SANTAMARIA VS.

CLEARY, 15 JUNE 2016

DOCTRINE:

FACTS:

Respondent a US citizen filed a complaint before the RTC against the

petitioners. Respondent moved for the court’s authorization to take his
deposition before the Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles. Petitioners
opposed the motion arguing that it deprives the parties the opportunity to
observe his demeanor and directly propound questions on him, and that
the oral deposition was not intended for discovery purposes if Cleary
deposed himself as plaintiff.

ISSUE:

Whether deposition is not allowed in the instant case?

RULING

Depositions may be taken at the instance of any party and may be used
without the deponent being actually called to the witness stand by the
proponent, under certain conditions and for certain limited purposes.

The right to take statements and the right to use them in court have been
kept entirely distinct. The utmost freedom is allowed in taking depositions;
restrictions are imposed upon their use. As a result, there is accorded the
widest possible opportunity for knowledge by both parties of all the facts
before the trial.
AFULUGENCIA VS. METROBANK, 05 FEBRUARY 2014

DOCTRINE: A party not served with written interrogatories may not be

compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a
deposition pending appeal.

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a complaint for nullification of foreclosure against

respondent. After the filing of the parties’ pleadings and with the conclusion
of pre–trial, petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces
Tecum Ad Testificandum to require Metrobank’s officers to appear and
testify as the petitioners’ initial witnesses.

Respondent filed an Opposition arguing that that pursuant to Sections 1

and 6 of Rule 25 of the Rules, Metrobank’s officers – who are considered
adverse parties – may not be compelled to appear and testify in court for
the petitioners since they were not initially served with written
interrogatories.

ISSUE:

Whether the officers may not be compelled to testify?

RULING:

No, A party not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by
the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a deposition
pending appeal.
NG MENG TAM VS. CHINA BANK, 05 AUGUST 2015

FACTS:

In a case filed by the respondent against the petitioner, the latter served
interrogatories to parties10 pursuant to Sections 111 and 6,12 Rule 25 of the
Rules of Court to China Bank and required Mr. George C. Yap, Account
Officer of the Account Management Group, to answer.

Petitioner again moved for the hearing of his affirmative defenses. 

Because he found Yap’s answers to the interrogatories to parties evasive
and not responsive, petitioner applied for the issuance of a
subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum against George Yap pursuant
to Section 6,14 Rule 25 of the Revised Rules of Court.

On April 29, 2014, when the case was called for the presentation of George
Yap as a witness, China Bank objected citing Section 5 of the JAR.  China
Bank said that Yap cannot be compelled to testify in court because
petitioner did not obtain and present George Yap’s judicial affidavit. 

ISSUE:

Whether JAR is applicable in the instant case?

RULING:

No,  Section 5 cannot be made to apply Yap for the reason that he is
included in a group of individuals expressly exempt from the provision’s
application.

Being inapplicable in the instant case Sec. 12 Rule 132 of the ROC must
govern. Before a party may be qualified under Section 12, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court, the party presenting the adverse party witness must comply
with Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court

“in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness
stand is not allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served upon the
latter.”
MARTIRES V. HEIRS OF SOMERA, DECEMBER 3, 2018

FACTS:

Respondent filed a complaint for accion reinvicatoria and accion publiciana

against the petitioner, subsequently respondent filed a Motion to Conduct
Deposition Upon Oral Examination.

The respondent however, opposed the introduction in evidence of Exhibits

"Q," "R," and "S" on the ground that he was never given reasonable notice
of the deposition-taking.

ISSUE: Whether the depositions may not be admitted on the ground of

failure to give notice?

RULING:

No, Section 29(a), Rule 23 of the Rules of Court states that "all errors and
irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are waived unless written
objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice." Contrary to
petitioner's contention that the right to object came into being only when
respondents sought to introduce the transcripts in evidence, petitioner
should have objected to the perceived irregularity of the notice immediately
upon receipt thereof.
DUQUE VS YU, FEBRUARY 19, 2018

FACTS:

Petitioners lodge a complaint for nullification of deed of donation and deed

of absolute sale against the respondent. Petitioners argued that their
signature in the deed of donation in favor of their daughter is forged, hence,
the deed of absolute sale between their daughter and the respondents is
void.

