CIVI

L
PROCED
URE
Cordon, Joyce C.
Fetero, Princess Abby T.
PLM Block 5
OUTLINE
1. Refer to Canon Principle
2. Application of Canon Principle to 3
Jurisprudence
3. Is Canon Principle applicable in the
Philippines?
4. Summons
5. Modes of Discovery
6. Jurisprudence on Modes of
Discovery
7. Rules on Trial
8. Motion for Reconsideration vs New
Trial
9. Jurisprudence on Motion for
Reconsideration vs New Trial
Refer to Canon
Principle
“REFER TO CANON PRINCIPLE”

In the case of Gios Samar vs. DOTC, et al., Justice

Leonen in his concurring opinion explained the canon
principle. Part of the decision read:

Reiterating these rules is important. A single

instance when a ruling is laid means mere ratio
decidendi, when repeated in several various
compositions of this Court, endows it with the
status of an evolving doctrine. When reiterated in a
number of cases over the years, an evolving
doctrine becomes canon. The ratio decidendi,
baring other factors, is strengthened with reiteration
and reexamination of its rationale in subsequent
cases. (Gios Samar vs. DOTC, et al, G.R. No.
217158, 12 March 2019)
Rule 14:
Summons
SUMMO
NS
Definition: The writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him [Licaros
v. Licaros, G.R. No. 150656 (2003)

Issued by: Clerk of court upon directive of the court. [Sec. 1, Rule 14]

Leave of court in case service requires prior leave

Any application under this rule for leave to effect service in any manner for which leave of court is
necessary shall be made by:
a. A motion in writing,
b. Supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his behalf setting forth the grounds for
the application. [Sec. 19, Rule 14]
 Nature and Purpose of Summons
i. In relation to actions in personam, in rem,
and quasi in rem
1. Action in personam
Purpose of summons
a. To acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant in a civil case
b. To give notice to the defendant that an
action has been commenced against him. [1
Riano 376, 2011 Ed.]
2. Action in rem and quasi in rem Purpose of
summons in actions in rem and quasi in rem
a. Not to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant
but mainly to satisfy the constitutional
requirement of due process
b. Jurisdiction over the defendant is not required
c. The court acquires jurisdiction over an action as
long as it acquires jurisdiction over the res that is
the subject matter of the action. [Macasaet v. Co,
Jr., G.R. No. 156759 (2013)]
ii. When summons are issued
Summons shall be issued:
1. Within 5 calendar days from receipt of the initiatory pleading, and
2. Upon proof of payment of the requisite legal fees

Summons shall not be issued, and the case shall be dismissed if the complaint on its face is
dismissible under Sec. 1, Rule 9.

Such provides for the non-waivable grounds for dismissal of a complaint, to wit:
1. The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. Litis pendentia
3. Res judicata
4. The action is barred by the statute of limitations. [Sec. 1, Rule 1
iii. Contents of summons Contents
1. Summons shall be: 3. The following shall be attached to the
a. Directed to the defendant, and original and each copy of the summons:
b. Signed by the clerk of court under seal a. A copy of the complaint, and
b. An order for appointment of guardian
2. Summons shall contain: ad litem, if any. [Sec. 2, Rule 14
a. The name of the court, and the names of the parties to
the action;
b. When authorized by the court upon ex parte motion, an
authorization for the plaintiff to serve summons to the
defendant;
c. A direction that the defendant answer within the time
fixed by the ROC; and
d. A notice that unless the defendant so answers, plaintiff
will take judgment by default and may be granted the
relief applied for
iv. Duty of counsel
When counsel may be deputized by the court
to serve summons on his client:
1. Where summons is improperly served, and
2. A lawyer makes a special appearance on
behalf of the defendant to question the validity
of service of summons. [Sec. 13, Rule 14]
v. Return
When summons shall be served:
The server shall complete its service within 30
calendar days from issuance of summons by the clerk
of court and receipt of such. [Sec. 20, Rule 14]
Return of summons
Within 5 calendar days from service of summons, the
server shall:
1. File with the court a copy of the return, and
2. Serve a copy of the return to the plaintiff’s counsel
personally, by registered mail, or by electronic means
authorized by the rules. [Sec. 20, Rule 14
Contents of the return when substituted service was availed of :
1. The impossibility of prompt personal service within 30 calendar days from issue and receipt of
summons;
2. The date and time of the 3 attempts on at least 2 different dates to cause personal service and the
details of the inquiries made to locate the defendant; and
3. Information on the person to whom the summons was served:
a. The name of the person at least 18 years of age and of sufficient discretion residing thereat,
b. The name of the competent person in charge of the defendant’s office or regular place of business,
or
c. The name of the officer of the homeowners’ association or condominium corporation or its chief
security officer in charge of the community or building where the defendant may be found. [Sec. 20,
Rule 14]
b. Voluntary appearance
The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action
shall be equivalent to service of summons. The
inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds
aside from the lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant shall be deemed a voluntary
appearance. [Sec. 23, Rule 14]
c. Who may serve summons
1. The sheriff,
2. His or her deputy
3. Other proper court officer, or
4. The plaintiff together with the sheriff. [Sec. 3,
Rule 14]
Rules for service of summons by
plaintiff
The court shall authorize the plaintiff to serve
summons together with the sheriff upon ex
parte motion in 2 instances:
1. In case of failure of service of summons by
the aforementioned persons, or
2. In cases where summons is to be served
outside the judicial region of the court where
the case is pending.
If the plaintiff is a juridical entity
If summons is returned without being
1. It shall notify the court, in writing, name its served on any or all the defendants, The
authorized representative, and court shall order the plaintiff to cause
2. A board resolution or secretary’s certificate must be the service of summons by other means
attached stating that such representative is duly available under the Rules.
authorized to serve the summons on behalf of the
plaintiff. Failure to comply with the order shall
lead to dismissal without prejudice.
If the plaintiff misrepresents that the defendant was [Sec. 3, Rule 14]
served summons, and it is later proved that no
summons was served:
a. The case shall be dismissed with prejudice,
b. The proceedings shall be nullified, and
c. The plaintiff shall be meted appropriate sanctions.
d. Personal service
How done:
1. By handing a copy to the defendant in person and
informing the defendant that he or she is being
served, or
2. If he or she refuses to receive and sign for it, by
leaving the summons within the view and in the
presence of the defendant. [Sec. 5, Rule 14]
How done [Sec. 6, Rule 14]
1. By leaving copies of the summons at the
defendant's residence to a person at least
eighteen (18) years of age and of sufficient
discretion residing therein;
2. By leaving copies of the summons at the
defendant's office or regular place of business
with some competent person in charge thereof.

e. Substituted service
Substituted service may be availed of when for
justifiable reasons, the defendant cannot be served
personally after at least 3 attempts on 2 different
dates. [This reflects the ruling in the case of Manotoc
v. CA, 499 SCRA 21 (2006)]
3. By leaving copies of the summons, if refused
entry upon making his or her authority and
purpose known, with any of the officers of the
homeowners' association or condominium
corporation, or its chief security officer in charge
of the community or the building where the
defendant may be found [This reflects the ruling
in the case of Robinson v. Miralles, G.R. No.
163584 (2006)]; and
4. By sending an electronic mail to the
defendant's electronic mail address, if allowed by
the court. [Sec. 6, Rule 14]
f. Constructive service
i. Service upon a defendant where his identity is
unknown or where his whereabouts are unknown
Service is made by publication
a. With leave of court,
• The order shall specify a reasonable time not less
than 60 calendar days within which the defendant
must answer.
b. Effected within 90 calendar days from
commencement of the action,
c. In a newspaper of general circulation and in
such places and for such time as the court may
order.
ii. Service upon residents temporarily outside the Philippines Service may, by leave of court, be also
effected out of the Philippines as by the means provided under extraterritorial service. [Sec. 18, Rule
14 in re Sec. 17]

