Bar Questions: Rules 23 to 29

1) Briefly explain the procedure on "Interrogatories to Parties under Rule

25 and state the effect of failure to serve written interrogatories (2016
BAR EXAMS)

Rule 25, Spouses Vicente Afulugencia and Leticia Afulugencia v. Metropolitan

Bank & Trust Co., et at, G.R. No. 185145, February 5, 2014)

2) Briefly explain the procedure on "Admission by Adverse Party" under

Rule 26 and the effect of failure to file and serve the request. (2016 BAR
EXAMS)

Rule 26

3) As a mode of discovery, the best way to obtain an admission from any

party regarding the genuineness of any material and relevant document
is through a: (2012 BAR EXAMS)

a. motion for production of documents.

b. written interrogatories.
c. request for admission under Rule 26.
d. request for subpoena duces tecum.

4) An objection to any interrogatories may be presented within_ days after

service thereof: (2012 BAR EXAMS)

a. 15;
b. 10;
c. 5;
d. 20.

5) Ernie filed a petition for guardianship over the person and properties of
his father, Ernesto. Upon receipt of the notice of hearing, Ernesto filed
an opposition to the petition. Ernie, before the hearing of the petition,
filed a motion to order Ernesto to submit himself for mental and physical
examination which the court granted. After Ernie's lawyer completed the
presentation of evidence in support of the petition and the court's ruling
on the formal offer of evidence, Ernesto's lawyer filed a demurrer to
evidence. Ernie's lawyer objected on the ground that a demurrer to
evidence is not proper in a special proceeding. If Ernesto defies the
court's order directing him to submit to physical and mental
examinations, can the court order his arrest? (2015 BAR EXAMS)

If the order for the conduct of physical and mental examination is issued as a
mode of discovery and Ernesto defies the said order, the court cannot validly
order his arrest (Sec. 3[d], Rule 29).
6) Depositions pending action; depositions before action or pending
appeal The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used
for any purpose if the Court finds the following circumstances are
attendant, EXCEPT: (2012 BAR EXAMS)

a. when the witness is dead.

b. when the witness is incarcerated.
c. when the witness is outside the Philippines and absence is procured by the
party offering deposition.
d. when the witness is 89 years old and bed-ridden.

7) Continental Chemical Corporation (CCC) filed a complaint for a sum of

money against Barstow Trading Corporation (BTC) for the latter’s failure to
pay for its purchases of industrial chemicals. In its answer, BTC
contended that it refused to pay because CCC misrepresented that the
products it sold belonged to a new line, when in fact they were identical
with CCC’s existing products. To substantiate its defense, BTC filed a motion
to compel CCC to give a detailed list of the products’ ingredients and
chemical components, relying on the right to avail of the modes of
discovery allowed under Rule 27. CCC objected, invoking confidentiality
of the information sought by BTC. Resolve BTC’s motion with reasons.
(2009 BAR EXAMS)

I will deny the motion. The ingredients and chemical components of CCC’s products
are trade secrets within the contemplation of the law. Trade secrets may not
be the subject of compulsory disclosure by reason of their confidential and
privileged character. Otherwise, CCC would eventually be exposed to
unwarranted business competition with others who may imitate and market the
same kinds of products in violation of CCC’s proprietary rights. Being privileged,
the detailed list of ingredients and chemical components may not be the
subject of mode of discovery under Rule 27, Section 1 which expressly makes
privileged information an exception from its coverage (Air Philippines
Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc., 540 SCRA 215 [2007]).

8) Consequences of refusal to comply with modes of discovery On August

13, 2008, A, as shipper and consignee, loaded on the M/V Atlantis in
Legaspi City 100,000 pieces of Century eggs. The shipment arrived in
Manila totally damaged on August 14, 2008. A filed before the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila a complaint against B Super
Lines, Inc. (B Lines), owner of the M/V Atlantis, for recovery of damages
amounting to P167,899. He attached to the complaint the Bill of Lading.

xxx

On July 21. 2009, B Lines served on A a "Notice to Take Deposition,” setting

the deposition on July 29, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. at the office of its counsel in
Makati. A failed to appear at the deposition-taking, despite notice. As
counsel for B Lines, how would you proceed? (2010 BAR EXAMS)
As counsel for B Lines (which gave notice to take the deposition), I shall
proceed as follows:
1. Find out why A failed to appear at the deposition taking, despite notice;
2. If failure was for valid reason, then set another date for taking the
deposition;
3. If failure to appear at deposition taking was without valid reason, then I
would file a motion/application in the court where the action is pending, for an,
order to show cause for his refusal to submit to the discovery; and
4. For the court to issue appropriate Order provided under Rule 29 of the
Rules, for noncompliance with the show-cause order, aside from contempt of
court.