Motion for Admission by Adverse Party was filed by respondents

requesting the admission of these documents: (1) Real Estate Mortgage
(REM); (2) Deed of Donation; (3) Contract of Lease; (4) TD No. 07-05616;
(5) TD No. 14002-A; (6) Deed of Absolute Sale; and (7) TD No. 01-07-
05886.

In view of the failure of the petitioner to comment the respondent filed a

demurer to evidence, arguing that the failure to comment resulted to the
implied admission of the documents.

ISSUE:

Whether there is implied admission in view of the failure of the petitioner to

comment?

RULING:

Clearly, once a party serves a request for admission as to the truth of any
material and relevant matter of fact, the party to whom such request is
served has 15 days within which to file a sworn statement answering it. In
case of failure to do so, each of the matters of which admission is
requested shall be deemed admitted. This rule, however, admits of an
exception, that is, when the party to whom such request for admission
is served had already controverted the matters subject of such
request in an earlier pleading. Otherwise stated, 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.
EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3
ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., APRIL 10, 2013

FACTS:
Petitioners are the defendant in the collection suit filed by EIB,
subsequently the latter transferred the obligation to the respondent through
a deed of assignment resulting to the filing of motion to join/substitute

Petitioner filed a motion or inspection of the Loan Sale and Purchase

Agreement referred in the deed of assignment. Petitioner opposed the
motion for lack of good cause. However, the respondent argued that the
petitioners claim is based on an obligation purchased after litigation had
already been instituted in relation to it and pursuant to Art 1634 of the Civil
Code assignment of credit, the obligation subject of the case a quo is a
credit in litigation, which may be extinguished by reimbursing the assignee
of the price paid therefor, the judicial costs incurred and the interest of the
price from the day on which the same was paid.

ISSUE:

Whether the motion for inspection has a good cause?

RULING:

Although the grant of a motion for production of document is admittedly

discretionary on the part of the trial court judge, nevertheless, it cannot be
arbitrarily or unreasonably denied because to do so would bar access to
relevant evidence that may be used by a party-litigant and hence, impair
his fundamental right to due process.

The test to be applied by the trial judge in determining the relevancy of

documents and the sufficiency of their description is one of reasonableness
and practicability.

In this light, the relevance of the LSPA sought by petitioners is readily

apparent. Fair play demands that petitioners must be given the chance to
examine the LSPA. Besides, we find no great practical difficulty, and
respondent did not allege any, in presenting the document for inspection
and copying of the petitioners.
REPUBLIC VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 16 DECEMBER 2011

FACTS:
Two cases was consolidated before the Sandiganbayan Civil Case. 0009
and Civil Case 0130. In Civil Case 0130 a deposition was allowed by the
court and admitted. Upon consolidation the petitioner filed a motion to
admit the deposition in Civil Case 0009, for the reason that said deponents
according to the petitioner are not available for cross-examination in this
Court by the respondents. The petitioner claims that in light of the prior
consolidation of Civil Case No. 0009 and Civil Case No. 0130, among
others,92 the "former case or proceeding" that Section 47, Rule 130 speaks
of no longer exists.

ISSUE:

Whether the consolidation of the case dispensed with the usual requisites
of admissibility?

RULING:

No, Consolidation is a procedural device granted to the court as an aid in

deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the business of the
court may be dispatched expeditiously and with economy while providing
justice to the parties. To promote this end, the rule permits the
consolidation and a single trial of several cases in the court’s docket, or the
consolidation of issues within those cases.95

A reading of Rule 31 of the Rules of Court easily lends itself to two

observations. First, Rule 31 is completely silent on the effect/s of
consolidation on the cases consolidated; on the parties and the causes of
action involved; and on the evidence presented in the consolidated cases.
Second, while Rule 31 gives the court the discretion either to order a joint
hearing or trial, or to order the actions consolidated, jurisprudence will show
that the term "consolidation" is used generically and even synonymously
with joint hearing or trial of several causes.96 In fact, the title "consolidation"
of Rule 31 covers all the different senses of consolidation, as discussed
below.
Considering that the Sandiganbayan’s order 101 to consolidate several
incident cases does not at all provide a hint on the extent of the court’s
exercise of its discretion as to the effects of the consolidation it ordered – in
view of the function of this procedural device to principally aid the court
itself in dealing with its official business – we are compelled to look deeper
into the voluminous records of the proceedings conducted below. We note
that there is nothing that would even suggest that the Sandiganbayan in
fact intended a merger of causes of action, parties and evidence.
RE: LETTER COMPLAINT OF FABIANA, 02 JULY 2013

FACTS:

In the case decided by the NLRC the two parties filed their separation
petition for certiorari before the CA.