g. Extraterritorial service
When allowed:
1. When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and
2. The action:
a. Affects the personal status of the plaintiff or
b. Relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or
claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or
c. In which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any
interest therein, or
d. The property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines. [Sec. 17, Rule 14]
How summons served By leave of
court, be effected outside the
Philippines
a. By personal service;
b. By means provided for in international
conventions to which the Philippines is a party;
c. By publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in such places and for such time as
court may order; or
• a copy of the summons and order of the court
shall be sent by registered mail to the last known
address of the defendant
d. In any other manner the court may deem
sufficient.
h. Service upon prisoners and
minors; upon spouses
1. Upon prisoners
Where the defendant is a prisoner confined in a
jail or institution, service shall be effected upon
him by the officer having the management of
such jail or institution.
• Such officer is deemed a special sheriff
• He or she shall file a return within 5 calendar
days from service of summons. [Sec. 8, Rule 14]
2. Upon minors or incompetent persons
Where the defendant is a minor, insane, or
incompetent person, service of summons shall be
made:
a. Upon him or her personally, and
b. On his or her legal guardian i. If none, on his or
her guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be
applied for by the plaintiff
In the case of a minor, on his or her parent or
guardian. [Sec. 10, Rule 14]
3. Upon spouses
When spouses are sued jointly, service of
summons should be made to each spouse
individually. [Sec. 11, Rule 14]
i. Service upon domestic or foreign
private juridical entities
Upon an entity without juridical personality
a. When applicable
1. Persons are associated in an entity without
juridical personality, and
2. They are sued under the name by which they
are generally or commonly known
b. Service may be effected upon all the defendants
by serving upon
1. Any one of them, or
2. The person in charge of the office or place of
business maintained in such name.
Upon domestic private juridical entity
Service is effected upon:
a. The president,
b. Managing partner,
c. General manager,
d. Corporate secretary,
e. Treasurer, or
f. In- house counsel.
Service may be effected wherever they may be
found, or in their absence or unavailability, on their
secretaries. [Sec. 12, Rule 14]
If service cannot be made on the enumerated officers
or their secretaries, it shall be made upon the person
who customarily received the correspondence for the
defendant at its principal office. [Sec. 12, Rule 14]
Domestic juridical entity under receivership or
liquidation Service of summons shall be made
on the receiver or liquidator. [Sec. 12, Rule 14]
Upon foreign private juridical entities Juridical
entity registered/ has a resident agent and is
doing business in the Philippines Service may
be made on: 1. Its resident agent designated in
accordance with law,
2. If there is no such agent, on the government
official designate by law to that effect, or
3. On any of its officers, agents, directors, or
trustees within the Philippines. [Sec. 14, Rule
14]
Juridical entity not registered/ has no resident
agent but has transacted or is doing business in
the Philippines
Service may, with leave of court, be effected
outside the Philippines through:
1. Personal service coursed through the
appropriate court in the foreign country with the
assistance of the DFA;
2. Publication once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the country where the defendant
may be found and by serving a copy of the
summons and the court order by registered mail
at the last known address of the defendant;
3. Facsimile;
4. Electronic means with the prescribed proof of
service; or
5. Other means as the court, in its discretion, may
direct. [Sec. 14, Rule 14]
j. Proof of service Proof of service shall
a. Be made in writing by the server and
b. Set forth the manner, place, and date of service;
any papers which have been served with the
process, and the name of the person who received
the papers served
c. Be sworn to when made by a person, other than
the sheriff or his or her deputy. [Sec. 21, Rule 14]
Summons made by electronic mail Effect of defect of proof of service
Proof of service shall be: a. Where the sheriff's return is defective, the
a. A print out of said e-mail, presumption of regularity in the performance of
b. Copy of the summons as served, and official functions will not lie. [Sps. Venturanza v.
c. The affidavit of the person mailing. [Sec. 21, CA, G.R. No. 77760 (1987)].
Rule 14] b. Defective return is insufficient and incompetent
to prove that summons was indeed served.
Summons made by publication [Santiago Syjuco, Inc. v. Castro, G.R. No. 70403
Proof of service shall be: (1989)].
a. The affidavit of the publisher, business or c. Party alleging valid summons will now prove
advertising manager, that summons was indeed served. [Heirs of
b. Copy of the publication, and Manguiat v. CA, G.R. No. 150768 (2008)].
c. An affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of d. If there are no valid summons, the court did not
the summons and order for publication in the post acquire jurisdiction which renders null and void all
office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant subsequent proceedings and issuances. [Santiago
by registered mail to his or her last known address Syjuco, Inc. v. Castro, G.R. No. 70403 (1989)].
[Sec. 22, Rule 14]
MODES OF
DISCOVERY

