Discovery

- Compulsory process wherein litigants are forced, by court rules or orders, to disgorge private information to the adverse
party
- Purpose of discovery is to obtain knowledge of material facts within the knowledge of the adverse party or of third parties;
obtain admissions from adverse parties and to inspect relevant documents, objects, and property
- What are discoverable?
o Limitations on discoverability
- Modes of Discovery
o Deposition
 Function
 When may be availed of

01 Pajarilla v. CA, 570 SCRA 347 (2008)

 Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Modes of Discovery; Depositions; Words and Phrases; Deposition is chiefly a mode of
discovery, the primary function of which is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of disclosing the real points of dispute
between the parties and affording an adequate factual basis during the preparation for trial; Deposition is allowed as a departure
from the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open court where their demeanor could be observed
by the trial judge, consistent with the principle of promoting just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.—Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the primary function of which is to supplement the pleadings for the
purpose of disclosing the real points of dispute between the parties and affording an adequate factual basis during the
preparation for trial. It should be allowed absent any showing that taking it would prejudice any party. It is accorded a broad and
liberal treatment and the liberty of a party to make discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise
relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of law. It is allowed as a departure from
the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open court where their demeanor could be observed by
the trial judge, consistent with the principle of promoting just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding; and provided it is taken in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, i.e., with leave of court if summons
have been served, and without such leave if an answer has been submitted; and provided further that a circumstance for its
admissibility exists.
 There is nothing in the Rules of Court or in jurisprudence which restricts a deposition to the sole function of being a mode of
discovery before trial—under certain conditions and for certain limited purposes, it may be taken even after trial has commenced and
may be used without the deponent being actually called to the witness stand; There is really nothing objectionable, per se, with a
defendant availing of such discovery measure after the plaintiff has rested his case and prior to the defendant’s presentation of
evidence.—There is nothing in the Rules of Court or in jurisprudence which restricts a deposition to the sole function of being a mode
of discovery before trial. Under certain conditions and for certain limited purposes, it may be taken even after trial has commenced
and may be used without the deponent being actually called to the witness stand. There is no rule that limits deposition-taking only to
the period of pre-trial or before it; no prohibition exists against the taking of depositions after pre-trial.
There can be no valid objection to allowing them during the process of executing final and executory judgments, when the material
issues of fact have become numerous or complicated. Such being the case, there is really nothing objectionable, per se, with petitioner
availing of this discovery measure after private respondent has rested his case and prior to petitioner’s presentation of evidence. To
reiterate, depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of any action, whenever necessary or convenient.

 De bene esse (pending action)

  Perpetuam rei memoriam (prior to action)
 Who do you depose
 Admissibility of Deposition 02 Sales v. Sabino, 477 SCRA 101, 9 December 2005

 Remedial Law; Evidence; Depositions; A deposition is not to be used when the deponent is at hand; Five (5) Exceptions for the
Admissibility of a Deposition are Listed in Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court.—While depositions may be used as evidence
in court proceedings, they are generally not meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness.
Stated a bit differently, a deposition is not to be used when the deponent is at hand. Indeed, any deposition offered during a trial to
prove the facts therein set out, in lieu of the actual oral testimony of the deponent in open court, may be opposed and excluded on
the ground of hearsay. However, depositions may be used without the deponent being called to the witness stand by the proponent,
provided the existence of certain conditions is first satisfactorily established. Five (5) exceptions for the admissibility of a
deposition are listed in Section 4, Rule
23, supra, of the Rules of Court. Among these is when the witness is out of the Philippines.
 As a rule, the inadmissibility of testimony taken by deposition is anchored on the ground that such testimony is hearsay, i.e., the
party against whom it is offered has no opportunity to cross-examine the deponent at the time his testimony is offered; The act of
cross- examining the deponent during the taking of the deposition cannot, without more, be considered a waiver of the right to
object to its admissibility as evidence in the trial proper.—As a rule, the inadmissibility of testimony taken by deposition is
anchored on the ground that such testimony is hearsay, i.e., the party against whom it is offered has no opportunity to cross-
examine the deponent at the time his testimony is offered. But as jurisprudence teaches, it matters not that opportunity for cross-
examination was afforded during the taking of the deposition; for normally, the opportunity for cross- examination must be
accorded a party at the time the testimonial evidence is actually presented against him during the trial or hearing. In fine, the act of
cross-examining the deponent during the taking of the deposition cannot, without more, be considered a waiver of the right to
object to its admissibility as evidence in the trial proper. In participating, therefore, in the taking of the deposition, but objecting to
its admissibility in court as evidence, petitioner did not assume inconsistent positions. He is not, thus, estopped from challenging
the admissibility of the deposition just because he participated in the taking thereof.
 Section 29, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court in gist provides that while errors and irregularities in depositions as to notice,
qualifications of the officer conducting the deposition and manner of taking the deposition are deemed waived if not objected to
before or during the taking of the deposition, objections to the competency of a witness or the competency, relevancy or
materiality of testimony may be made for the first time at the trial and need not be made at the time of the taking of the
deposition, unless they could be obviated at that point.— Lest it be overlooked, Section 29, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, no
less, lends support to the conclusion just made. In gist, it provides that, while errors and irregularities in depositions as to notice,
qualifications of the officer conducting the deposition, and manner of taking the deposition are deemed waived if not objected to
before or during the taking of the deposition, objections to the competency of a witness or the competency, relevancy, or
 materiality of testimony may be made for the first time at the trial and need not be made at the time of the taking of the
deposition, unless they could be obviated at that point.

