Wednesday, December 1, 2010

December 1 - Remlaw lecture notes (zoned out a lot of times...)

    Summons
    -notice to defendant that a case is pending against him
    FILING - before the court
    SERVICE - service of the copy of the pleading to the other party (if represented by a counsel, on the counsel)
    Substituted service: to the clerk of court
    Substituted service of summons: to another person ...
    *registered mail usually resorted to
    * If serve personally, usually file personally to the court
    *ulit, if registered mail, dapat may explanation why not personally. Then make an affidavit.
    *note on motion: should be received w/n 3 days before the trial and the trial set at least 10 days after filing of the motion
    R13
    Rule 13 Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other Paper
    F: when the petition to appeal decision of SSS filed w/ CA, it was dismissed because of lack of explanation why not personal service/filing. Claimed in SC that lack of personal service was due to the fact that there was a distance of 83 km between the parties.
    H: with regard to lack of explanation...
    GR: personal service preferred because it would expedite process + ensure avoidance of delay by an inefficient mailing system
    X: service by registered mail...
    ...court has discretion to allow service aside from personal service
    ...here: allowed the service even w/o explanation
    Ma'am: lack of written explanation is a fatal error and the only reason it was allowed in this case, they were able to discern that the other parties' address was far
    F: Ejectment suit vs. Quelnan in MTC. Summons served by substituted service to wife, who torn the summons. Quelnan was not able to take part in trial, judgment against him. Judgment sent to him, but postmaster notified him 3x that he had mail from court. He only filed a petition for relief from judgment  late...
    H:
    1. On the substituted service of summons
    2. On when notice of judgment: if did not personally receive the judgment, but was sent through registered mail and postmaster notified him of such, he is deemed to have known the judgment 5 days after notice, in accordance with the rule on the presumption of constructive receipt
    • Postmaster can notify him 3x
    F: RTC issued order citing Domingo in contempt...in his appeal to CA, he failed to include an explanation why he did not serve personally.
    H: Still the same rule.
    GR: Under ROC, personal service and filing preferred. Provision as to explanation MANDATORY. Court has discretion to consider pleading not filed if served through other modes of service and no written explanation was made.
    MA'AM: Even if it's obvious that there is a huge distance between parties? Chingkay: court should consider the subject matter - the importance of the case...(hay tignan exact words)
    H: Enforcement of a foreign judgment. Withdrew complaint from foreign court...sps. Belen sought to be ordered to pay....Atty. Alcantara....sps. Declared in default for failure to appear before court...
    Judgment sent to last known address of spouses (even if their present address is abroad)
    Appeal filed, alleging that judgment not yet final and executory because defective service of judgment to spouses.
    WON the judgment in default valid - WON service of judgment valid?
    NO. 
    1. GR: service to counsel was made. However, counsel was already dead so cannot apply
    ...here, another service was made to the parties themselves, however, to their last known address
    >>>here: the service should have been served on the spouses at their present address...?
    >>>or service could be made to the clerk of court by substituted service
    MA'AM: Is there extraterritorial service in service of pleadings and judgments: NO
    >>>Service to counsel of record would serve as service to client.
    WHEN SERVICE TO PARTY: when client not represented by counsel
    *WHY IS IT THERE? Ewan
    Purpose: warn all other parties that there is a pending case involving the property
     F: The wife who filed petition for annulment of marriage filed a notice of lis pendens on the property which was no longer their property. It was registered and annotated in the TCT
    WON The notice of lis pendens binds the petitioners? NO
    Notice of lis pendens only affect the rights of transferees pendente lite
    -how to register: write a letter to the register of deeds asking for annotation of the case...
    Registrar usually a lawyer, and knows WON it is proper to annotate
    HOW TO REMOVE: By order of the court - should ask the court for its removal
    e.g. Supposing somebody dies, and he owns shares of stock in ABC corp. Heirs, thinking that the estate properties may be dissipated, wrote to register of deeds for annotation of their claim on the property of the corporation wherein the shares of stocks are
    >>>NO ANNOTATION: properties of the corporation is not the property of the deceased
    *it gets stricter as you go up the hierarchy of courts...proof of service stricter
    ...in SC, even requires the filing of the registry return card after receiving it back
    *in cases of postmaster - affidavit of postmaster usually taken to make the conclusive receipt apply
    Rule 14 Summons
    -logically should have been placed before that in rule 13
    -it is the court who is supposed to do this
    -WON the summons is properly served depends on the kind of action
    ACTION IN Personam-personal service
    ACTION IN REM/QUASI IN REM - pwede kahit di personal service
    F: Mortgage...Specific performance or rescission of sale. Service of summons...made through the mother  of the heirs (who are many).