Discovery
A device employed by a party to obtain
information about relevant matters on the case
from the adverse party in the preparation for trial.
[1 Riano 437, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
Purpose
To permit mutual knowledge before trial of all
relevant facts gathered by both parties so that
either party may compel the other to disgorge facts
whatever he has in his possession [1 Riano 437,
2016 Bantam Ed.]
Modes of Discovery
1. Depositions pending actions [Rule 23]
2. Depositions before action or pending appeal
[Rule 24]
3. Interrogatories to parties [Rule 25]
4. Admission by adverse party [Rule 26]
5. Production or inspection of documents or things
[Rule 27]
6. Physical and mental examination of persons
[Rule 28]
a. Depositions Pending Action; Depositions Before
Action or Pending Appeal
i. Meaning of Deposition Deposition – taking of
testimony out of court of any person, whether party
to the action or not but at the instance of a party to
the action. It is taken out of court. [1 Riano 438,
2016 Bantam Ed.]
Methods
a. By oral examination, or
b. By written interrogatory. [Sec. 1, Rule 23]
Kinds of depositions
1. Depositions pending action [Rule 23]
2. Depositions before action or pending appeal
[Rule 24]
Depositions pending action The testimony of any
person may be taken upon ex parte motion of a
party.
Deposition of a person deprived of liberty The
deposition may be taken only by leave of court on
such terms as the court prescribes. [Sec. 1, Rule
23]
Before whom depositions are taken a. Within the
Philippines, it may be taken before a
i. Judge,
ii. Notary public, or
iii. Any person authorized to administer oaths, as
stipulated by the parties in writing. [Sec. 14, Rule
23]
b. Within a foreign state or country, it may be taken
i. On notice before a secretary of embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice- consul, or
consular agent of the Philippines,
ii. Before such person or officer as may be
appointed by commission or under letters rogatory,
or
iii. Any person authorized to administer oaths as
stipulated by parties in writing. [Sec. 14, Rule 23]
Disqualification by interest
No deposition shall be taken before a person who
is
a. A relative within the 6th degree of consanguinity
or affinity,
b. An employee or counsel of any of the parties,
c. A relative within the same degree, or employee
of such counsel, or
d. Any person financially interested in the action.
Taking depositions upon oral examination 1. A
party desiring to take the deposition of any person
upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice
in writing to every other party to the action. The
notice shall state:
a. The time and place for taking the deposition,
b. The name and address of each person to be
examined, if known, and
c. if the name is not known, a general description
sufficient to identify him or the particular class or
group to which he belongs.
2. An order for protection of the parties and the
deponent may be issued by the court where the
action is pending:
a. After notice is served,
b. Upon motion by any party or the person to be
examined,
c. For good cause shown
3. The attendance of the witnesses may be
compelled by the use of a subpoena [Sec. 1, Rule
23]
4. Examination and cross-examination of
deponents may proceed as permitted at the trial
under Secs. 3 to 18 of Rule 132 [Sec 3, Rule 23]
5. All objections made at the time of the
examination to the qualifications of the officer
taking the deposition, or to the manner of taking it,
or to the evidence presented, or to the conduct of
any party, and any other objection to the
proceedings, shall be noted by the officer upon the
deposition. Evidence objected to shall be taken
subject to the objections [Sec. 17, Rule 23]
Effect of taking depositions A party shall not be
deemed to make a person his own witness for any
purpose by taking his deposition. [Sec. 7, Rule 23]
Depositions before actions
Referred to as perpetuation of testimony
because their objective is to perpetuate the
testimony of a witness for future use, in the
event of further proceedings. [1 Regalado
363, 2010 Ed.]
Requisites
a. Any person who desires to perpetuate
i. his own testimony; or
ii. the testimony of another person
b. Regarding any matter that may be
cognizable in any court of the Philippines.
[Sec. 1, Rule 24]
Procedure for deposition before action
1. File a verified petition in the court of the place of the
residence of any expected adverse party.
2. The petitioner shall serve a notice upon each person
named in the petition as an expected adverse party, together
with a copy of the petition, stating that the petitioner will
apply to the court, at a time and place named therein, for
the order described in the petition.
3. If the court is satisfied that the perpetuation of the
testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice, it shall
make an order designating or describing the persons whose
deposition may be taken and specifying the subject matter
of the examination and whether the depositions shall be
taken upon oral examination or written interrogatories.
Deposition pending appeal If an appeal has been
taken or the time for taking such has not yet
expired, the court in which the judgment was
rendered may allow the taking of depositions of
witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use in
the event of further proceedings in said court. [Sec.
7, Rule 24]
Procedure for deposition pending appeal 1. The
party who desires to perpetuate the testimony may
make a motion in the said court for leave to take
the depositions, upon the same notice and service
thereof as if the action was pending therein.
2. The motion shall state the:
a. Names and addresses of the persons to be
examined,
b. The substance of the testimony which he expects
to elicit from each, and
c. Reason for perpetuating their testimony.
3. If the court finds that the perpetuation of the
testimony is proper to avoid a failure or delay of
justice, it may make an order allowing the
depositions to be taken, and thereupon the
depositions may be taken and used in the same
manner and under the same conditions as are
prescribed in these Rules for depositions taken in
pending actions. [Sec. 7, Rule 24]
ii. Uses; Scope of Examination
General uses of deposition
Intended as a means to compel disclosure of facts
resting in the knowledge of a party or other person,
which are relevant in a suit or proceeding. [1
Regalado 349, 2010 Ed.]
Scope of examination
Unless otherwise ordered by the court as provided
by Secs. 16 and 18, Rule 23, the deponent may be
examined regarding any matter:
1. Not privileged, and
2. Relevant to the subject of the pending action, a.
Whether relating to the claim or defense of any
other party;
b. Including the existence, description, nature,
custody, condition, and location of any books,
documents, or other tangible things, and
c. Including the identity and location of persons
having knowledge of relevant facts.
Effect of using deposition
General rule: The introduction in evidence of the
deposition or any part thereof for any purpose
makes the deponent the witness of the party
introducing the deposition
Exceptions:
1. The deposition is used to contradict or impeach
the deponent.
2. The deposition of a party or of any one who at
the time of taking the deposition was an officer,
director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation, partnership, or association which is a
party may be used by an adverse party for any
purpose. [Sec. 4(b), Rule 23]
iii. When May Objections to Admissibility Be
Made
Subject to the provisions of Sec. 29, Rule 23,
objection may be made at the trial or hearing to
receiving in evidence any deposition or part
thereof for any reason which would require the
exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then
present and testifying [Sec. 6, Rule 23]
v. When May Taking of Deposition Be Terminated
or its Scope Limited
When the court/RTC of the place where the
deposition is being taken may order the
termination or the scope of the deposition limited
Order terminating examination If the order made
terminates the examination, it shall be resumed
only upon the order of the court in which the action
is pending.
Suspension of taking of deposition
Upon demand of the objecting party or deponent,
the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for
the time necessary to make a notice for an order.
b. Written Interrogatories to Adverse Parties
Purpose: To elicit material and relevant facts from
any adverse parties [Sec. 1, Rule 25] and to assist
the parties in clarifying the issues and in
ascertaining the facts involved in a case.
[Philippine Health Insurance Corp vs Our Lady of
Lourdes Hospital, G.R. No. 193158 (2015)]
Written interrogatories to parties differ from the
written interrogatories in a deposition since such
are not served upon the adverse party directly but
rather on the officer designated in the notice. [1
Riano 447, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
Scope and use: Interrogatories may relate to
any matters that can be inquired into under Sec.
2 of Rule 23, and the answers may be used for
the same purposes provided in Sec. 4 of the
same Rule [ Sec. 1, Rule 25]
Number of interrogatories No party may,
without leave of court, serve more than one set
of interrogatories to be answered by the same
party [Sec. 4, Rule 25]
Answers as judicial admissions Written
interrogatories and the answers thereto must
both be filed and served. [Sec. 2, Rule 25] The
answers constitute judicial admissions. [Sec. 4,
Rule 129
Service and filing
The party upon whom the interrogatories have been
served shall file and serve a copy of the answers on
the party submitting the interrogatories within 15
calendar days after service thereof, unless the court,
on motion and for good cause shown, extends or
shortens the time. [Sec. 2, Rule 25]
Objections to interrogatories; answers deferred
Objections to any interrogatories may be presented to
the court within 10 calendar days after service thereof,
with notice as in case of a motion; and answers shall
be deferred until the objections are resolved, which
shall be at as early a time as is practicable. [Sec. 3,
Rule 25]
Grounds for objections
a. They require the statements of conclusions of
law or answers to hypothetical questions or
opinion, or mere hearsay, or matters not within the
personal knowledge of the interrogated party.
b. Frivolous interrogatories need be answered
i. Consequences of Refusal to Answer If a party or
an officer or managing agent of a party fails to
serve answers to interrogatories submitted under
Rule 25 after proper service of such
interrogatories, the court on motion and notice,
may:
1. Strike out all or any part of any pleading of the
party,
2. Dismiss the action or proceeding or any part
thereof, or
3. Enter a judgment by default against the party,
and
4. In its discretion, order him to pay reasonable
expenses incurred by the other, including
attorney’s fees
ii. Effect of Failure to Serve Written Interrogatories
General Rule: A party not served with written
interrogatories may not be compelled by adverse
party to:
1. Give testimony in open court; or
2. Give a deposition pending appeal.
Exception: Allowed by the court for good cause
shown and to prevent a failure of justice. [Sec. 6,
Rule 25]
c. Request for Admission Rule 26, as a mode of
discovery, contemplates interrogatories seeking
clarification in order to determine the truth of the
allegations in a pleading [1 Regalado 370, 2010
Ed.]
Purpose In order to allow one party to request the
adverse party, in writing, to admit certain material
and relevant matters which, most likely, will not be
disputed during the trial. [1 Riano 448-449, 2016
Bantam Ed.]
In order to avoid unnecessary inconvenience
before trial, a party may request the other to:
a. Admit the genuineness of any material and
relevant document described in and exhibited with
the request, or
b. Admit the truth of any material and relevant
matter of fact set forth in the request. [Sec. 1, Rule
26]
How made A party may file and serve upon
any other party a written request for the
purpose mentioned above. [Sec. 1, Rule 26]
When made At any time after issues have
been joined. [Sec. 1, Rule 26]
i. Implied Admission by Adverse Party Each
of the matters which an admission is
requested shall be deemed admitted unless
the party to whom request is directed files
and serves upon the party requesting
admission a sworn statement. [Sec. 2, Rule
26]
Contents
1. Denying specifically the matters of which an admission
is requested, or
2. Setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot
truthfully either admit or deny those matters [Sec. 2, Rule
26]
Period: Such party must file and serve such statement:
1. Within a period not less than 15 calendar days after
service thereof, or
2. Within such further time as the court may allow on
motion [Sec. 2, Rule 26]
Objections to any request for admission shall be
submitted to the court by the party requested within the
period for and prior to the filing of his sworn statement.
ii. Consequences of Failure to Answer Request for
Admission
The proponent may apply to the proper court for an
order to compel an answer. [Sec. 1, Rule 29]
If application is granted, the court
1. Shall require the refusing party to answer; and
2. May require the refusing party or counsel to pay
reasonable expenses for obtaining the order, if the
court finds that the refusal to answer was without
substantial justification.
Effect of refusal to answer Refusal to answer after
being directed by the court would:
a. Constitute contempt of that court. [Sec. 2, Rule
29]
b. Allow the court to make such orders regarding
the refusal as are just
iii. Effect of Admission
Any admission made by a party pursuant to such
request is for the purpose of the pending action
only and shall not constitute an admission by him
for any other purpose nor may the same be used
against him in any other proceeding [Sec. 3, Rule
26]
Withdrawal of admission
The court may allow the party making the
admission under this Rule, to withdraw and amend
it upon such terms as may be just. [Sec. 4, Rule 26]
iv. Effect of Failure to File and Serve Request for
Admission
General Rule: A party who fails to file and serve a
request for admission on the adverse party of
material and relevant facts at issue which are, or
ought to be, within the personal knowledge of the
latter, shall not be permitted to present evidence on
such facts.
Exception: Allowed by the court for good cause
shown and to prevent a failure of justice. [Sec. 5,
Rule 29]
d. Production or Inspection of Documents or
Things Purpose
This mode of discovery is not only for the benefit
of a party, but also for the court and for it to
discover all the relevant and material facts in
connection with the case. [1 Riano 451, 2016
Edition]
Procedure for production/inspection of documents
or things
a. Upon motion of any party,
b. Showing good cause therefor,
c. The court in which an action is pending may
order any party to:
i. Produce and permit the inspection and copying
or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving
party, of any designated documents, papers, books,
accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
things not privileged, which constitute or contain
evidence material to any matter involved in the
action and which are in his possession custody or
control; or
ii. Permit entry upon designated land or other
property in his possession or control for the
purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or
photographing the property or any designated
relevant object or operation thereon
e. Physical and Mental Examination of Persons
When examination may be ordered Such may be
ordered in an action in which the mental or
physical condition of a party is in controversy.
[Sec. 1, Rule 28]
Procedure
A motion for the examination is filed in the court
where the action is pending:
a. Showing good cause for the examination,
b. With notice to the party to be examined, and to
all other parties, and
c. Specifying the time, place, manner, conditions,
scope, and person conducting the examination.
[Sec. 2, Rule 28
Report of findings A copy of the detailed
examination report shall be given by the party
causing the examination upon request by the party
examined.
Refusal to deliver the report
If the party examined refuses to deliver such
report, the court on motion and notice may make
an order requiring delivery on such terms as are
just If a physician fails or refuses to make such a
report the court may exclude his testimony if
offered at the trial. [Sec. 3, Rule 28]
JURISPRUDEN
CE ON MODES
OF
DISCOVERY
(2019 - 2021)
 CASE LIST
1. THE HEIRS OF EDGARDO DEL FONSO V. BENJAMIN T. GUINGONA
[ G.R. No. 213457, March 18, 2019 ]

