite thee8istence o the I++unit3 Agree+ent

HELD: No. The Court has ruled in a previous case that the scopeo i++unit3 oDered >3 the C$$ +a3 var3. It has discretion to

grant appropriate levels o cri+inal i++unit3 depending on the

situation o the 1itness and his relative i+portance to the

prosecution o ill4gotten 1ealth cases. It can even agree, as in

this case, to conditions e8pressed >3 the 1itness as su?cient to

induce cooperation.

The language o !ection 5, E.. %), said the Court, aDords

latitude to the C$$ in deter+ining the e8tent o that cri+inal

i++unit3. In petitioner "isiniPs case, respondent Repu>lic, acting

through the C$$, oDered hi+ !o o!* (%i&i!" "!# (i)ii&&/!i* +/ "so i&&/!i* ""i!s +ei! (o&pee# oesi'* i! "!* #o&esi( o% 'o%ei! p%o(ee#i!, o$e% $"!$e (i)i "!# "%+i%"io! ("ses i#e!i>e# i! $e I&&/!i*A%ee&e!, 1/s so $e o/# "%ee o esi'* . Trusting inthe $overn+entPs honest3 and delit3, "isini agreed and

ullled his part o the >argain. !urel3, the principle o air pla3,

1hich is the essence o due process, should hold the Repu>lic on

to its pro+ise.

The Repu>lic o course points out that the i++unit3 ro+

cri+inal or civil prosecution that !ection 5 o E.. %) authoriGes

does not cover i++unit3 ro+ giving evidence in a case >eore a

court o la1.

But in realit3 the guarantee given to petitioner "isini against

>eing co+pelled to testi3 in other cases against :er+inio

constitutes a grant o i++unit3 ro+ civil or cri+inal

prosecution. I "isini reuses to testi3 in those other cases he

1ould ace indirect conte+pt, 1hich is essentiall3 a prosecution

or 1illul diso>edience o a valid court order, a su>poena. %% :is

reusal to testi3 1ill 1arrant the i+position against hi+ o the

penalt3 o ne not e8ceeding *0,000.00 or i+prison+ent not

e8ceeding L +onths or >oth ne and i+prison+ent.

:ere, peiio!e% Disi!is %e'/s" o esi'* "s o%#e%e# +*$e S"!#i"!+"*"! is (e%"i! o %es/ i! p%ose(/io! 'o%(%i&i!" (o!e&p. It constitutes cri+inal conte+pt since guilt1ould dra1 a penalt3 o ne or i+prison+ent or >oth. !aid the

Court in Montenegro v. Montenegro

Conte+pt, 1hether direct or indirect, +a3 >e civil or cri+ina

depending on the nature and eDect o the conte+ptuous act

Cri+inal conte+pt is =conduct directed against the authorit3

and dignit3 o the court or a udge acting udiciall3 it is an act

o>structing the ad+inistration o ustice 1hich tends to >ring

the court into disrepute or disrespect. n the other hand, civi

conte+pt is the ailure to do so+ething ordered to >e done >3 a

court or a udge or the >enet o the opposing part3 therein and

is thereore an oDense against the part3 in 1hose >ehal the

violated order 1as +ade. I the purpose is to punish, then it is

cri+inal in nature, >ut i to co+pensate, then it is civil.

In cri+inal conte+pt, the proceedings are regarded as cri+ina

and the rules o cri+inal procedure appl3. Hhat is +ore, it is

generall3 held that the !tate or respondent Repu>lic is the rea

prosecutor in such a case. T$e %"!, $e%e'o%e, o' i&&/!i*o peiio!e% Disi!i ""i!s +ei! (o&pee# o esi'* is/i&"e* " %"! o' i&&/!i* '%o& +ei! (%i&i!"*p%ose(/e# +* $e S"e 'o% %e'/s" o esi'*, so&e$i!$" '"s i$i! $e e5p%ess (o)e%"e o' $e i&&/!i*i)e! $i&.

Respondent Repu>lic clai+s that the grant o i++unit3 to

petitioner "isini against >eing co+pelled to testi3 agains

:er+inio contravenes the statePs pu>lic polic3 respecting the

recover3 o illegall3 ac2uired 1ealth under the regi+e o or+e

resident Marcos.