    -when you're talking about summons: involves jurisdiction over the person
    -should strictly comply with service or else jurisdiction over the person may not be obtained
    ...the heirs contested the decision of the RTC, assailing the jurisdiction of the court over them
    H:
    Characterized actions...
    Proper service of summons depends on WON action is ACTION in PERSONAM or ACTION IN REM
    Venue is determined if action is a REAL action or PERSONAL ACTION
    ACTION IN PERSONAM
    Action which concerns the person/personal liability of the party subject of the action
    ONLY PERSONAL SERVICE, or substituted service (but under strict requirements)
    ACTION IN REM
    Involves the thing itself
    Other types of service allowed
    *Competent persons: one who would give the summons to the defendant
    -here: action is for specific performance - action in personam - even if it is a real action!  
    -action for nullifaction of mortgage + damages
    -as to Dela Pena, service was through sister in law who received the summons but refused to sign. Dela pena did not file her answer
    ...
    *Service of summons not really necessary in actions quasi in rem or in rem; all that is necessary is that the court acquire jurisdiction over the property in question - service over the person of the defendant only a matter of giving due process...
    *there is indeed a defect in the service made...resorted to substituted service even if did not attempt personal service. But even so, since summons is not required to be served, the defect in the manner of service did not render the judgment void.
    MA'AM: the same justification is applied in extraterritorial service of summons
    ...court can already proceed because the court already has jurisdiction over the res
    ...just want to comply with due process requirements
    ...judgment would be binding as long as due process has been observed
    F: Petition for support vs. A seaman. Seaman originates from Camarines sur so first service of summons delivered there, through grandpa. But it was returned so failure of service. Later found out that Vasquez has residence in Taguig. So served summons there. Substituted service made on the maid...?
    Seaman
    H: cannot make personal service of summons because he would probably be at high seas...
    ...extraterritorial service can apply?
    >>>substituted service valid
    Judicial notice that with new means provided by technology, can easily find out about the case against him
    -service is through the officers listed in the ROC. Those persons enumerated are exclusive...
    -but would the President allow the sheriff to enter his office and serve it? Of course the President would just let his secretary receive it? If this is the case, is it deemed constructive receipt?
    In the case, it concerned the branch manager.
    H: Branch manager is not the general manager.
    ...new summons served to the corporate secretary of the corporation and this is valid
    ...if the circumstances show that there was no undue prejudice to teh corporation and the corp was given op[portunity to defend itself, then allowed
    >>>>MAM: the court requires strict compliance!!!
    Receipt of summons through receiving section not enough. THE SHERIFF SHOULD INSIST THAT THE RECEIPT SHOULD BE OF THE PRESIDENT
    -service made on the secretary of the corporate president. Corporation failed to file answer.
    H: Under new rules, strict compliance required w/ respect to the domestric juridical entities!
    If the defendant is temporarily out of the country, how do you serve the summons?
    >>>Extraterritorial service could be resorted to...
    ...also allowed when the address of the defendant is unknown
    If group of person, not incorporated: any one of them, or somebody who appears to be in charge
    *in MCQs, may take most of it from here
    Rule 15 Motions
    -not pleadings...
    MOST FILED
    1. Motion for extension of time
    2. Motion for reconsideration
    -can ask for a hearing to prove the factual matters in the motion
    ...or can attach an affidavit to your motion...
    *OMNibus motion: put in all the allegations in your motion existing at that time - or else deemed waived
    *Motion may be incorporated in the complaint or in a petition
    -strict compliance as to notice of hearing
    -hearing date should be set not more than 10 days from filing
    Rule 16 Motion to Dismiss
    MTD denied - MR - appeal
    MTD granted - file an answer (go to trial)
    -but if you feel strongly that there is no jurisdiction - MR - P4C R65 (cannot appeal because it is an interlocutory order) - file it as soon as possible because it is an extraordinary remedy...