2. 2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA CRISTINA P. SERGIO

AND JULIUS LACANILAO, RESPONDENTS.
[ G.R. No. 240053, October 09, 2019 ]
3. 3. ANSELMO D. MALONZO VS. SUCERE FOODS CORPORATION
[ G.R. No. 240773, February 05, 2020 ]
4. 4. BDO STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC VS. ASIA AMALGAMATED HOLDINGS
CORPORATION
[ G.R. No. 217360, November 13, 2019 ]
5. 5. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SUSAN DATUIN
[ G.R. No. 224076, July 28, 2020 ]
 1. THE HEIRS OF EDGARDO DEL FONSO V.
BENJAMIN T. GUINGONA
[ G.R. No. 213457, March 18, 2019 ]
RE S OLUTI O N
FACTS
The instant petition stemmed from an Amended Complaint for Quo
Warranto, Annulment of Board Decisions, Inspection of Records,
Audit, Appointment of Receiver and Damages with Application for
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of
Preliminary Injunction (WPI) filed by Edgardo Del Fonso and
petitioners, as alleged owners of 17% of the total outstanding shares
of stock in DAGUMA Agro-Minerals, Inc. (DAGUMA) against
Benjamin Guingona and respondents.
Briefly, the complaint was grounded upon respondents' alleged
unlawful acts as members of the board of directors. Respondents
countered that petitioners have no cause of action as they are not
stockholders of record of DAGUMA.
The RTC issued a WPI, enjoining respondents from any act of
divestment of shares of stocks or equities of petitioners without the
consent of the shareholders, the conduct of any board meeting or the
conduct of any stockholders' meeting without notice to petitioners,
among others.
Despite such WPI, respondents allegedly committed further acts
which divested petitioners of their remaining shareholdings in
DAGUMA. Particularly, petitioners alleged that respondents
executed a Share Purchase Agreement with San Miguel Energy
Corporation (SMEnergy) wherein the latter allegedly acquired one
hundred percent (100%) of the outstanding capital stock of
DAGUMA.
This prompted petitioners to file a Motion for Production of
Documents, praying that respondents be ordered to produce the
aforecited Share Purchase Agreement, as well as all other papers,
documents, and records pertinent to and/or related to the sale,
transfer, and conveyance of the outstanding capital stock of
DAGUMA (SMEnergy Documents).
ISSUE It is clear, therefore, that resolving the issue on the propriety of the
Whether it was proper for the petitioners to avail the modes of RTC's deferment order would not afford the parties any substantial
discovery under the ROC relief nor will it have any practical effect on the case. The Court,
shall, thus, abstain from expressing its opinion in such a case where
HELD no legal relief is needed or called for.
This Court cannot order the production of the SMEnergy
Documents as prayed for in this petition considering that the RTC
already ruled that petitioners have no legal personality to ask for the
same. In ruling so, the trial court, in effect already overturned its
order allowing petitioners to have a copy of and inspect the said
documents. Needless to say, we cannot enforce an order which was
subsequently overturned by the authority which issued it.