 Deposition under oral examination to be used in criminal cases

3 Rosete v. Lim, 490 SCRA 125, 8 June 2006

 Criminal Procedure; Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination; The right against self-incrimination is accorded to every person
who gives evidence, whether voluntary or under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.—
The right against self- incrimination is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntary or under compulsion of
subpoena, in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding. The right is not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. It
secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to refuse to answer any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the
answer to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime. However, the right can be claimed only when the specific
question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a
witness the right to disregard a subpoena, decline to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify
altogether. The witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the stand, be sworn and answer questions. It is
only when a particular question is addressed to which may incriminate himself for some offense that he may refuse to answer on
the strength of the constitutional guaranty.
 Under the Rules of Court, in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled among others, to the following.—An accused
“occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness.” Under the Rules of Court, in all criminal prosecutions the
defendant is entitled among
 others—1) to be exempt from being a witness against himself, and 2) to testify as witness in his own behalf; but if he offers himself
as a witness he may be cross-examined as any other witness; however, his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner
prejudice or be used against him.
 As long as the suit is criminal in nature, the party thereto can altogether decline to take the witness stand—it is not the character of
the suit involved but the nature of the proceedings that controls.—It is clear, therefore, that only an accused in a criminal case can
refuse to take the witness stand. The right to refuse to take the stand does not generally apply to parties in administrative cases or
proceedings. The parties thereto can only refuse to answer if incriminating questions are propounded. This Court applied the
exception—a party who is not an accused in a criminal case is allowed not to take the witness stand—in administrative cases/
proceedings that partook of the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal proceeding. It is likewise the opinion of
the Court that said exception applies to parties in civil actions which are criminal in nature. As long as the suit is criminal in nature,
the party thereto can altogether decline to take the witness stand. It is not the character of the suit involved but the nature of the
proceedings that controls.

- Interrogatories to parties
o Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories
- Requests for admission

4 Sime Darby Employees Association v. NLRC, 510 SCRA 204

 Due Process; As this court has so often held, a formal type or trial- type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to
due process the requirement of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their
side of controversy.—As this court has so often held, a formal type or trialtype hearing is not at all times and in all instances
essential to due process the requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to
explain their side of controversy. In one case, this Court held that a party has no vested right to a formal hearing simply and merely
because the labor arbiter granted its motion and set the case for hearing.
 Pleadings and Practice; Civil Procedure; 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.—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.
 Admissions; The rule on admission as a mode of discovery is intended “to expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of
proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.”—Otherwise
stated, petitioner’s request constitutes “an utter redundancy and a useless, pointless process which the respondent should not be
 subjected to.” The rule on admission as a mode of discovery is intended “to expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of
proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.” Thus, if the
request for admission only serves to delay the proceedings by abetting redundancy in the pleadings, the intended purpose for the
rule will certainly be defeated.

- Production and inspection of things

- Examination of persons

What are letters rogatory?