But the sa+e authorit3 that adopted such polic3, or+e

resident CoraGon C. A2uino, is the sa+e authorit3 that gave the

C$$ the po1er to grant i++unit3 to 1itnesses 1ho+ it +ight

use to recover illegall3 ac2uired 1ealth during that regi+e. In

the case o Tanchanco v. !andigan>a3an, the Court regarded as

valid and >inding on the govern+ent the i++unit3 it gave

or+er National le acts o his during his service in the Marcos

govern+ent,= 1hich 1ould include possi>le prosecution or an3

illegal 1ealth that he +a3 hi+sel have ac2uired during that

service. The Court did not regard such i++unit3 in

contravention o the state polic3 on recover3 o ill4gotten 1ealth

under the auspices o the Marcos regi+e.

True, respondent Repu>lic +a3 have other cases in 1hich it also

needed petitioner "isiniPs testi+on3. But such circu+stance

does not necessaril3 invalidate the concession it gave hi+@the

reedo+ ro+ >eing co+pelled to give evidence in specic

cases. It +a3 >e assu+ed that the Repu>lic regarded "isiniPs

testi+on3 in the t1o cases covered >3 the agree+ent +ore

i+portant and critical than those other cases. It is 1ell 9no1n

that the cases 1ith Hestinghouse >eore the Ne1 Jerse3 "istric

Court and the International Ar>itration Tri>unal concerning the

construction o the Bataan Nuclear o1er lant had so huge a

nancial i+pact on the Repu>lic that it 1as 1illing to 1aive its

po1er and right to co+pel petitioner "isiniPs testi+on3 in othe

cases.

(

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_180564_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_180564_2010.html#fnt11


10/47

A contract is the la1 >et1een the parties. It cannot >e

1ithdra1n e8cept >3 their +utual consent. This applies 1ith

+ore reason in this case 1here petitioner "isini had alread3

co+plied 1ith the ter+s and conditions o the I++unit3

Agree+ent. To allo1 the Repu>lic to revo9e the Agree+ent at

this late stage 1ill run aoul o the rule that a part3 to a

co+pro+ise cannot as9 or a rescission ater it had eno3ed its

>enets.

Fi!" Noe

The Court should not allo1 respondent Repu>lic, to put it

>luntl3, to dou>le cross petitioner "isini. The I++unit3

Agree+ent 1as the result o a long dra1n out process o

negotiations 1ith each part3 tr3ing to get the >est concessions

out o it.'' The Repu>lic did not have to enter that agree+ent. It

1as ree not to. But 1hen it did, it needs to ulll its o>ligations

honora>l3 as "isini did. More than an3 one, the govern+ent

should >e air.

H:ERE


11/47

*. Hhen the 1o+an is under t1elve 3ears o age or is

de+ented.

Thereore, according to the aore+entioned provision, the

ele+ents o rape are %- the oDender had carnal 9no1ledge o

the victi+ and '- such act 1as acco+plished through orce and

inti+idation or 1hen the victi+ is deprived o reason or

other1ise unconscious or 1hen the victi+ is under %' 3ears o

age.

He agree 1ith the appellate court that the ollo1ing portion o

AAAPs testi+on3 indicated the presence o the oregoing

ele+ents o the cri+e o rape in this case.

Clearl3, the ele+ent o carnal 9no1ledge is present in the

oregoing narration. sence o an3

evident orce and inti+idation, the sa+e is still appreciated in

the case at >ar >ecause it is doctrinall3 settled that the +oralascendanc3 o an accused over the victi+ renders it

unnecessar3 to sho1 ph3sical orce and inti+idation since, in

rape co++itted >3 a close 9in, such as the victi+Ps ather,

stepather, uncle, or the co++on4la1 spouse o her +other,

+oral inuence or ascendanc3 ta9es the place o violence or

inti+idation.

In his deense, appellant interposes denial 1hile also ascri>ing ill

+otive on the part o the victi+, his o1n >iological daughter, or

accusing hi+ o rape. :o1ever, it is 1ell4settled that denial, i

unsu>stantiated >3 clear and convincing evidence, is a sel4serving assertion that deserves no 1eight in la1 >ecause denial

cannot prevail over the positive, candid and categorical

testi+on3 o the co+plainant, and as >et1een the positive

declaration o the co+plainant and the negative state+ent o

the appellant, the or+er deserves +ore credence. #i9e1ise, the

testi+onies o the 1itnesses presented >3 appellant ailed to

>uttress his deense o denial as the3 +erel3 related to

tangential +atters 1hich do not seriousl3 aDect the issue o

AAAPs credi>ilit3.