    -asked in interview with ACCRA: what would you do if the MTD is...depends on won you're defending the plaintiff or the defendant
    *can reiterate the grounds in the MTD in the answer after MTD denied...
    What other grounds that can fall as a ground for MTD:
    • Primary jurisdiction of courts - considered sometimes as
    • Arbitration clause - merely suspended
    • Brgy Certification - condition precedent
    Letter h: means you have complied with the demand...
    Can you file motion to dismiss only once?
    Gr: Yes.
    x: PRESCRIPTION (make sure it is obvious...in the records)
    BUT AS TO TIME:
    *no proforma MTD
    H:
    What if the complaint is poorly drafted?  No. Court could order the amendment of the complaint or party could instead file a motion for bill of particulars
    -carnapped car recovered. Alert status not lifted by PNP. Car was later sold. When buyer registered car, registration denied because of the alert. Buyer filed case vs. Seller, seller filed TPC vs. First seller (Goodyear)
    NO COA.
    WON Goodyear, at the time when the buyer complainant filed case, was the seller? No. So no COA against Goodyear.
    Lack of COA vs. Failure to state a COA
    Lacko of COA
    Failure to state a COA
    No COA really
    Failure to make allegations which if true would justify the award of the relief sought
    Lack of capacity to sue:
    -the plaintiff would be:
    • Minor
    • Incompetent
    • Not a juridical entity
    -distinguished from personality to sue: party not the party that should have sued; actually failure to state a COA
    F: Petition for annulment (instead of petition for recognition) dismissed. Divorce decree validly obtained by the complainant after she was already an American Citizen.
    H: Petition dismissable because the divorce decree has been validly given, and therefore, res judicata effective in this jurisdiction
    Ma'am: should not it be recognized first to make it res judicata? Court probably just want not to waste time
    *note here that it was said that one should be an American Citizen when divorce decree issued
    -as long as there is another case pending between the parties.
    -difficult: should know substantial identity of parties
    F: interest assigned. Assignees subleased the land. Notice to vacate by mid-pasig. Filed case for specific performance...
    Basta Mid pasig already has a case...then another...di ba forum shopping?
    H: factors considered:
    1. Date of filing
    2. WON action is anticipatory in nature
    -if action to determine right to possession filed merely to preempt the filing of ejectment, ejectment would remain
    *what if same parties, but different and sortof unrelated COA. Is it litis pendencia? Can pursue both action if different COA!
    *for MCQs!!!
    -where the COA of the second case ...
    1st case: lessee vs. Lessor (violation of lease contract)
    2nd case: lessor vs. Lessee (sum of money for unpaid rentals, became due after filing of the complaint)
    ...so allowed 2nd case?
    Why not just file a supplemental pleading? Permissive counterclaim - so they had choiice
    -same w/ litis pendencia, though the other case is already decided
    2 kinds:
    1. Bar by prior judgment: the same parties,  same COA, same subject matter (entire case is barred)
    2. Conclusiveness of judgment; same parties, not necessarily same COA, but issues already resolved in the first case by a competent court
    F: here 3 cases
    1. Accion publiciana
    2. Motion on the compromise agreement ...
    3. Forcible entry
    MTD filed in 3rd case based on res judicata, referring to 2nd case which already became final...
    ...the right of the parties were already established by final judgment in the 2nd case
    ...3rd case would only prosper if the property claimed by the petitioner not w/n the cases initially filed and decided
    1. Unlawful detainer case - decided ifo Josefina...
    2. Quieting of title...vs. Josefina ...dismissed for failure to prosecute - w/ prejudice
    3. Injunction case filed by the male heirs vs. Different parties, their co-plaintiffs in 2nd case - dismissed based on res judicata of 2nd case
    4. Annulment of title w/ damages - men vs. Women ...
    H: res judicata applies
    4 requisites:
    1. Final judgment
    2. Judgment on the merits
    3. Court has jurisdiction
    4. Identity of parties, subject matter, COA
    Molave already accepted reimbursement...
    -filed ANSWER + Motion for preliminary hearing
    ...not summary dismissal...