To be sure, this Court is not unaware that the RTC Decision is not
yet final and executory by virtue of petitioners' appeal. However,
petitioners' insistence on the production of the SMEnergy
Documents is effectively an attack on the RTC Decision, which is
proper only through an appeal thereof. To rule otherwise, would be
to preempt the resolution of the issue on whether or not petitioners
may legally ask for the production of such documents, which is the
main issue in the appeal of the RTC Decision availed of by the
petitioners.
 2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS.
MARIA CRISTINA P. SERGIO AND JULIUS LACANILAO,
RESPONDENTS.
[ G.R. No. 240053, October 09, 2019 ]
DECISION
FACTS
Mary Jane Veloso (Mary Jane) was convicted of drug trafficking
and sentenced to death by the Indonesian Government and who is
presently confined in a prison facility in Indonesia.
On March 31, 2015, representatives from the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory, and the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
went to Wirugonan Prison to interview Mary Jane. She executed a
document known as "Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Mary Jane Fiesta
Veloso. "
Thereafter, the State filed a "Motion for Leave of Court to Take the
Testimony of Complainant Mary Jane Veloso by Deposition Upon
Written Interrogatories. "
It averred that the taking of Mary Jane's testimony through the use
of deposition upon written interrogatories is allowed
under Rule 23 of the Revised Rules of Court because she is out of
the country and will not be able to testify personally before the court
due to her imprisonment.
The prosecution also pointed out that Rule 23 of the Rules of Court
applies suppletorily in criminal proceedings and the use of
deposition upon written interrogatories in criminal cases is not
expressly prohibited under the Rules of Court.
Further, it pointed out that the Supreme Court has allowed
dispensation of direct testimony in open court under the Rules of
Environmental Cases and the Judicial Affidavit Rule.
Lastly, the OSG averred that Cristina and Julius will still have an
opportunity to examine Mary Jane by propounding their own set of
written interrogatories through the designated consular officer who
will be taking the deposition; moreover, they were not precluded
from objecting to the questions and answers.
Cristina and Julius objected to the motion asserting that the
deposition should be made before and not during the trial. The
depositions under Rules 23 and 25 of the Rules of Court are not
designed to replace the actual testimony of the witness in open court
and the use thereof is confined only in civil cases.
Also, they argued that such method of taking testimony will violate
their right to confront the witness, Mary Jane, or to meet her face to
face as provided under Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution.
Finally, they claimed that the prosecution's reliance on the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases and the Judicial
Affidavit Rule was misplaced because the affiants therein were still
subject to cross-examination.
ISSUE
Whether Mary Jane's testimony may be validly acquired through
deposition by written interrogatories.      cases is authorized under Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules on Civil
HELD
The extraordinary factual circumstances surrounding the case of
Mary Jane warrant the resort to Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. The
rules of procedure should facilitate an orderly administration of
justice. They should not be strictly applied causing injury to a
substantive right of a party to case.
Nowhere in the present Rules on Criminal Procedure does it state
how a deposition, of a prosecution witness who is at the same time
convicted of a grave offense by final judgment and imprisoned in a
foreign jurisdiction, may be taken to perpetuate the testimony of
such witness. The Rules, in particular, are silent as to how to take a
testimony of a witness who is unable to testify in open court because
he is imprisoned in another country.
Depositions, however, are recognized under Rule 23 of the Rules on
Civil Procedure. Although the rule on deposition by written
interrogatories is inscribed under the said Rule, the Court holds that
it may be applied suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as
there is compelling reason.
In Caños v. Peralta, the Supreme Court held that the trial court
judge did not abuse his discretion when it ordered the consolidation
and joint trial of the criminal cases that were filed against petitioner
Adela J. Canos. It reasoned, among others, that consolidation of
Procedure.
The conditions with respect to the taking of the testimony of Mary
Jane that were laid down by the Indonesian Government support the
allowance of written interrogatories under Rule 23 of the Rules of
Court, the pertinent provisions of which read:
Section 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken. — By
leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any
defendant or over property which is the subject of the action, or
without such leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of
any person, whether a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of
any party, by deposition upon oral examination or written
interrogatories.
The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of a
subpoena as provided in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken only in
accordance with these Rules. The deposition of a person confined in
prison may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the
court prescribes.    party proposing to take the deposition.
Section 11. Persons before whom depositions may be taken in
foreign countries. — In a foreign state or country, depositions may
be taken (a) on notice before a secretary of embassy or legation,
consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the
Republic of the Philippines; (b) before such person or officer as may
be appointed by commission or under letters rogatory; or (c) the
person referred to in section 14 hereof.
Section 25. Deposition upon written interrogatories; service of
notice and of interrogatories. — A party desiring to take the
deposition of any person upon written interrogatories shall serve
them upon every other party with a notice stating the name and
address of the person who is to answer them and the name or
descriptive title and address of the officer before whom the
deposition is to be taken. Within ten (10) days thereafter, a party so
served may serve cross-interrogatories upon the party proposing to
take the deposition.
Within five (5) days thereafter, the latter may serve re-direct
interrogatories upon a party who has served cross-interrogatories.
Within three (3) days after being served with re-direct
interrogatories, a party may serve recross-interrogatories upon the
A strict application of the procedural rules will defeat the very
purpose for the grant of reprieve by the Indonesian authorities to
Mary Jane. Mary Jane's testimony, being the victim, is vital in the
prosecution of the pending criminal cases that were filed against
Cristina and Julius. This has been recognized by no less than the
Indonesian President, His Excellency Joko Widodo, who granted the
reprieve precisely to afford Mary Jane the opportunity to participate
in the legal proceedings obtaining in the Philippines.
In light of the unusual circumstances surrounding the instant case,
the Court sees no reason not to apply suppletorily the provisions
of Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure in the interest of
substantial justice and fairness. Hence, the taking of testimony of
Mary Jane through a deposition by written interrogatories is in
order.
 3. ANSELMO D. MALONZO VS. SUCERE FOODS
CORPORATION
[ G.R. No. 240773, February 05, 2020 ]
DECISION
FACTS
Malonzo, et al. filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Recovery of
Possession, and Damages against respondent. On May 22, 2015,
respondent filed with the RTC a notice to take deposition with a
request for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum for the
deposition through oral examination of Anselmo, and Atty. Sampana
or his representative, in his capacity as Registrar of Deeds,
Guiguinto, Bulacan. On May 25, 2015, respondent filed an
additional notice to take deposition with a request for the issuance
of subpoena ad testificandum for the deposition through oral
examination of DAR Usec. Grageda or his representative.
In an Order dated May 28, 2015, the RTC in Civil Case No. 529-M-
2014, denied respondent's notices for having been filed without
leave of court pursuant to Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court
(Rules).
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that under
Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules, no leave of court is required when
an answer has already been served. Pending the resolution of
respondent's motion for reconsideration, Malonzo, et al. filed a
Motion to Admit Amended Complaint to implead the Provincial
Government of Bulacan as an indispensable party to the case.
RTC denied respondent's notice to take deposition for lack of merit.
The RTC ruled that while Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules is a mode
of discovery, Sections 3 and 17 of the same Rules are best complied
with if the deposition is taken before the court and not before a
notary public or any person authorized to administer an oath. The
RTC ruled that the scope of, and reasons for, the depositions are not
clear. The RTC stated that if the deponents are to be utilized as
hostile witnesses, respondent can do this when it is their turn to
present their evidence.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. CA granted
respondent's petition for certiorari, and ordered the RTC to allow
the taking of the deposition upon oral examination of Anselmo, Atty.
Sampana, and Usec. Grageda.
The CA ruled that depositions are allowed to promote the just, HELD
speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding Depositions pending action may be obtained without leave of court
provided they are taken in accordance with the provisions of the after an answer has been served in accordance with Section
Rules, i.e., with leave of court if summons have been served and 1, Rule 23 of the Rules. It states:
without leave of court if an answer has been submitted, and
Section 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken. - By
provided further that a circumstance for their admissibility exists In
leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any
this case, an answer has already been served. As such, leave of
defendant or over property which is the subject of the action, or
Court is not required for the filing of the notice of deposition.
without such leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of
any person, whether a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of
The CA found that respondent has complied with the requirements
any party, by deposition upon oral examination or written
under the Rules. The CA held that there is no rule requiring the
interrogatories. The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by
proponent to state the purpose for taking the deposition. In addition,
the use of subpoena as provided in Rule 21. Depositions shall be
the CA ruled that under Section 10, Rule 23 of the Rules,
taken only in accordance with these Rules. The deposition of a
depositions may be taken before a notary public. Since respondent
person confined in prison may be taken only by leave of court on
has complied with all the legal requirements, the CA ruled that the
such terms as the court prescribes.
RTC has no reason to deny the deposition.
There is no provision in Rule 23 that requires the party requesting
ISSUE for an oral deposition to state the purpose or purposes of the