Hith regard to the allegation that the accusation o rape 1as

+otivated >3 ill 1ill and revenge, this Court is not surprised at

this rather co++on e8cuse >eing raised >3 oDenders in rape

cases. He have consistentl3 held that such alleged +otives

cannot prevail over the positive and credi>le testi+onies o

co+plainants 1ho re+ained steadast throughout the

trial. Jurisprudence tells us that it is against hu+an nature or a

3oung girl to a>ricate a stor3 that 1ould e8pose hersel as 1ell

as her a+il3 to a lieti+e o sha+e, especiall3 1hen her charge

could +ean the death or lieti+e i+prison+ent o her o1n

ather.

/nder the old rape la1 1hich is applica>le in this case, the

death penalt3 shall >e i+posed i the cri+e o rape is co++itted

under certain enu+erated circu+stances 1hich 1ould designate

the cri+e as 2ualied rape. ne such particular circu+stance is

1hen the victi+ is under eighteen %&- 3ears o age and the

oDender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative

>3 consanguinit3 or a?nit3 1ithin the third civil degree, or the

co++on4la1 spouse o the parent o the victi+. The +inorit3 o

the victi+ and her relationship to the accused 1ere dul3 proven

>3 her >irth certicate. :o1ever, due to the eDectivit3 o

Repu>lic Act No. (*)L, other1ise 9no1n as =An Act rohi>itingthe I+position o "eath enalt3 in the hilippines,= the tria

court correctl3 i+posed upon appellant the penalt3 o reclusion

perpetua.

In vie1 o the oregoing, 1e thereore a?r+ the conviction o

appellant or 2ualied rape or 1hich he is to suDer the penalt3

o reclusion perpetua 1ithout eligi>ilit3 or parole in consonance

1ith Article **5 o the Revised enal Code and Repu>lic Act No

(*)L. The a1ard o civil inde+nit3 and e8e+plar3 da+ages is

li9e1ise upheld. :o1ever, in line 1ith urisprudence, the a1ard

o +oral da+ages is increased ro+ a3an against Andres . $enito, Jr.lic then +oved or the a+end+ent o theco+plaint in order to i+plead Asian Ban9 as anadditional deendant.

• In its repl3 to Asian Ban9Ps co++ent, the Repu>lic+aintained that a separate trial or Asian Ban9 1asproper >ecause its cause o action against Asian Ban91as entirel3 distinct and independent ro+ its cause oaction against the original deendants

• The !andigan>a3an issued the rst assailed resolutiongranting the Repu>licPs +otion or separate trial

• Asian Ban9 +oved or the reconsideration o theresolution, >ut the !andigan>a3an denied its +otionthrough the second assailed resolution.

•

:ence, Metro>an9 co++enced this special civil actionor certiorari as the successor4in4interest o Asian Ban9and transeree o the properties.

• Anent the rst issue, Metro>an9 states that the holdingo a separate trial 1ould den3 it due process, >ecauseAsian Ban9 1as entitled to contest the evidence o theRepu>lic against the original deendants prior to AsianBan9Ps inclusion as an additional deendant that AsianBan9 Metro>an9- 1ould >e deprived o its da3 in couri a separate trial 1as held against it, considering thatthe Repu>lic had alread3 presented such evidence prioto its >eing i+pleaded as an additional deendant thasuch evidence 1ould >e hearsa3 unless Asian Ban9Metro>an9- 1as aDorded the opportunit3 to test and too>ect to the ad+issi>ilit3 o the evidence tha>ecause Asian Ban9 disputed the allegedl3 ill4gotten

%%


12/47

character o the properties and denied an3 involve+entin their allegedl3 unla1ul ac2uisition or an3connivance 1ith the original deendants in theirac2uisition, Asian Ban9 should >e given the opportunit3to reute the Repu>licPs adverse evidence on theallegedl3 illgotten nature o the properties

Issue Hhether or not the holding o a separate trial or the caseo Metro>an9 is i+proper

:eld ;es• The rule on separate trials in civil actions is ound in

!ection ', Rule *% o the Rules o Court, 1hich reads

7ection #. 7eparate trials. 8 The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid pre9udice, may order aseparate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim,or third-party complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims,third-party complaints or issues.

• The te8t o the rule grants to the trial court thediscretion to deter+ine i a separate trial o an3 clai+,cross4clai+, counterclai+, or third4part3 co+plaint, oro an3 separate issue or o an3 nu+>er o clai+s,cross4clai+s, counterclai+s, third4part3 co+plaints orissues should >e held, provided that the e8ercise o such discretion is in urtherance o convenience or toavoid preudice to an3 part3.