- A letter rogatory or letter of request is a formal request from a court to a foreign court for some type of judicial assistance. The
most common remedies sought by letters rogatory are service of process and taking of evidence.
Depositions before action or pending appeal.
- Perpetuation of Testimony
1. Vital to a case
2. But there is a legal obstacle to file a case 05 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212

 Civil Procedure; Modes of discovery.—The various modes or instruments of discovery are meant to serve (1) as a device, along
with the pre-trial hearing under Rule 20, to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties, and (2) as a device for
ascertaining the facts relative to those issues. The evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable the parties, consistent with recognized
privileges, to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that said trials are
carried on in the dark. To this end, the field of inquiry that may be covered by depositions or interrogatories is as broad as when
the interrogated party is called as a witness to testify orally at trial. The inquiry extends to all facts which are relevant, whether
they be ultimate or evidentiary, excepting only those matters which are privileged. The objective is as much to give every party
the fullest possible information of all the relevant facts before the trial as to obtain evidence for use upon said trial.
 Leave of court not necessary.—In line with this principle of according liberal treatment to the deposition-discovery mechanism, such
modes of discovery as (a) depositions (whether by oral examination or written interrogatories) under Rule 24, (b) interrogatories to parties under
Rule 25, and (c) requests for admissions under Rule 26, may be availed of without leave of court, and generally, without court intervention. The
Rules of Court explicitly provide that leave of court is not necessary to avail of said modes of discovery after an answer to the complaint has been
served. It is only when an answer has not yet been filed (but after jurisdiction has been obtained over the defendant or property subject of the
action) that prior leave of court is needed to avail of these modes of discovery, the reason being that at that time the issues are not yet joined and
the disputed facts are not clear.
 Leave of court, when required.—On the other hand, leave of court is required as regards discovery by (a) production or inspection
of documents or things in accordance with Rule 27, or (b) physical and mental examination of persons under Rule ,28, which may
be granted upon due application and a showing of due, cause.
 06 Dasmariñas Garments v. Reyes, 225 SCRA 622

 Remedial Law; Depositions; Depositions are intended as a means to compel disclosure of facts resting in the knowledge of a party
or other person which are relevant in some suit or proceeding in court.— Depositions are chiefly a mode of discovery. They are
intended as a means to compel disclosure of facts resting in the knowledge of a party or other person which are relevant in some
suit or proceeding in court. Depositions, and the other modes of discovery (interrogatories to parties; requests for admission by
adverse party; production or inspection of documents or things; physical and mental examination of persons) are meant to enable a
party to learn all the material and relevant facts, not only known to him and his witnesses but also those known to the adverse party
and the latter’s own witnesses. In fine, the object of discovery is to make it possible for all the parties to a case to learn all the
material and relevant facts, from whoever may have knowledge thereof, to the end that their pleadings or motions may not suffer
from inadequacy of factual foundation, and all the relevant facts may be clearly and completely laid before the Court, without
omission or suppression.
 Depositions are not generally meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness.—Depositions are
principally made available by law to the parties as a means of informing themselves of all the relevant facts; they are not therefore
generally meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness. The deponent must as a rule be
presented for oral examination in open court at the trial or hearing. This is a requirement of the rules of evidence.
 Any deposition offered to prove the facts therein set out during a trial or hearing in lieu of the actual oral testimony of the
deponent in open court may be opposed and excluded on the ground that it is hearsay.—Indeed, any deposition offered to prove the
facts therein set out during a trial or hearing, in lieu of the actual oral testimony of the deponent in open court, may be opposed and
excluded on the ground that it is hearsay; the party against whom it is offered has no opportunity to cross-examine the deponent at the
time that his testimony is offered. It matters not that that opportunity for cross- examination was afforded during the taking of the
deposition; for normally, the opportunity for cross-examination must be accorded a party at the time that the testimonial evidence is
actually presented against him during the trial or hearing.
 Depositions may be used without the deponent being actually called to the witness stand by the proponent under certain conditions
and for certain limited purposes.—However, depositions may be used without the deponent being actually called to the witness stand
by the proponent, under certain conditions and for certain limited purposes. These exceptional situations are governed by Section 4,
Rule 24 of the Rules of Court.
 Depositions of any person may be taken wherever he may be, in the Philippines or abroad.—It is apparent then that the deposition of
any person may be taken wherever he may be, in the Philippines or abroad. If the party or witness is in the Philippines, his deposition
“shall be taken before any judge, municipal or notary public” (Sec. 10, Rule 24, Rules of Court). If in a foreign state or country, the
deposition “shall be taken: (a) on notice before a secretary or embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular
agent of the Republic of the Philippines, or (b) before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters
rogatory”.
 Leave of court not necessary where the deposition is to be taken before a secretary or embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-
consul or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines and the defendant’s answer has already been served.—Leave of court is not necessary
where the deposition is to be taken before “a secretary or embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the
Republic of the Philippines,” and the defendant’s answer has already been served (Sec. 1, Rule 24). After answer, whether the deposition-taking is
to be accomplished within the Philippines or outside, the law does not authorize or contemplate any intervention by the court in the process, all
that is required being that “reasonable notice” be given “in writing to every other party to the action ** (stating) 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. **” (Sec. 15, Rule 24). The court intervenes in the process only if a party moves
(1) to “enlarge or shorten the time” stated in the notice (id.), or (2) “upon notice and for good cause shown,” to prevent the deposition-taking, or
impose conditions therefor, e.g., that “certain matters shall not be inquired into” or that the taking be “held with no one present except the parties
to the action and their officers or counsel,” etc. (Sec. 16, Rule 24), or (3) to terminate the process on motion and upon a showing that “it is being
conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party”.
 Commission and Letters rogatory defined.—A commission may be defined as “(a)n instrument issued by a court of justice,
or other competent tribunal, to authorize a person to take depositions, or do any other act by authority of such court or
tribunal” (Feria, J., Civil Procedure, 1969 ed., p. 415, citing Cyclopedic Law Dictionary, p. 200). Letters rogatory, on the
other hand, may be defined as “(a)n instrument sent in the name and by the authority of a judge or court to another,
requesting the latter to cause to be examined, upon interrogatories filed in a cause pending before the former, a witness who
is within the jurisdiction of the judge or court to whom such letters are addressed.”