On August 20, 2009, when the heirs of Fabiana filed their comment vis-à-
vis the second petition, they sought the consolidation of the two petitions.
Their request for consolidation was not acted upon, however, but was soon
mooted a month later by the First Division of the CA promulgating its
decision on the first petition (C.A.-G.R. No. 109382) on September 29,
2009

ISSUE:

Whether the two cases should have been consolidated?

RULING:

The consolidation of two or more actions is authorized where the cases

arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like
issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided
that the court has jurisdiction and that consolidation will not give one party
an undue advantage or that consolidation will not prejudice the substantial
rights of any of the parties. 18 As to parties, their substantial identity will
suffice. Substantial identity of parties exists when there is a community of
interest or privity of interest between a party in the first case and a party in
the second, even if the latter has not been impleaded in the first case. 19 As
to issues, what is required is mere identity of issues where the parties,
although not identical, present conflicting claims. 20 The justification for
consolidation is to prevent a judge from deciding identical issues presented
in the case assigned to him in a manner that will prejudice another judge
from deciding a similar case before him.

It is true that under the Rules of Court, 21 the consolidation of cases for trial
is permissive and a matter of judicial discretion. 22 This is because trials held
in the first instance require the attendance of the parties, their respective
counsel and their witnesses, a task that surely entails an expense that can
multiply if there are several proceedings upon the same issues involving
the same parties. At the trial stage, the avoidance of unnecessary
expenses and undue vexation to the parties is the primary objective of
consolidation of cases.23 But the permissiveness of consolidation does not
carry over to the appellate stage where the primary objective is less the
avoidance of unnecessary expenses and undue vexation than it is the ideal
realization of the dual function of all appellate adjudications. 
IBM DAKSH BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC. V.
RIBAS, JULY 11, 2018

FACTS:

In a case between the parties the NLRC ruled that respondent's dismissal
was justified but nevertheless ordered petitioner to reinstate respondent to
her former position sans backwages for reasons of equity and compassion.

Both parties filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. Interestingly, the CA
did not consolidate the two petitions despite clear notice given to it by
petitioner in its petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the case should have been consolidated?

RULING:
Yes, unlike in the trial stage where the consolidation of cases is permissive
and a matter of judicial discretion, in the appellate stage, the rigid policy is
to make the consolidation of all cases and proceedings resting on the same
set of facts, or involving identical claims or interests or parties mandatory.
Regardless of whether or not there was a request therefor, consolidation
should be made as a matter of course. Indeed, this "mandatory policy
eliminates conflicting results concerning similar or like issues between the
same parties or interests even as it enhances the administration of justice."

Rule III of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals has forthrightly
mandated the consolidation of related cases assigned to different
Justices, viz.:

Section 3. Consolidation of Cases. – When related cases are assigned to

different Justices, they shall be consolidated and assigned to one
Justice.

(a) Upon motion of a party with notice to the other party/ies, or at the
instance of the Justice to whom any or the related cases is assigned,
upon notice to the parties, consolidation shall ensue when the cases
involve the same parties and/or related questions of fact and/or law.
GOODLAND COMPANY, INC. V. BANCO DE ORO-UNIBANK, INC.,
FEBRUARY 11, 2019

FACTS:

Petitioner contracted a load to the respondent bank, due to the failure of

the former to pay and execute the transfer of property in their subsequent
dacion en pago agreement. The respondent filed a complaint for sum of
money and preliminary attachment, which the lower court granted.

Petitioner filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion [a] to lift attachment and/or

partial discharge of attachment and [b] to stop implementation thereof on
account of excessive attachment. Hence, the RTC discharged some of the
properties.

Both parties filed a separate petition for certiorari. The CA granted the
appeal of the respondent. However, the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed
on the ground of res judicata.

ISSUE:

Whether Failure to consolidate two cases may result to dismissal of the

other?

RULING:

No, The failure to consolidate a case with a related case does not
necessarily result in the dismissal of the former, unless there is litis
pendentia or res judicata. Thus, it is incumbent upon the parties to be on
the lookout and to immediately inform the courts of cases pending with
other courts, and if needed, to move for the consolidation of related cases
in order to avoid the dismissal of a case on the grounds of litis
pendentia and/or res judicata, or the issuance of conflicting decisions. This
petitioner Goodland failed to do.