• !everal /! la1s cited >3 the Court in its decisionherein

o Courts order separate trials onl3 1hen =clearl3necessar3.= Corrigan v. Methodist :ospital-

o In Miller v. A+erican Bonding Co+pan3, the/! !upre+e Court has deli+ited the holding o separate trials to onl3 the e8ceptionalinstances 1here there 1ere special andpersuasive reasons or departing ro+ thegeneral practice o tr3ing all issues in a caseat onl3 one ti+e, stating

*n actions at la), the general practice is to try all the issues in a case at one time: and it isonly in exceptional instances )here there arespecial and persuasive reasons for departing

from this practice that distinct causes of action asserted in the same case may bemade the sub9ects of separate trials. 1hether this reasonably may be done in any particular instance rests largely in the court;s discretion.

o


13/47

to lac9 or e8cess o urisdiction on the part o the!andigan>a3an.

RE6UBLIC OF THE 6HILI66INES, represented >3 theRE$INA# E[EC/TIE "IRECTR, "EARTMENT <ENIRNMENT AN" NAT/RA# RE!/RCE!, RE$IN III,etitioner, vs. HEIRS OF ENRIJUE ORIBELLO, @R. and T:ERE$I!TER < "EE"! < #N$A CIT;, Respondents.G.R. No. 00"& 4 =arch , #& 5#26

aculao, ala9lan, longapo Cit3, 1hich1as once classied as orest land >3 the Bureau o ello.n even date, Miscellaneous !ales atent No. %'K5Land CT No. 4500) 1ere issued to ri>ello.

• Matilde Apog Apog- and Aliseo !an Juan !an Juan-,clai+ing to >e actual occupants o the propert3,protested 1ith the "ENR the issuance o the salespatent and CT in avor o ri>ello. The3 sought theannul+ent o the sales patent,

• Ater investigation, the Regional E8ecutive "irector o the "ENR ound su>stantial evidence that raud and+isrepresentation 1ere co++itted in the issuance o the sales patent in avor o ri>ello, 1arranting a

reversion suit.• The ?ce o the !olicitor $eneral, representing

petitioner, instituted a co+plaint or reversion andcancellation o title >eore the RTC.

• The trial o the consolidated cases continued and thereception o evidence o the private parties proceeded.

• :o1ever, in its rder o '% ruar3 '005, the trialcourt dis+issed the consolidated cases 1ithoutpreudice or non4su>stitution o the deceased plaintiD ri>ello- and his counsel.

• etitioner contends that the %' !epte+>er %((K rdero the trial court, dee+ing it to have a>andoned thecase, is interlocutor3 in nature thus, is not appeala>le.Respondents argue other1ise, +aintaining that suchrder is a dis+issal o the co+plaint on the ground o ailure to prosecute 1hich is, under the Rules,

considered an adudication on the +erits, and henceappeala>le.

Issue Hhether or not the consolidated cases are su>ect to+ultiple appeals

:eld ;es• !ection %, Rule *% o the Rules o Court provides

7>ut is reerred to as such. ;4/"si(o!soi#"io!<

'- Hhere several actions are co+>ined into one, losetheir separate identit3, and >eco+e a single action in1hich a single udg+ent is rendered. This is illustrated>3 a situation 1here several actions are pending>et1een the sa+e parties stating clai+s 1hich +ighthave >een set out originall3 in one co+plaint. ;"(/"(o!soi#"io!<

*- Hhere several actions are ordered to >e triedtogether >ut each retains its separate character andre2uires the entr3 o a separate udg+ent. This t3pe oconsolidation does not +erge the suits into a singleaction, or cause the parties to one action to >e partiesto the other. ;(o!soi#"io! 'o% %i"<

• In the present case, the co+plaint or reversion led >3petitioner Civil Case No. ''5404('- 1as consolidated1ith the co+plaint or recover3 o possession led >3ri>ello Civil Case No. ''*404(%-. Hhile these t1ocases involve co++on 2uestions o la1 and act, eachaction retains its separate and distinct character.

o The reversion suit settles 1hether the su>ecland 1ill >e reverted to the !tate, 1hile therecover3 o possession case deter+ines 1hichprivate part3 has the >etter right o

possession over the su>ect propert3.o These cases, involving diDerent issues and

see9ing diDerent re+edies, re2uire therendition and entr3 o separate udg+ents The consolidation is +erel3 or oint trial o thecases. Nota>l3, the co+plaint or recover3 opossession proceeded independentl3 o thereversion case, and 1as disposed oaccordingl3 >3 the trial court.