deponents by the law, either by proceeding to Taipei and there conducting the cross-examination orally or opting to conduct
said cross-examination merely by serving cross-interrogatories.—The ostensible reason given by the Trial Court for the
condition—that the depositions be taken “only upon written interrogatories”—is “so as to give defendant (Dasmariñas) the
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses by serving cross-interrogatories.” The statement implies that opportunity to
cross-examine will not be accorded the defendant if the depositions were to be taken upon oral examination, which, of
course, is not true. For even if the depositions were to be taken on oral examination in Taipei, the adverse party is still
accorded full right to cross-examine the deponents by the law, either by proceeding to Taipei and there conducting the cross-
examination orally, or opting to conduct said cross-examination merely by serving cross- interrogatories.

7 Ayala Land v. Tagle 466 SCRA 521

 The commission is to be coursed through the Department of
Foreign
Affairs conformably with Circular No. 4.—It further appears  Actions; Modes of Discovery; Depositions; Purposes;
that the Words and
commission is to be coursed through the Department of Phrases; The term “deposition” is sometimes used in a
Foreign broad sense to
Affairs conformably with Circular No. 4 issued by Chief describe any written statement verified by oath but in
Justice its more
Claudio Teehankee on April 6, 1987, pursuant to the technical and appropriate sense, the meaning of the
suggestion of the word is limited to
 Department of Foreign Affairs—directing “ALL JUDGES written testimony of a witness given in the course of a
OF THE judicial
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL proceeding in advance of the trial or hearing upon oral
COURTS, examination.—
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL As defined, the term “deposition” is sometimes used in
TRIAL a broad sense
COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS” to describe any written statement verified by oath. In its
“to course all more
requests for the taking of deposition of witnesses residing technical and appropriate sense, the meaning of the
abroad word is limited to
through the Department of Foreign Affairs” to enable it and written testimony of a witness given in the course of a
“the judicial
Philippine Foreign Service establishments to act on the proceeding in advance of the trial or hearing upon oral
matter in a examination. A
judicious and expeditious manner;” this, “in the interest of deposition is the testimony of a witness, put or taken in
justice,” and writing, under
to avoid delay in the deposition-taking. oath or affirmation, before a commissioner, examiner
or other judicial
 Depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of officer, in answer to interlocutory and cross-
any action interlocutory, and usually
whenever necessary or convenient.—Dasmariñas also subscribed by the witnesses. [A]nd the purposes of
contends that taking depositions
the “taking of deposition is a mode of pretrial discovery to be are to: 1) Give greater assistance to the parties in
availed ascertaining the
of before the action comes to trial.” Not so. Depositions may truth and in checking and preventing perjury; 2)
be taken Provide an effective
at any time after the institution of any action, whenever means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent
necessary or claims and
convenient. There is no rule that limits deposition-taking defenses; 3) Make available in a simple, convenient
only to the and inexpensive
period of pre-trial or before it; no prohibition against the way, facts which otherwise could not be proved except
taking of with great
depositions after pre-trial. Indeed, the law authorizes the difficulty; 4) Educate the parties in advance of trial as
taking of to the real value
depositions of witnesses before or after an appeal is taken of their claims and defenses thereby encouraging
from the settlements; 5)
judgment of a Regional Trial Court “to perpetuate their Expedite litigation; 6) Safeguard against surprise; 7)
testimony for Prevent delay; 8)
use in the event of further proceedings in the said court” Simplify and narrow the issues; and 9) Expedite and
(Rule 134, facilitate both
Rules of Court), and even during the process of execution of preparation and trial.
a final
and executory judgment.  Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the primary
function of
 Even if the depositions were to be taken on oral examination which is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of
in Taipei, disclosing the
the adverse party is still accorded full right to cross-examine real points of dispute between the parties and affording
the an adequate
 factual basis during the preparation for trial; Depositions may be taken at anytime after the institution of any action, whenever
necessary or convenient.—In the case of Jonathan Landoil International Co., Inc. v. Mangudadatu, this Court instructs: . . .
Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the primary function of which is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of
