Rules of Civil Procedure

1.
A. What is a non-litigious motion?
B. What is a litigious motion?
D. What is the procedure of the court in cases of litigious motions?
E. What is the action of the court in cases of non-litigious motions?

2.
Ramon Ching is alleged as the only child of Antonio Ching with his
common-law wife Lucina. Meanwhile, Ramon and Jaime Cheng
(Chengs) claim to be Antonio Ching’s illegitimate children with his
housemaid Mercedes Igne. When Antonio was ill, she entrusted
Lucina with the distribution of his estates, who handed all the
property titles and business documents to Ramon Ching. Antonio
recovered and demanded the return of the titles to properties.
Antonio was then murdered. Ramon Ching allegedly induced
Mercedes and her children to sign an agreement and waiver in
consideration of 22.5 Million pesos, and allegedly executed an
affidavit of settlement of estate naming himself as sole heir.

Chengs and Mercedes filed a complaint (1st case) for declaration of

nullity against Ramon Ching before RTC of Manila. The complaint was
amended to implead Po Wing Properties (Po Wing) to which Ramon
Ching was a primary stockholder. Lucina filed a motion for
intervention which was granted. Po Wing filed an MTD on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter which was granted by
the court. Chengs and Lucina were given 15 days to file appropriate
pleading but they did not do. Chengs and Lucina filed another
complaint (2nd case) for Annulment of Agreement of Waiver,
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with prayer of TRO and writ of
Preliminary Injunction against Ramon Ching and Po Wing. Chengs and
Lucina filed an MTD, praying it be dismissed without prejudice.
Ramon Ching and Po Wing filed an MR arguing that the dismissal
should be with prejudice under the “two-dismissal rule” under Rule
17, Sec. 1 in view of the previous dismissal in the first case. During
the pendency of the MR, Chengs and Lucina filed a complaint for
 Disinheritance and Declaration of Nullity of Agreement and Waiver”
(3rd case). RTC denied the MR and MTD of the second case without
prejudice. On appeal, CA ruled that Ramon Ching’s reliance on the
“two-dismissal rule” was misplaced since the rule involves two motion
for dismissals filed by the plaintiff only. In this case, the dismissal of
the first case was upon motion of the defendants.

Is the “two-dismissal rule” applicable in this case?

3. Cleary, an American citizen with address in California, filed a

Complaint for specific performance and damages against Santamaria
et al. before the RTC of Cebu. In his pre-trial brief, Cleary stipulated
that he would testify “in support of the allegations of his complaint,
either on the witness stand or by oral deposition”, and expressed his
intent in availing himself “of the modes of discovery under the rules.”
Cleary moved for court authorization to take deposition. He prayed
that his deposition be taken before the Consulate-General of the
Philippines in Los Angeles and be used as his direct testimony.
Petitioners opposed, saying that the oral deposition was not intended
for discovery purposes if Cleary deposed himself as plaintiff. RTC
denied Cleary’s Motion, saying that depositions are not meant to be a
substitute for actual testimony in open court. Upon filing a Petition for
Certiorari with CA, it reversed the ruling. Hence, this petition.

Petitioners argue that the proposed deposition in this case is not for
discovery purposes as Cleary is the plaintiff himself, and that Cleary
was not compliant with the Rules of Procedure in the Philippines.

May Cleary be allowed to take his depositions?

4. These consolidated cases consider whether “San Mig Light” is a new

brand or a variant of one of San Miguel Corp.’s existing beer brands,
and whether the BIR may issue notices of discrepancy that effectively
changes “San Mig Light” ‘s classification from new brand to variant.
The CIR prays for the reversal and setting aside of the assailed
Decision and Resolution, the issuance of a new one remanding the
case to the CTA for the production of evidence in respondent’s
 possession, or, in the alternative, the dismissal of the Petitions in CTA
Case Nos. 7052, 7053, and 7405.

In GR. No. 205723, SMC filed before the CTA Petitions for Review,
assailing the denials of its Protest/Request for Reconsideration of the
deficiency excise tax assessments. SMC filed with the BIR its first
refund claim, which was ignored by said Bureau. Due to inaction, SMC
filed before the CTA a Petition for Review, the first division of which
later rendering a decision in favor of SMC. The Commissioner filed a
Motion for Reconsideration with a Motion for Production of
Documents, claiming that the admission of said documents would lead
to a better illumination of the outcome of the case. The CA First
Division, however, denied the said motion for lack of merit. Hence,
this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

May the motion for production of documents and objects be

availed of after the court has rendered judgement?

5. A motion for reconsideration was filed by respondent herein after the

Supreme Court reversed and set aside the court of appeal’s resolution
and ordered the respondent to produce the Loan Sale and Purchase
Agreement (LSPA) in order that petitioners may inspect photocopy of
the same.

Respondent raised the following points: (1) motion for production was
filed out of time; (2) the production of the LSPA would violate parol
evidence rule; and (3) the LSPA is a privileged and confidential
document.

Petitioners on the other hand, argued that: (1) motion for production
was not filed out of time since there is no proscription, under Rule 27
or any provision of the Rules of Court, from filing motions for
production, beyond the pre-trial; (2) Parol evidence rule is not
applicable to them because they were not parties to the deed of
assignment, and “they cannot be prevented from seeking evidence to
determine the complete terms of the Deed of Assignment.”; (3) that
“it has not been shown that the parties fall under . . . or, at the very
least . . . analogous to [any of the relationships enumerated in Rule
130, Section 124] that would exempt [respondent] from disclosing
information as to their transaction.”

Is the availment of a motion for production, as one of the

modes of discovery, limited to the pre-trial stage?