• !ince each action does not lose its distinct characterseverance o one action ro+ the other is not necessar3to appeal a udg+ent alread3 rendered in one action There is no rule or la1 prohi>iting the appeal o a udg+ent or part o a udg+ent in one case 1hich isconsolidated 1ith other cases. eore a part3 can appeal an adverse rulingon such case.

RULES 33 – 3:

KG.R. No. 33. MARIO @. MENDEONA "!# TERESITA M. MENDEONALUIS @. MENDEONA "!# MARICAR L. MENDEONA "!#TERESITA ADAD DA. DE MENDEONA, petitioners, vs.

@ULIO H. OAMI, ROBERTO @. MONTALAN, @OSE MAOAMI, CARMEN H. OAMI, 6A O. MONTALAN, MATERESA O.F. ARRAGA, CARLOS O. FORTICH, @OSE LUIS OROS, 6AULITA O. RODRIGUE, "!# LOURDES O. LONrespondents.

%*


14/47

F"(s A suit or 2uieting o title 1as instituted >3 petitionersinvolving a parcel o land in Banilad Estate, #ahug, Ce>u Cit3. The3 clai+ed that their titles can >e traced ro+ a notariGed"eed o A>solute !ale 1ith Car+en Ga+iG.

The petitioners pra3ed to re+ove a cloud on their said titlescaused >3 the inscription thereon o a notice o lis pendens>rought >3 a !pecial roceeding or guardianship over theperson and properties o the na+ed seller Car+en Ga+iGinitiated >3 the respondents.

The petition or guardianship 1as le in RTC4ro2uieta Cit3,

alleging therein that Car+en Ga+iG, then &L 3ears old, ater anillness had >eco+e disoriented and could not recogniGe +ost o her riends that she could no longer ta9e care o hersel nor+anage her properties. The respondents opposed thepetitionersP clai+ o o1nership o the #ahug propert3 since thetitles issued in the petitionersP na+es are deective and illegalas it 1as ac2uired in >ad aith.

The trial court held that Car+en Ga+iG validl3 sold to Uhernephe1sV herein petitioners, Mario, Antonio and #uis, allsurna+ed MendeGona, the parcels o residential land in Ce>u,per a "eed o A>solute !ale 1ith reservation o usuructuar3rights >3 Car+en Ga+iG, The sale 1as voluntaril3 anddeli>eratel3 entered into 1hile the latter 1as o sound +ind.

The CA reversed the ndings o the trial court and ruled that the

"eed o A>solute !ale 1as a si+ulated contract since thepetitioners ailed to prove that the consideration 1as actuall3paid, and, urther+ore, that at the ti+e o the e8ecution o thecontract the +ental aculties o Car+en Ga+iG 1ere alread3seriousl3 i+paired.

etitioners led a +otion or reconsideration o the decision o the appellate court. !u>se2uent thereto, the petitioners led a+otion or a ne1 trial andWor or reception o evidence.

etitioners contended, a+ong other things, that the appellatecourt ignored the testi+on3 o Judge Teodorico "urias regardingthe +ental condition o Car+en Ga+iG a +onth >eore thee8ecution o the "eed o A>solute !ale in 2uestion. The saidtesti+on3 1as ta9en in the !pecial roceeding No. %'50 in theRTC4ro2uieta. :o1ever, Judge "urias 1as not presented as a

1itness in the civil case in RTC4Ce>u. etitioners alleged that Judge "uriasPs testi+on3 is a ne1l34discovered evidence 1hichcould not have >een discovered prior to the trial in the court>elo1 >3 the e8ercise o due diligence. The CA denied. :ence,the instant petition.

Iss/e Hhether the testi+on3 o Judge "urias is a ne1l34discovered evidence

He# No. A +otion or ne1 trial upon the ground o ne1l3discovered evidence is properl3 granted onl3 1here there isconcurrence o the ollo1ing re2uisites, na+el3 a- the evidencehad >een discovered ater trial >- the evidence could not have>een discovered and produced during trial even 1ith thee8ercise o reasona>le diligence and c- the evidence is+aterial and not +erel3 corro>orative, cu+ulative ori+peaching and is o such 1eight that i ad+itted, 1ouldpro>a>l3 alter the result. All three *- re2uisites +ustcharacteriGe the evidence sought to >e introduced at the ne1trial.