In this case, the Court finds that the CA correctly dismissed the Petition
for Certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 119327, on the ground of litis
pendentia. As aptly found by the CA, the parties and issues raised in the
said case were identical to that of CA-G.R. SP No. 117223. 
GMA NETWORK VS. CENTRAL CATV, 18 JULY 2014

FACTS:
In a case filed by the respondent against the petitioner before the NTC to
stop it from soliciting and showing advertisements in its cable television
(CATV)system, pursuant to Section 2 of Executive Order (EO) No. 205.
The respondent admitted the airing of commercial but it alleged that Sec 3
of the same law expressly allowed CATVproviders to carry advertisements
and other similar paid segments provided there is consent from their
program providers. Respondents filed a demurer to evidence which the
NTC granted. Hence, petitioner filed an appeal arguing that NTC committed
a grave abuse of discretion in granting the demurer to evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether the NTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the

demurer to evidence?

RULING:

Yes, The remedy of a demurrer to evidence is applicable in the

proceedings before the NTC, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9, Part 9 of its
Rules of Practice and Procedure which provides for the suppletory
application of the Rules of Court.

the issue to be resolved in a motion to dismiss based on a demurrer to

evidence is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for based on
the facts and the law.

In granting the demurrer to evidence in the present case, the NTC

considered both the insufficiency of the allegations in the complaint and the
insufficiency of the complainants’ evidence in light of its interpretation of the
provisions of EO No. 205 and EO No. 436. The NTC ruled that the
complainants, including the petitioner, failed to proveby substantial
evidence that the respondent aired the subject advertisements without the
consent of its program providers, asrequired under EO No. 436.

However, the NTC further extended itsconsideration of the issue to the

respondent’s pieces of evidence thatwere attached to its demurrer to
evidence. On this score, the NTC erred.
ZAMBALES V. ZAMBALES, APRIL 3, 2019

FACTS:

Plaintiffs-appellants filed the instant complaint to cancel the document

denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver of Rights and Sale,
alleging said document is forged, which would thus render the subsequent
titles issued pursuant thereto void, herein petitioners did not offer the said
document nor the titles sought to be cancelled during trial. Hence motion to
demurer to evidence was filed an subsequently granted.

ISSUE:

Whether the demurer to evidence was correctly granted?

RULING:

Yes, A demurrer to evidence is defined as "an objection by one of the

parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary
produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a
case or sustain the issue." We have also held that a demurrer to evidence
"authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant
having to submit evidence on his part, as he would ordinarily have to do, if
plaintiffs evidence shows that he is not entitled to the relief sought."

In this case, the records show that apart from the fact that the Extrajudicial
Settlement Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights and Sale sought to be
annulled and the titles sought to be cancelled were not offered in
evidence,26 the Extrajudicial Settlement itself alluded to in the testimonial
evidence presented was not offered in order to allow the trial court to
determine the veracity of the claims of the witnesses.
REPUBLIC V. GIMENEZ, JANUARY 11 2016

FACTS:
The case arose from the complaint filed by the PDGG against the
respondents for the recovery of their ill-gotten wealth. After the presentation
of evidence of the Republic it appears that it failed or otherwise neglected
its filing of formal offer of evidence causing the respondent’s filing motion to
demurer of evidence.

After the filing of motion to dismiss, the Republic filed a Motion for
Reconsideration [of the first assailed Resolution] and to Admit Attached
Formal Offer of Evidence. The Sandiganbayan still dismissed the case on
account of failure to prosecute its case for an unreasonable length of time
and to comply with the court’s rules and the evidence presented lacks
probative value.

ISSUE:

Whether the dismissal is proper?

RULING:

No, What should be resolved in a motion to dismiss based on a demurrer to

evidence is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief based on the facts
and the law. The evidence contemplated by the rule on demurrer is that
which pertains to the merits of the case, excluding technical aspects such
as capacity to sue.

To summarize, the Sandiganbayan erred in granting the Motion to Dismiss

on demurrer to evidence. It erred in making a sweeping declaration on the
probative value of the documentary evidence offered by petitioner and in
excluding other evidence offered during trial without full evaluation based
on reasons grounded in law and/or jurisprudence.