    -not a ground for MTD  
    Facts
    -Rouzie (an American citizen) + Brand Marine Services Inc (BMSI) entered into CONTRACT wherein Rouzie was assigned as BMSI's representative to negotiate in sale of services in several gov't  projects in RP for 10% of the gross receipts
    -Rouzie secured from RP Gov't a service contract but he was allegedly not paid his commission
    -NLRC: Rouzie filed suit vs. BMSI + RUST for nonpayment of commissions + illegal termination + breach of employment
    LA: RUST, BMSI et al pay Rouzie
    NLRC: Reversed LA: NO JURISDICTION - Appealed to SC but was dismissed
    -Rouzie filed COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES IN RTC (vs. BMSI + RUST + Raytheon)
    ...same allegations in NLRC:
    • Rouzie was verbally employed to negotiate sale of services in government projects
    • Not paid the commissions due him
    • RUST + BMSI + Raytheon merged as one company
    -ANSWER: alleged that the rights and obligations of the parties are governed by Connecticut laws so dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens + Failure to state COA
    >it was a foreign corporation duly licensed to do business in RP
    >denied entering into any arrangement w/ Rouzie
    >NLRC decision contained that the terms of the agreement between Rouzie and BMSI & RUST is governed by the laws of the state of Connecticut
    >SHOULD BE DISMISSED: failure to state COA + Forum  non conveniens
    + OMNIBUS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING BASED ON AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES + SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    -RTC LA UNION: DENIED OMNIBUS MOTION
    >factual allegations in the complaint were sufficient for RTC to render valid judgment
    >principle of forum non conveniens INAPPLICABLE - TC could enforce judgment on petitioner - foreign corporation licensed to do business in RP
    MR: Denied
    R65 P4C + injunction
    CA: deny petition for LACK OF MERIT >>>MR
    >although TC should not have considered evidence aliunde, evidence presented (DEPOSITION OF WALTER BROWNING) is insufficient for purposes of determining whether the complaint failed to state a COA
    >can't determine if the corporations did indeed merge
    >RTC has discretion on WON to apply the principle of forum non conveniens
    WON THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED? NO
  1. FORUM NON CONVENIENS  NOT APPLICABLE
    2. -Hasegawa v. Kitamura: 3 phases involved in judicial resolution of conflicts-of-laws problems:
    1. Jurisdiction
    2. Choice of law
    3. Recognition and enforcement of judgments
    -if local judicial machinery adequate to resolve controversies w/ a foreign element, has to prove the following:
    1. RP court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort
    2. RP court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and facts
    3. RP courts has or is likely to have the power to enforce the decision
    -JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER (jurisdiction over conflicts-of-law problem): exercise of sovereign prerogative of the country where the case is filed
    >Conferred by Consti + law + material allegations in the complaint
    -here: ACTION  is for damages from an alleged breach of contract - so nature + amount of damages w/n RTC jurisdiction
    -JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES:
    HERE: There is!
    >over the plaintiff: by filing of complaint
    >over the defendant by voluntary appearance in the court
    -ON THE STIPULATION THAT THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY LAWS OF STATE OF CONNECTICUT: does not suggest that any court (RP court or even other foreign court) are precluded from hearing the action
    >JURISDICTION different from CHOICE OF LAW
    Jurisdiction
    Choice of law
    WON it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state
    WON the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties
    -choice of law stipulation ONLY RELEVANT when the substantive issues develop - after hearing on the merits proceeds
    -UNDER DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS
    ...a court, in conflicts-of-laws cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most convenient or available forum + parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere
    >HERE: allegations NOT SUFFICIENT for the application of the doctrine
    ...propriety of dismissing the case based on forum non conveniens requires a FACTUAL DETERMINATION: more as a matter of defense
  2. FAILURE TO STATE A COA
    3. Failure to state a coa: refers to the insufficiency of allegation in the pleading
    GR: elementary test for failure to state a COA: WON complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded
    HERE: allegedly, the DEPOSITION OF WALTER BROWNING rebutted the allegation that Raytheon + BMSI + RUST merged into 1 company; HOWEVER, CA found that such evidence was not sufficient to uphold allegation of failure to state COA
    + the determination of WON there was really a merger between the 3 companies requires presentation of evidence.
    DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED CA (so remand + denied prayer for the dismissal of the action)
    Rule 17 Dismissal of Actions
    -it's the plaintiff who causes the dismissal of the action
    -See Section 2, last sentence: dismissal of class suit only w/ consent of Court
    Grounds – Pinga v. Santiago, GR No. 170354, Jun 30, 2006
    Failure to prosecute – Filinvest v. CA GR 142439 Dec 6, 2006; RN Dev v. A.I.I GR 166104 Jun 26, 2008; Dismissal without prejudice – Heirs of Gaudiane v. CA, GR 119879, March 11, 2004; Cruz v. CA GR 164797 Feb 13, 2006
    Notice of dismissal prevails over motion to dismiss – Dael v. Sps Beltran GR 156470 Apr 30, 2008
    Counterclaim – Mendoza v. Paule GR 175885 Feb 31, 2009
    Effect – Benedicto v. Lacson GR 141508 May 5, 2010
    Zoning out... 
    Rule 18 Pre-Trial       
    -FIRST BIG MEETING OF THE PARTIES
    -parties supposed to be present at the pretrial
    -if client cannot make it, counsel should be armed w/ :
    • Natural person: SPA
    • Juridical person: Board Resolution w/ Cert. Of Secretary
    -failure to present such: 
    • If plaintiff: dismiss w/ prejudice
    • If defendant: presentation of evidence ex parte - default...
    Pre-trial brief: stuff in there contained in notice of pretrial
    Admission:
    Stipulation of facts: things that may not know it so admit na lang?
    Documents:
    Other modes of dispute resolution
    *if there is something wrong in the pre-trial order, you should correct it...
    *appearance in a criminal case. Election case, special civil action at the same time when the pretrial set would usually allow the resetting of the pretiral
    *in request for admissions, should reply immediately or may be deemed to have constructively admitted  it based on silence
    AM No. 03-1-09-SC Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures
    Effect of failure to appear - Saguid v. CA 403 SCRA 678; Jazmin Espiritu v. Vladimir Lazaro, GR 181020, Nov 25, 2009
    Admissions at pre-trial - Biesterbos v. CA 411 SCRA 396
    Other pre-trial requirements - Advance Textile Mills v. Tan GR 154040 Jul 28, 2005; Anatalia Ramos v. Dominga Dizon, GR No. 137247, Aug. 7, 2006
    Rule 19 Intervention       
    -if case originated in SC, so many people wants to intervene!
    -can intervene as long as you can show you have interest on the matter
    -can intervene anytime before judgment. But there are instances when SC allow intervention even in MR stage - but intervene early on to prevent delay
    -why intervene instead of filing another case: Filing fees
    -how to intervene: MOTION FOR INTERVENTION + attach complaint/answer in intervention
    Requirements - Nordic Asia v. CA 403 SCRA 390
    H: 2 requirements for intervention
    1. Legal interest - direct
    2. Consideration on WON the rights...
    -why intervene here: oppose claims of several crew members
    When to intervene - Salandanan v Sps Mendoza GR 160280 (2009)
    F: here, intervened after CA already rendered decision in the case
    H: Not allowed.
    ...here, joined in the MFR...so MFR in intervention?
    *pwede class suit in intervention
    Who may intervene –
    GSIS v Nocom GR 175989 Feb 4, 2008;
    -One who subsequently acquired (Transferee) stocks...?
    Asia’s Emerging Dragon v DOTC GR 169914;
    Rep v CA GR 174166 Mar 24, 2008;
    Office of Ombudsman v. Maximo D. Sison GR 185954 Feb 16, 2010
    -a government agency could actually intervene because the interest is for the SC to uphold their order
    -office of ombudsman has enough interest....see above...