The re2uire+ent o reasona>le diligence has not >een +et >3the petitioners. As earl3 as the pre4trial o the case at >ar, thena+e o Judge "urias has alread3 cropped up as a possi>le1itness or the deendants, herein respondents. That therespondents chose not to present hi+ is not an indicia per se o suppression o evidence, since a part3 in a civil case is ree tochoose 1ho to present as his 1itness. Neither can Judge "uriastesti+on3 in another case >e considered as ne1l3 discoveredevidence since the acts to >e testied to >3 Judge "urias 1hich1ere e8isting >eore and during the trial, could have >eenpresented >3 the petitioners at the trial >elo1. The testi+on3 o

Judge "urias has >een in e8istence 1aiting onl3 to >e elicitedro+ hi+ >3 2uestioning.

It has >een held that a lac9 o diligence is e8hi>ited 1here thene1l3 discovered evidence 1as necessar3 or proper under thepleadings, and its e8istence +ust have occurred to the part3 inthe course o the preparation o the case, >ut no eDort 1as+ade to secure it there is a ailure to +a9e in2uir3 o persons1ho 1ere li9el3 to 9no1 the acts in 2uestion, especiall3 1hereinor+ation 1as not sought ro+ co4parties there is a ailure tosee9 evidence availa>le through pu>lic records there is a ailureto discover evidence that is 1ithin the control o the co+plaining

part3 there is a ailure to ollo1 leads contained in otheevidence and, there is a ailure to utiliGe availa>le discover3procedures. Thus, the testi+on3 o Judge "urias cannot >econsidered as ne1l3 discovered evidence to 1arrant a ne1 trial.

KG.R. No. P. @/* 2, 22S6OUSES MICHAELANGELO "!# GRACE MESINA

petitioners, vs. HUMBERTO D. MEER, respondent.F"(s Respondent :u+>erto Meer is a registered o1ner o aparcel o land in andacan, Manila. :e discovered that hiscerticate o title has >een cancelled and a ne1 one, TCT No%LL0K), 1as issued in the na+e o spouses !ergio and #er+aBun2uin. The latter ac2uired said propert3 >3 virtue o a deed osale in %(&5 purportedl3 e8ecuted >3 respondent in their avor.

Respondent Meer sought the cancellation o said TCT No

%LL0K) 1ith the MeTC Manila, and a notice o lis pendens 1asannotated at the >ac9 o its title.

:o1ever, the su>ect propert3 covered >3 TCT No. %LL0K) 1asagain conve3ed 1hile the case 1as pending and prior to theannotation o lis pendens in avor o herein petitioners spousesMichaelangelo and $race Mesina, hence, TCT No. %LL0K) 1ascancelled and replaced >3 TCT No. '%L5%& issued in the na+e othe Mesinas.

Thus, Meer i+pleaded !ps. Mesina as additional part3deendants. "eendant4spouses Bun2uin never appeared duringthe hearings and thus, 1as declared in deault.

The RTC ruled that the alleged sale >et1een Meer and Bun2uin1as raudulent. :o1ever, petitioners !ps. Mesina 1ere adudged>u3ers in good aith and hence, entitled to the possession o thepropert3.

Meer led an Appeal 1ith the RTC 1hich court reversed theruling o the MeTC. The CA a?r+ed on appeal.

Co+es no1 this etition or Revie1 raising as issue theavaila>ilit3 o etition or Relie under Rule *&, as a re+ed3against the udg+ent o the Court o Appeals pro+ulgated in thee8ercise o its appellate urisdiction. I the re+ed3 is thusavaila>le, petitioners pra3 that this Court rule 1hether or not thegrounds relied >3 the+ are su?cient to give due course to thepetition.

Iss/e Hhether the petitionerPs course o relie under Rule *& isproper.

He# No. Relie ro+ udg+ent is an e2uita>le re+ed3 and isallo1ed onl3 under e8ceptional circu+stances and onl3 i '%"/#"((i#e!, &is"-e, o% e5(/s"+e !eie!(e is presentHhere the deendant has other availa>le or ade2uate re+ed3such as a +otion or ne1 trial or appeal ro+ the adversedecision, he cannot avail hi+sel o this re+ed3.