disclosing the real points of dispute between the parties and affording an adequate factual basis during the preparation for trial. The
liberty of a party to avail itself of this procedure, as an attribute of discovery, is “well-nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into
are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of the law.” Depositions may
be taken at anytime after the institution of any action, whenever necessary or convenient.
 Evidence; A deposition not signed does not preclude its use during the trial; The admissibility of evidence should not be equated
with weight of evidence—the admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of evidence
pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.—On the objection of ALI owing to the lack of
signature of the deponent, it should be noted that a deposition not signed does not preclude its use during the trial. A deponent’s
signature to the deposition is not in all events indispensable since the presence of signature goes primarily to the form of deposition.
The requirement that the deposition must be examined and signed by the witness is only to ensure that the deponent is afforded the
opportunity to correct any errors contained therein and to ensure its accuracy. In any event, the admissibility of the deposition does
not preclude the determination of its probative value at the appropriate time. The admissibility of evidence should not be equated
with weight of evidence. The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of evidence
pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.
 The deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment and the liberty of a party to make discovery is well-nigh
unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of
the law.—This Court has observed that the trial court has painstakingly gone over every objection of ALI contained in its Motion dated 30
January 1995 and ruled on every single objection in the Order dated 05 May 1995 and these objections were again taken up in the Order of the
trial court dated 07 September 1995. On this point, we find no compelling reason to disturb the conclusions arrived at by the trial court. It has
been repeatedly held that the deposition- discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment and the liberty of a party to make
discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and
the inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of the law, as in the case at bar.
 Due Process; Cross-Examination; The right of cross-examination is a personal one which may be waived by conduct
amounting to a renunciation of the right, thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to
avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine.—The second and third issues raised by ALI are that it
was denied an opportunity to cross- examine the deponent consequently resulting in its denial of due process. The records
reveal that ALI was given more than enough opportunity to cross-examine the deponent and its failure to exercise such right
is solely attributable to its own inaction. At this instance, ALL cannot feign prejudice and denial of due process. As echoed in
several cases, due process is, in essence, simply an opportunity to be heard. The right to cross-examine is not an absolute one
which a party can demand at all times. The right is a personal one which may be waived by conduct amounting to a
renunciation of the right of cross-examination, thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but
failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine.
8 Hyatt Industrial v. Ley Construction, G.R. No. 147143 (10 March 2006)

 Civil Procedure; Modes of Discovery; Depositions; Deposition is allowed as a departure from the accepted and usual judicial
proceedings of examining witnesses in open court where their demeanor could be observed by the trial judge, consistent with
the principle of promoting just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding, provided it is taken in
accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court.—A deposition should be allowed, absent any showing that taking it
would prejudice any party. It is accorded a broad and liberal treatment and the liberty of a party to make discovery is well-
nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry is made in good faith
and within the bounds of law. It is allowed as a departure from the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of examining
witnesses in open court where their demeanor could be observed by the trial judge, consistent with the principle of promoting
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding; and provided it is taken in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules of Court, i.e., with leave of court if summons have been served, and without such leave if an answer
has been submitted; and provided further that a circumstance for its admissibility exists (Section 4, Rule 23, Rules of Court).
The rules on discovery should not be unduly restricted; otherwise, the advantage of a liberal discovery procedure in
ascertaining the truth and expediting the disposal of litigation would be defeated.