    *In NAIA 3 Case: MR Stage already when 2 Japanes Firms wanted to intervene
    Rule 20 Calendar of Cases
    -in court, only 1 calendar
    Rule 21 Subpoena
    -like summons when served
    2 kinds:
    1. Ad testificandum: person to appear
    2. Duces tecum: documents to be produced
    *what is easier to quash: subpoena duces tecum
    -because can only quash subpoena ad testificandum if was not given allowance + kilometrage
    *penalty if you don't appear: contempt
    • Ad testificandum: be arrested
    • Duces tecum: may also be deemed to be admitted
    Macaspac v. Flores AM No. P-05-2072 Aug 13, 2008;
    Re Subpoena of Dir Amante AM No. 10-1-13-SC Mar 2, 2010
    -criminal complaint vs. J. Davide &  Austria Martinez
    -Dir. Amante subpoenaed to produce the last known address of J. Davide
    -Ombudsman issued memo referring cases against justices to SC
    H: Ombudsman could issue subpoena duces tecum
    -Under ROC, a subpoena must issue on the grounds of relevance an dreasonableness; could only exist if matter of inquiry is one which ombudsman could legitimately rule upon
    Rule 22 Computation of Time   
    Filing on the last day - De Las Alas v. CA 83 SCRA 200
    MODES OF DISCOVERY
    *NOTE on who could be the object of your discovery
    *Written interrogatories and admissions should be resorted to or else would have deemed to have been waived...
    Rule 23 Depositions Pending Action
    -most common
    -can do it beyond the court where the case is pending? Allowed in Civil cases but not in Criminal cases!
    *can't rule on objections but should note it
    *transcript is important - should be filed in court
    *value of deposition:
    1. Preserve testimony
    2. Help out in strategizing the case
    *Now, depositions marked as documentary exhibit
    *IN US, lots of modes of discovery: if did not avail of it, you have deemed to have waived  any question
    DFA Guidelines in Taking Depositions before Philippine Consular Officers Abroad   
    Purpose of rules of discovery – Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212.
    The landmark case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan (204 SCRA 212, 200) highlighted the significance and importance of the various modes of discovery. The Philippine Supreme Court said, thus: “now, if appears to the Court that among far too many lawyers (and not a few judges), there is, if not a regrettable unfamiliarity and even outright ignorance about the nature, purposes and operation of the modes of discovery, at least a strong yet unreasoned and unreasonable disinclination and adequate use of the deposition-discovery mechanism, coupled with pre-trial procedure, could, as the experience of other jurisdictions convincingly demonstrates, effectively shorten the period of litigation and speed up adjudication.”
    Under Section 2, Rule 25 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the written interrogatories must be answered by the party to whom it is directed, thus: “Section 2. Answer to interrogatories. – The interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing and shall be signed and sworn to by the person making them. The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall file and serve a copy of the answers fifteen (15) days after service thereof, unless the court on motion and for good cause shown, extends or shortens the time.”
    Perforce a party served with the written interrogatories is bound to answer the questions propounded therein under pain of the penalties provided for in Rule 29 of the Rules of Civil Procedure among which is the dismissal of the complaint.
    The various modes of discovery enumerated and provided for in the Rules of Civil Procedure is expressly made applicable to criminal proceedings (Agpalo, Handbook on Criminal Procedure, 2001 Edition, p. 351; citing Section 3, Rule 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure).
    It is of no moment that the questions are a sort of “fishing expedition” considering that the new rules explicitly allow it. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has repeatedly reminded the trial courts that they should encourage the use of deposition procedure and allow the adverse party to serve interrogatories to expedite the proceedings of the case.
    In the aforementioned case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan (supra), it was pronounced that “no longer can the time-honored cry of ‘fishing expedition’ serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent’s case. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession. The deposition-discovery procedure simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing the possibility of surprise.”
    Manner of taking – Pfeger Dulay v Dulay, GR 158857 Nov 11, 2005
    F: Nephew absconded money of uncle. Uncle wanted to take the testimony of manager of Bank of Boston by taking depositions. Petition for letters rogatory + motion to file cross examination question - allowed
    H: Clerk of court of boston refused to take the depositions so the court cannot compel the clerk of court to do so...
    Supposing yhou are a party to a case, you have a witness you want to present who is really jumpy and cannot express himself well. Your lawyer suggests that the witness be sent to US. Would that work?
    NO. The party should not be responsible for sending the witness to US
    Admissibility – Jowel Sales v. Sabino GR 133154 Dec 9, 2005
    Sec 4- San Luis v. Rojas GR 159127 Mar 3, 2008; Dasmarinas v. Reyes, 225 SCRA 622
    Deposition (oral examination) in criminal cases – Rosete v. Lim GR 136051 June 8, 2006
    READ ALL THE CASES! MA'AM WOULD MAKE AN MCQ ON EACH CASE!
    NEXT MEETING: Deposition cases then up to Rule 39
Posted by
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)