/nder the Rules, the petition or relie +ust >e led 1ithin L0da3s ater the petitioner learns o the udg+ent, nal order orother proceeding to >e set aside and +ust >e acco+panied 1itha?davits sho1ing the raud, accident, +ista9e, or e8cusa>lenegligence relied upon, and the acts constituting the petitionersgood and su>stantial cause o action or deense, as the case+a3 >e. Most i+portantl3, it should >e led 1ith the sa+e court1hich rendered the decision, vizB

%)


15/47

Se(io! . 6eiio! 'o% %eie' '%o& 1/#&e!, o%#e%, o%o$e% p%o(ee#i!s. 4 Hhen a udg+ent or nal order isentered, or an3 other proceeding is thereater ta9en againsta part3 in any court through '%"/#, "((i#e!, &is"-e, o%e5(/s"+e !eie!(e, he +a3 le a petition in such courtand in the sa+e case pra3ing that the udg+ent, order orproceeding >e set aside.

As correctl3 pointed out >3 the Court o Appeals, the petitionersallegation o e8trinsic raud should have >een >rought at issuein the Metropolitan Trial Court. I the3 trul3 >elieve that thedeault o the spouses Mesina preudiced their rights, the3

should have 2uestioned this ro+ the >eginning. ;et, the3 choseto participate in the proceedings and activel3 presented theirdeense. And their eDorts 1ere re1arded as the Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in their avor.

Hhen the respondent appealed the case to the RTC, the3 neverraised this issue. Even ater the Regional Trial Court reversed thending o the MeTC, and the Court o Appeals sustained thisreversal, petitioners +ade no eDort to >ring this issue orconsideration. This Court 1ill not allo1 petitioners, in guise o e2uit3, to >enet ro+ their o1n negligence.

KG.R. No. . Sepe&+e% , 6A T. BERNARDO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF A66EALS,HON. OSCAR L. LEISTE "!# FLORITA RONJUILLO9CONCE6CION, respondents.

F"(s aG T. Bernardo 1as originall3 charged 1ith our )-counts o violation o B.. Blg. '' >eore the RTC4SueGon Cit3.Ater the prosecution had or+all3 oDered its evidence, theollo1ing transpired in open court

C/RT

Alright, prosecution having rested, deense 1ill no1present its evidence. roceed.

ATT;. MIRAITE

;our honor, 1e respectull3 as9 or a resetting, orleave o court to le de+urrer to evidenceunderscoring supplied-.

C/RT

n 1hat ground

ATT;. MIRAITE

n the ground that the prosecution ailed to elicit theact 1here the chec9s 1ere issued and 1here the31ere actuall3 dishonored. This is +aterial, 3ourhonor, or purposes o deter+ining urisdiction. Also,3our honor, as 1e +entioned in our co++ents to theevidence presented >3 the prosecution, there has>een no valid notice o dishonor o the su>ect chec9supon the accused. !o, upon those grounds, 1e>elieve that the prosecution has not dul3 +ade out acase against the accused, and 1e eel those aresu?cient or the dis+issal o the case as against theaccused.

C/RT

!o as to avoid revie1ing the records, 1ould 3ou ad+itthat there is no proo 1here the chec9s 1ere issuedand 1here the3 1ere dishonored

RIATE R!EC/TR

No, 1e 1ould not ad+it that, 3our honor. The3 1eredishonored actuall3 in Manila, >ut the chec9 1asdeposited in the >an9 o AR CRE"IT ENTERRI!E! inSueGon Cit3, and it 1as naturall3 or1arded to NB1here the sa+e 1as returned to the >an9 o ARCRE"IT ENTERRI!E! here in SueGon Cit3.

C/RT

Hhere does it appear

RIATE R!EC/TR

It is at the >ac9 o E8hi>it A, 3our honor.

C/RT

Is it +ar9ed-

RIATE R!EC/TR

;our honor, it states here, deposited to hilippineNational Ban9, Hest Avenue, SueGon Cit3 1hich is atthe chec9 +ar9ed as e8hi>it A4).

C/RT

!o, that ta9es urisprudence. The ele+ents happenedin SueGon Cit3.

RIATE R!EC/TR

;es, 3our honor.

ATT;. MIRAITE

The notation read >3 counsel, 3our honor, 1as not+ar9ed in evidence, 1hat 1as +ar9ed is B4)appearing at the dorsal portion o the chec9 1hichpertains onl3 or sic- the dishonor, the initial and the

date. Nothing 1as presented as to the act. I that isso, that 1as indeed deposited at Hest Avenue,SueGon Cit3.

RIATE R!EC/TR

There is, 3our honor. The sta+p received >3 theCashier "ivision, NB, SueGon Cit3, Hest Avenue.