Whether the CA committed a reversible error in setting aside the deposition. Section 15, Rule 23 of the Rules provides:
Order of Branch 7, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan in Civil Case No. 529-
M-2014 denying respondent's notice to take deposition.
Section 15. Deposition upon oral examination; notice; time and
place. - A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon
oral examination shall give reasonable notice in writing to every
other party to the action. The notice shall state the time and place for
taking the deposition and the name and address of each person to be
examined, if known, and if the name is not known, a general
description sufficient to identify him or the particular class or group
to which he belongs. On motion of any party upon whom the notice
is served, the court may for cause shown enlarge or shorten the time.
The only matters that have to be stated in the notice under Section
15 of Rule 23 are the time and place for taking the deposition, the
name and address of each person to be examined, if known, or if
unknown, a general description sufficient to identify the person to
be examined or the class or group to which he belongs. The trial
court cannot expand the requirements under Rule 23.
The use of deposition, like all other modes of discovery, remains
largely unutilized by most lawyers. The courts should encourage the
use of the modes of discovery rather than burden the parties with
requirements that are not stated in the rules. The statement of the
specific purpose or purposes of the deposition is not required by the
rules.
The RTC observed that Section 3 of Rule 23 on examination and
cross-examination and Section l7 on record, oath, and objections
will be best complied with if the deposition is taken before the court
instead of a notary public or any person authorized to administer
oath. To require that these matters be taken before the RTC because
they require the examination and cross-examination of the deponent
would render useless the entire rules on discovery which were
crafted by the Court to help expedite the disposition of cases.
Section 10, Rule 23 of the Rules provides that depositions may be
taken before any judge, notary public, or the person referred to in
Section 14 of Rule 23, i.e., any person authorized to administer
oaths if the parties so stipulate in writing. Until the Court revises its
rules and removes the authority to take depositions from the notary
public or any person authorized to administer oaths if the parties so
stipulate, these persons retain their authorities to take depositions.
The trial courts cannot arrogate these duties exclusively upon
themselves. Hence, the CA did not commit any reversible error in
setting aside the RTC's Order.
 4. BDO STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC VS. ASIA
AMALGAMATED HOLDINGS CORPORATION
[ G.R. No. 217360, November 13, 2019 ]
DECISION
FACTS
BDO Strategic Holdings, Inc. and Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc. are
corporations duly organized under the laws of the Philippines. Asia
Amalgamated Holdings Corporation (respondent) is a holding
company whose shares are listed in the Philippine Stock Exchange,
and whose the majority shares are owned by Mr. Jimmy Gow (Mr.
Gow).
On November 6, 2007, respondent filed a complaint for declaration
of nullity of contract and damages against petitioners.
On December 10, 2012, Mr. Gow’s cross-examination was
suspended since petitioners filed a request for issuance of
subpoena duces tecum.
On February 1, 2013, pending petitioners' opposition to respondent's
motion to quash, BDO Strategic Holdings, Inc. filed its
written interrogatories addressed to respondent.
RTC denied the taking of Written Interrogatories because it would
not facilitate the disposition of the case.
CA reversed the quashal of the subpoena duces tecum and ad
testificandum but upheld the disallowance of the
written interrogatories.
ISSUE
Whether the CA committed a reversible error in affirming the
disallowance of the written interrogatories addressed to respondent
HELD
It is true that depositions are legal instruments consistent with the
principle of promoting the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition
of every action or proceeding. They are designed to facilitate the
early disposition of cases and expedite the wheel of justice. Hence,
the use of discovery is highly encouraged.
However, while the petitioners are correct in contending that modes
of discovery are important and encouraged, this is not absolute. It is
important to be reminded that the right to take deposition, whether
in a form of oral or written interrogatories, has limitations.
The Rules of Court expressly provides for limitations to deposition It must also be emphasized that the court's exercise of such
when the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such a discretion will not be set aside in the absence of abuse, or unless the
manner as to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the person subject to the court's disposition of matters of discovery was improvident and
inquiry. Depositions are also limited when the inquiry touches upon affected the substantial rights of the parties.
the irrelevant or encroaches upon the recognized domains of
privilege. Considering the foregoing, this Court finds no reason to reverse the
ruling of the CA, affirming the RTC's decision to disallow the
Under statutes and procedural rules, the court enjoys considerable
written interrogatories addressed to respondent Petitioners failed to
leeway in matters pertaining to discovery. To be specific, Section 16
of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court clearly states that, upon notice and establish that the disallowance by the lower court was made
for good cause, the court may order for a deposition not to be taken. arbitrarily, capriciously or oppressively to warrant a reversal.
Clearly, the court shall exercise its judicial discretion to determine
the matter of good cause. Good cause means a substantial reason-
one that affords a legal excuse. In other words, it is for the court to
determine whether there is a substantial reason to disallow a
deposition, as in this case. Thus, the grounds for disallowing a
written interrogatory are not restricted to those expressly mentioned
under the Rules of Court and existing jurisprudence.
 5. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SUSAN
DATUIN
[ G.R. No. 224076, July 28, 2020 ]
DECISION
FACTS
On May 13, 2010, petitioner Republic of the Philippines,
represented by the Regional Executive Director of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Region IV-A, Calabarzon and the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) filed a Complaint for cancellation and
reversion against respondents Susan Datuin, Evelyn Dayot,
Skylon Realty Corporation, Systemic Realty Incorporated,
Parkland Realty & Development Corporation, Baguio Pines
Tower Corporation, Goldland Realty Corporation, and Good
Harvest Realty Corporation.
Petitioner specifically prayed for cancellation of several
Original Certificates of Titles and reversion of the same to the
government on ground that these lots are inalienable based on a
final judgment in Republic of the Philippines v. Ayalay Cia
and/or Hacienda Calatagan, et al.
The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
11, Balayan, Batangas and docketed as Civil Case No. 4929
Baguio Pines and Systemic personally served petitioner a
Request for Admission of facts including the genuineness and
authenticity of the attached documents thereto. Petitioner,
however, failed to respond to the Request for Admission.
They claimed that pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 26, the facts as
well as the genuineness and authenticity of the documents
attached to their Request for Admission were deemed admitted
for petitioner's failure to oppose the same.
Petitioner asserted that there were genuine issues of fact
requiring presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial.
Respondent sought for reconsideration referring back to
petitioner's failure to respond to their request for admission and
its consequence under Section 2, Rule 26 of the Revised Rules
of Court. Pursuant thereto, petitioner was deemed to have
admitted all the allegations in the request for admission as well
as the authenticity of relevant documents, i.e. February 20,
2013 DENR Certificate of Verification.
RTC granted the motion for reconsideration and simultaneously
rendered therein a summary judgment dismissing the
complaint. It deemed the Republic to have admitted all the
affirmative defenses pleaded by respondents in their answer,
including the genuineness and due execution of the very
documents subject of the parties' conflicting claims, granted
respondents' motion for summary judgment based thereon, and
rendered the summary judgment itself altogether in its Order
dated September 3, 2013 which it subsequently affirmed under
Order dated December 18, 2013.
ISSUE
Whether trial court correctly deem the Republic to have
admitted the matters raised in respondents' request for
admission and based thereon, render a summary judgement
against it
HELD
Rule 26 of the Revised Rules of Court governs requests for
admission, thus:
SECTION 1. Request for Admission.— At any time after
issues have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any
other party a written request for the admission by the latter of
the genuineness of any material and relevant document
described in and exhibited with the request or of the truth of
any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.
Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the request
unless copies have already been furnished.
SECTION 2. Implied Admission.— Each of the matters of
which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted
unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall
not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or within
such further time as the court may allow on motion, the party
to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party
requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying
specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or
setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully
either admit or deny those matters
A request for admission seeks to obtain admissions from the
adverse party regarding the genuineness of relevant documents
or relevant matters to enable a party to discover the evidence of
the adverse side and facilitate an amicable settlement of the
case to expedite the trial of the same.[57] The key word is to
expedite proceedings, hence, it should seek to clarify vague
allegations of the opposing party and should not be a mere
reiteration of allegations in the pleadings.
Clearly, what respondents sought for admission referred to the
very subject matter of the complaint, hence, beyond the context
of Rule 26.
As held in Concrete Aggregates Corporation v. Court of
Appeals,[90] it is a delaying tactic and unjustified
maneuvering, nay illogical if not preposterous, thus:
The Request for Admission of petitioner does not fall under
Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. As we held in Po v. Court of
Appeals and Briboneria v. Court of Appeals, Rule 26 as a mode
of discovery contemplates of interrogatories that would clarify
and tend to shed light on the truth or falsity of the allegations
in a pleading. That is its primary function. It does not refer to a
mere reiteration of what has already been alleged in the
pleadings, xxx
As Duque v. Spouses Yu ruled, if the matters in a request for
admission have already been admitted or denied in previous
pleadings by the requested party, "the latter cannot be
compelled to admit or deny them anew." In turn, the requesting
party cannot reasonably expect a response to the request and,
thereafter, assume or even demand the application of the
implied admission rule in Section 2, Rule 26.
TRIAL

Instances When Presence of
Accused is Required by Law
Right of the Accused to be Present In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to be
present and defend in person and by counsel at
every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment
to promulgation of the judgment [Sec. 1(c), Rule
115].
Instances where presence of accused is mandatory
[AP]: a. At Arraignment; [Sec. 1(b), Rule 116] b.
At the Promulgation of judgment, unless the
conviction is for a light offense [Sec. 6, Rule 120]
Waiver of right to be present General rule: The
accused may waive his presence at the trial
pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail
[Sec. 1(c), Rule 115]
Exception: Unless his presence is specifically
ordered by the court for purposes of identification
[Sec. 1(c), Rule 115]
Exception to the exception: The presence of the
accused is no longer required when he
unqualifiedly admits in open court after
arraignment that he is the person named as
defendant in the case on trial [Carredo v. People,
G.R. No. 77542, March 19, 1990]
Other instances of waiver [WE] a. The absence of
the accused Without justifiable cause at the trial of
which he had notice b. When an accused under
custody Escapes until custody over him is regained
[Sec. 1(c), Rule 115]
Suspension on Account of Absence of Witnesses
Effect of Absence of Witness Any period of delay
resulting from the absence or unavailability of an
essential witness shall be excluded in computing
the time within which trial must commence [Sec. 3,
Rule 119]
Requisites for exclusion of the period of delay:
[AUE] a. Witness is Absent or Unavailable
● “Absent”: whereabouts are unknown or cannot
be determined by due diligence
● “Unavailable”: whereabouts are known but
presence for trial cannot be obtained by due
diligence
b. Witness must be Essential [Sec. 3(b), Rule 119]
● “Essential”: indispensable, necessary, or
important in the highest degree [Riano 530, 2011
Updated Ed., citing 5 Black’s Law Dictionary 490]
Motion for Bail: A remedy to secure appearance of
a material witness Either party may file a motion
for bail with proof/under oath that a material
witness will testify when required. When the court
is satisfied of such, it may order the witness to post
bail.
Effect of refusal to post bail If the material witness
refuses to post bail, the court shall commit him to
prison until he complies or is legally discharged
after his testimony has been taken. [Sec. 14, Rule
119]
Trial in absentia
Requisites for Trial in Absentia [ANU] a. Accused
has been Arraigned b. He was duly Notified of trial
c. His failure to appear is Unjustified [Bernardo v.
People, G.R. No. 166980 (2007)]
Purpose
This is to speed up disposition of cases. [People v.
Agbulo, G.R. No. 73875 (1993)]
Remedy When Accused is not Brought to Trial
within the Prescribed Period
Right to Speedy Trial: A Constitutional Right No
provision of law on speedy trial and no rule
implementing the same shall be interpreted as a bar
to any charge of denial of the right to speedy trial
guaranteed by Sec. 14(2), Art. III, Constitution
[Sec. 10, Rule 119]
Purpose of Right to Speedy Trial The rights of the
accused to a speedy trial and speedy disposition of
the case are meant to prevent the oppression of the
accused by holding criminal prosecution,
suspended over him for an indefinite time, and to
prevent delays in the administration of justice.
[Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162214
(2004)]
Important Periods to Observe
1. Between acquisition of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused to arraignment and pre-trial:
a. Detained accused: Within 10 days
b. Non-detained accused: Within 30 days [A.M No
15-06-10-SC, III No 8]
2. Between receipt of pre-trial order to trial:
Within 30 days [Sec. 1, Rule 119]
3. Periods of delay excluded from the computation
[Sec. 3, Rule 119]
Factors to consider when assessing denial of right
to speedy trial [DRAP]
a. Duration of the delay
b. Reason therefor
c. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it, and
d. Prejudice caused by such delay [Corpuz v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162214 (2004)]
Remedy
Motion to dismiss on the ground of denial of his
right to speedy trial. [Sec. 9, Rule 119]
Dismissal on the ground of violation of the right to
speedy trial has an effect similar to that of acquittal
The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on
double jeopardy. [Sec. 9, Rule 119]
Waiver of Right to Speedy Trial Failure of the
accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall
constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss on the
ground of denial of his right to speedy trial [Sec. 9,
Rule 119]
When there is no violation of the right to speedy
trial
There is no violation of the right where the delay is
imputable to the accused. When the accused resorts
to tactical maneuvers, he waives his right to speedy
trial. [People v. Jardin, G.R. Nos. L-33037-42
(1983)]
Burden of proof
a. The accused has the burden of proving the
ground of denial of right to speedy trial for the
motion.
b. The prosecution has the burden of going forward
with the evidence to establish the exclusion of time
under Sec. 3, Rule 119. [Sec. 9, Rule 119]
Requisites for Discharge of the Accused to
Become a State Witness
Requisites for Discharge to be Proper
a. Two or more persons are jointly charged with
the commission of any offense.
b. The prosecution files the motion before Resting
its case
c. The prosecution is required to present evidence
and the sworn statement of each proposed state
witness at a Hearing in support of the discharge
d. The court is Satisfied that the conditions
required by the Rules are present. [Sec. 17, Rule
119]
Requisites as to the Testimony to be a State
Witness
a. Absolute necessity for the testimony of the
accused whose discharge is requested • He alone
has the knowledge of the crime, and not when his
testimony would simply corroborate or strengthen
the evidence in the hands of the prosecution
[Flores v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-63677
(1983)];
b. There is No other direct evidence available for
the proper prosecution of the offense, except the
testimony of the said accused
c. The testimony can be substantially Corroborated
in its material points
d. The accused does not appear to be the Most
guilty
e. The accused has not, at any time, been convicted
of any offense involving Moral turpitude [Sec. 17,
Rule 119
Effects of Discharge of Accused as State Witness
a. Evidence adduced in support of the discharge
shall automatically form part of the trial [Sec. 17,
Rule 119]
• Note: If the motion to discharge is denied, the
sworn statement is inadmissible as evidence.
b. Discharge operates as an acquittal and a bar to
further prosecution for the same offense [Sec. 18,
Rule 119] Exception: When the accused fails or
refuses to testify against his co-accused
Demurrer to Evidence
A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss due
to the insufficiency of the evidence presented by
the prosecution to overturn the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused. [Riano 490,
2016 Ed.]
Dismissal on the Grounds of Insufficiency of
Evidence
a. May be initiated by the court motu proprio, after
giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard;
or
b. Upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused
[Sec. 23, Rule 119]
How Demurrer to Evidence is Made
1. With Leave of Court:
● Oral Motion
● Written Motion
2. Without Leave of Court: If despite the denial of
the motion for leave, the accused insists on filing
the demurrer to evidence, the previously scheduled
dates for the accused to present evidence shall be
cancelled. [A.M No 15-06-10-SC, III No 13 (d)]
Test of Sufficiency of Prosecution’s Evidence:
The evidence of the prosecution must prove
beyond reasonable doubt the:
a. Commission of the crime; and
b. Precise degree of participation of the accused
[Singian, Jr.v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 195011-
19 (2013)]
Effect of granting demurrer The court dismisses the
action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence
[Sec. 23, Rule 119] This amounts to acquittal of the
accused [People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
164577 (2010)]
Effect of denial of motion for leave to file demurrer
a. Accused may choose between
1. Filing the demurrer even without leave, or
2. Adducing evidence for his defense [Sec. 23,
Rule 119]
b. Order denying the motion for leave or order
denying the demurrer itself, is not reviewable by
appeal or by certiorari before judgment [Sec. 23,
Rule 119]
● the court may defer resolution until decision is
rendered on the other accused
If it can be shown from the decision that the
resolution on the demurrer was rendered not only
on the basis of the prosecution’s evidence but also
on the evidence adduced by his coaccused, then the
demurrer is deemed resolved