C/RT

An31a3, 1as there an oDer o that docu+ent

RIATE R!EC/TR

;es, there 1as an oDer o e8hi>it A4), 3our honor. Therecord 1ould sho1 that 1e +aniested that e8hi>it B4) are sta+ps o the >an9 reading "AI< over 1hich

there are other sta+ps.

C/RT

;ou are sa3ing that the 1ord "AI< 1as +ar9ed at the>ac9 and oDered as proo o the dishonor and theplace 1as evidence

RIATE R!EC/TR

;es, 3our honor, i++ediatel3 on top o the 1ord, "AI3 the >an9.

C/RT

"o 3ou ad+it that there 1as no notice o dishonor

RIATE R!EC/TR

He dont ad+it that, 3our honor. In act, there aread+issions in hand1riting regarding the clai+.

C/RT

Is there an3 evidence presented that these chec9s1ere not paid up to no1

%5


16/47

RIATE R!EC/TR

;es, 3our honor. een paid second, e8hi>its %and %4%, 1hich is the Co+plaint A?davit o the1itness.

C/RT

Alright, in vie1 o the o>ections, and in vie1 o the+aniestations o the private prosecutor, the deensegrounds or de+urrer, the sa+e not >eing 1ell ta9enis here>3 "ENIE" underscoring supplied-. ;ou 1ill

no1 present 3our evidence.

ATT;. MIRAITE

I 3our honor please, +a3 1e ust as9 or areconsideration underscoring supplied-

C/RT

I 3ou 1ill 1aive 3our right to present 3our evidence,the Court 1ill give 3ou a period to le a de+urrer toevidence. And, i 3ou dont present 3our evidenceno1, 3ou 1ill >e considered to have 1aived 3our rightto present evidence underscoring supplied-.

8888

ATT;. MIRAITE

I 3our honor please, 1e 1ould li9e to reiterate our+otion to le a de+urrer to evidence underscoringsupplied-

C/RT

But 3ou have alread3 orall3 +ade that de+urrer1hich has >een denied underscoring supplied-.

ATT;. MIRAITE

In 1hich case 3our honor, i there is no leave o court,1e 1ill >e ling our de+urrer to evidence, 3our honorunderscoring supplied-.

C/RT

That is tanta+ount to postpone sic- this case. TheCourt considers that +otion dilator3 underscoringsupplied-.

ATT;. MIRAITE

;our honor, I thin9 1ithin the option o the parties tota9e re+edies and at this point, 1e did prepare orour purposes, that instead o presenting the accusedor presenting our 1itnesses, 1e 1ould ust preer to+ove or a de+urrer to evidence underscoringsupplied-.

C/RT

;ou +a3 include that in 3our +otion orreconsideration. Alright, the prosecution having

rested, and the deense having >een considered tohave 1aived his right to present his evidence, thiscase is dee+ed su>+itted or decision. !et thepro+ulgation o this case to June L, %(() at &*0 ocloc9 in the +orning.

etitioner assailed the rder o respondent udge and elevatedthe +atter to the CA >3 1a3 o certiorari. etitioner argued thatthe RTC co++itted grave a>use o discretion in considering herto have 1aived her right to present evidence ater the denial o her +otion or leave to le de+urrer to evidence.

CA +odied the 2uestioned rder o the RTC 1hich states thatCthe defense having been considered to have )aived her right to present her evidence, this case is deemed submitted for decision >3 directing the trial court to set the case Cfor trial for

reception of evidence for the petitioner.C etitioner +oved opartial reconsideration o the decision o the Court o Appeals>ut her +otion 1as denied. :ence, this petition.

etitioner su>+its that 1hen her counsel +oved or leave to lea de+urrer to evidence, this +eant that she intended to +a9e a1ritten de+urrer ater e8tensive research and 1ith propeauthorities to support the sa+e. !o 1hen the RTC denied her+otion, it 1as in eDect a denial onl3 o the +otion or leave tole de+urrer to evidence and not the de+urrer to evidenceitsel.

Iss/e Hhether the CA erred 1hen it reused to allo1 petitioneto de+ur to the evidence.

He# He cannot sustain petitioner.

/nder the rule on de+urrer to evidence, the accused has theright to le a de+urrer to evidence ater the prosecution hasrested its case. I the accused obtained prior leave of cour>eore ling his de+urrer, he can still present evidence i hisde+urrer is denied. :o1ever, i he de+urs 1ithout prior leave ocourt, or ater his +o

Documents

Case Digest Rules in Civil Procedure