Procedure if there are several accused If there are 2

or more accused and only one presents a demurrer
without leave of court:
NEW TRIAL
OR
RECONSIDER
ATION
 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

It is a motion for the court to set aside the judgment or A motion for reconsideration under Rule 37 is one that is
final order and grant a new trial. (Riano, 2011) directed against a judgment or final order, anot the motion
for reconsideration of an interlocutory order. (Riano,
New trial is the re-hearing of a case already decided by 2014)
the court but before the judgment rendered thereon
becomes final and executory, whereby errors of law or
irregularities are expunged from the record or new
evidence is introduced, or both steps are taken.
(Castro v. Guevarra and Guevarra, GR. No. 192737, April
25, 2012)
 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

As to the grounds:

1. Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable 1. The damages awarded are excessive;

negligence which ordinary prudence
could not have guarded against and by 2. The evidence is insufficient to justify the
reason of which such aggrieved party has decision or final order; or
probably been impaired in his rights;
3. The decision or final order is contrary to
2. Newly discovered evidence, which he law.
could not, with reasonable diligence, (Sec. 1, Par. 2, Rule 37, ROC)
have discovered and produced at the
trial, and which if presented would
probably alter the result.
(Sec. 1, Par. 1, Rule 37, ROC)
 As to contents:
1. It shall be made in writing stating the
ground or grounds therefor, a written
notice of which shall be served by the
movant on the adverse party.
2. It shall be supported by affidavits of
merits setting forth the particular facts
claimed to constitute a meritorious cause
of action in case the ground relied upon
is fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence.
3. In case of newly discovered evidence:
a. Affidavit of new witness;
b.Duly authenticated documents to be
introduced;
(Sec. 2, Rule 37, ROC)
1. It shall be made in writing stating the
ground or grounds therefor, a written
notice of which shall be served by the
movant on the adverse party.
2. It shall point out specifically the findings
or conclusions of the judgment or final
order which are not supported by the
evidence
3. Express reference to the testimonial or
documentary evidence or to the
provisions of law alleged to be contrary
to such findings or conclusions.
(Sec. 2, Rule 37, ROC)
 As to Rule on Second Motion:

A second motion may be allowed so long GR: Single Motion Rule

as it is based on the grounds that are not
existing or available at the time the first No party shall be allowed a second motion for
motion was made. reconsideration of a judgment or final order.

(Sec. 5, Rule 37, ROC) EXCEPTION: exception to this rule can only be
granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court
en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its
actual membership. There is reconsideration “in the
higher interest of justice” when the assailed decision
is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently
unjust and potentially capable of causing
unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to
the parties.

A second motion for reconsideration may only be

entertained before the ruling sought to be
reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by
the Court’s decision.
(Rule 15, Sec. 3, AM 10-4-20 SC)
 As to effect of granting:

If new trial is granted, the original judgment or
final order shall be vacated. The action shall
stand for trial de novo and will be tried anew.
(Sec. 6, Rule 37, ROC)
If the court finds that excessive damages have
been awarded or that the judgment or final
order is contrary to the evidence or law, it may
amend such judgment or final order
accordingly.

(Sec. 3, Rule 37, ROC)

When not allowed:

Prohibited motion under Summary Procedure Prohibited motion under Summary Procedure
and Small Claims. and Small Claims.
JURISPRUDENCE
ON NEW TRIAL OR
RECONSIDERATIO
N
 EDGAR T. CARREON v. MARIO AGUILLON AND BETTY LOPEZ
GR NO. 240108 29 JUNE 2020

FACTS:
This case stemmed from a complaint for breach of contract and
damages filed by Aguillon against Carreon and his wife before the
Regional Trial Court. The RTC rendered a Decision ordering
defendants to pay Aguillon an amount as actual damages, plus
interests. The RTC's Decision attained finality, and a writ of
execution was issued.
The Sheriff levied on the property belonging to the defendants,
which was purportedly their family home. The property was
thereafter sold at a public auction where the highest bidder thereof
was respondent Lopez.. Thereafter, a Final Certificate of Sale was
issued in her favor. Lopez filed a Motion to Publish the Order of the
RTC granting the petition for cancellation of the defendants' title to
which the RTC granted.
Carreon discovered all the proceedings that transpired without their
knowledge and participation.
Left with no legal recourse, Carreon, filed the Annulment Petition
before the CA on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic
fraud premised on the improper/invalid service of summons.
The CA dismissed the Annulment Petition on procedural grounds as
Carreon. Aggrieved, Carreon filed a Motion for Reconsideration
with Manifestation. In a Resolution dated February 19, 2018, the
CA reconsidered its original ruling, stating that the procedural
infirmities in Carreon's petition have already been rectified.
Focusing solely on the CA's disposition of the case on the merits,
Carreon then filed on March 8, 2018 a Motion for Reconsideration
of the February 19, 2018 Resolution. In a Resolution dated May 4,
2018, the CA noted without action the said motion, opining that it
was a second motion for reconsideration which shall no longer be
entertained for being a prohibited pleading.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA correctly treated Carreon's March 8, 2018
Motion for Reconsideration as a second motion for reconsideration,
a prohibited pleading
HELD: NO.
In this case, the CA characterized Carreon's March 8, 2018 Motion
for Reconsideration as a second motion for reconsideration. Hence,
it noted without action the same for being a prohibited pleading and,
resultantly, issued an Entry of Judgment.
Clearly, the CA's February 19, 2018 Resolution is a new ruling
based on legal grounds that are totally different from its original
July 28, 2017 Resolution; hence, when Carreon filed the March 8,
2018 Motion for Reconsideration, he was technically filing a first
motion for reconsideration of the February 19, 2018 Resolution
wherein the CA, for the first time, traversed the merits of his
Annulment Petition. As such, the prohibition on the filing of a
second motion for reconsideration found in Section 2, Rule 52 of the
Rules did not come into play.

The CA is mistaken.

Carreon's March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration can hardly be

considered as a second motion for reconsideration as contemplated
by the Rules. In fact, the aforesaid motion should have actually been
treated as a first motion for reconsideration because it assailed the
CA's reconsidered ruling (i.e., the Resolution dated February 19,
2018), and not its original Resolution dated July 28, 2017.
 EDNA S. KONDO v. CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL
GR NO. 223628 4 MARCH 2020

FACTS:

Petitioner Edna S. Kondo and Katsuhiro Kondo, a Filipina and
Japanese national, respectively, were married before the Head of
Hirano Ward in Japan. But after around nine (9) years of marriage,
they obtained a divorce by agreement in Japan for which they were
issued a Report of Divorce. In 2012, Edna, through her sister and
Attorney-in-Fact Luzviminda S. Pineda, filed a petition for judicial
recognition of the divorce decree, citing Article 26 (2) of the Family
Code.
Edna filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging she had newly
discovered evidence which could alter the result of the case — a
copy of Katsuhiro’s Report of Divorce, allegedly indicating that he
had already married a certain Tsukiko Umegaki. The trial court
denied Edna’s Motion for New Trial. Aggrieved, Edna assailed the
trial court’s Resolution before the Court of Appeals but the Court of
Appeals affirmed the resolution of the trial court. Hence, she filed a
Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

The RTC denied the petition and noted that under Article 26 (2) of
the Family Code, the foreign divorce should have been obtained by
the alien spouse, not by mutual agreement, as here. Moreover, the
provisions of the Japanese Civil Code, as presented to the trial court,
did not show that Katsuhiro was allowed to remarry upon obtaining
a divorce.
ISSUE:
Whether the case should be remanded to the trial court for reception
The Court ruled that the Divorce Report was not a newly discovered
of additional evidence.
evidence. Edna herself did not deny, as she in fact admitted that the
HELD: YES. second Divorce Report was already existing during the proceedings
below. To be sure, Katsuhiro allegedly married Tsukiko as early as
Rule 37, Section 1 of the Rules of Court sets forth the grounds for a May 30, 2001. If this were true, she should have promptly secured
motion for new trial. and presented a copy of the document during the trial. The Divorce
Report could not therefore be deemed as newly discovered evidence.
For the court to grant a new trial on ground of newly discovered
More so, since the trial court gave her an additional opportunity to
evidence, the following requirements must be met: (1) the evidence
present evidence through its Order dated December 3, 2013, but she
was discovered after trial; (2) such evidence could not have been
still failed to present the second Divorce Report.
discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of
reasonable diligence; (3) it is material, not merely cumulative,
However, the Court added that considering the recent jurisprudence
corroborative, or impeaching; and (4) the evidence is of such weight
on mixed marriages under Article 26 of the Family Code, the trial
that it would probably change the judgment if admitted. If the
court should have been more circumspect in strictly adhering to
alleged newly discovered evidence could have been presented
procedural rules. For these rules are meant to facilitate
during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence, it cannot
administration of fairness and may be relaxed when a rigid
be considered newly discovered.
application hinders substantial justice.