 The Supreme Court approved A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC on July 13, 2004 which provided for the guidelines to be observed by trial
court judges and clerks of court in the conduct of pre-trial and use of deposition- discovery measures.—The importance of
discovery procedures is well recognized by the Court. It approved A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC on July 13, 2004 which provided for the
guidelines to be observed by trial court judges and clerks of court in the conduct of pre-trial and use of deposition-discovery
measures. Under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, trial courts are directed to issue orders requiring parties to avail of interrogatories to parties
under Rule 45 and request for admission of adverse party under Rule 26 or at their discretion make use of depositions under Rule
23 or other measures under Rule 27 and 28 within 5 days from the filing of the answer. The parties are likewise required to submit,
at least 3 days before the pre-trial, pre-trial briefs, containing among others a manifestation of the parties of their having availed or
their intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners.
 The right to take statements and the right to use them in court have been kept entirely distinct.—The argument that the taking of
depositions would cause unnecessary duplicity as the intended deponents shall also be called as witnesses during trial, is also
without merit. The case of Fortune Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 335 (1994), which already settled the matter, explained
that: x x x 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. Such of this testimony as may be appropriate for use as a substitute
for viva voce examination may be introduced at the trial; the remainder of the testimony, having served its purpose in revealing the
facts to the parties before trial, drops out of the judicial picture.
 Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the primary function of which is to supplement the pleadings.— Deposition is chiefly a
 mode of discovery, the primary function of which is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of disclosing the real matters of
dispute between the parties and affording an adequate factual basis during the preparation for trial.

9 Sime Darby Employees Association v. NLRC, 510 SCRA 204

 Due Process; As this court has so often held, a formal type or trial- type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due
process the requirement of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of controversy.
—As this court has so often held, a formal type or trialtype hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process
the requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of
controversy. In one case, this Court held that a party has no vested right to a formal hearing simply and merely because the labor
arbiter granted its motion and set the case for hearing.
 Pleadings and Practice; Civil Procedure; 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.—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.
 Admissions; The rule on admission as a mode of discovery is intended “to expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of
proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.”—Otherwise
stated, petitioner’s request constitutes “an utter redundancy and a useless, pointless process which the respondent should not be
subjected to.” The rule on admission as a mode of discovery is intended “to expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of
proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.” Thus, if the
request for admission only serves to delay the proceedings by abetting redundancy in the pleadings, the intended purpose for the
rule will certainly be defeated.

10 Security Bank v. CA, 323 SCRA 330

 Civil Procedure; Production or Inspection of Documents or

Things; Ample discovery before trial not only eliminates unessential issues from trials thereby shortening them considerably, but
also requires parties to play the game with the cards on the table so that the possibility of fair settlement before trial is measurably
increased.— In Republic v. Sandiganbayan,the Court discussed exhaustively the significance of the various modes of discovery,
an example of which is the aforecited provision. In sum, the Court held that the said Rule aims to enable the parties to inform
themselves, even before the trial, of all the facts relevant to the action, including those known only to the other litigants. Through
this procedure, “civil trials should not be carried on in the dark.”—We quote: “x x x Indeed, it is the purpose and policy of the
law that the parties before the trial if not indeed even before the pre-trialshould discover or inform themselves of all the facts
relevant to the action, not only those known to them individually, but also those known to their adversaries; in other words,
 the desideratum is that civil trials should not be carried on in the dark; and the Rules of Court make this ideal possible through the
deposition-discovery mechanism set forth in Rules 24 to 29. The experience in other jurisdictions has been that ample discovery
before trial, under proper regulation, accomplishes one of the most necessary ends of modern procedure: it not only eliminates
unessential issues from trials thereby shortening them considerably, but also requires parties to play the game with the cards on the
table so that the possibility of fair settlement before trial is measurably increased, x x.’
 The purpose of the various modes or instruments of discovery is to enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to
obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that said trials are carried on in the
dark.—As just intimated, the deposition-discovery procedure was designed to remedy the conceded inadequacy and
cumbersomeness of the pre- trial functions of notice-giving, issue-formulation and fact revelation theretofore performed primarily
by the pleadings. “The various modes or instruments of discovery are meant to serve (1) as a device, along with the pre-trial hearing
under Rule 20, to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties, and (2) as a device for ascertaining the facts relative to
those issues. The evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain the fullest
possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that said trials are carried on in the dark.”
 Courts are given wide latitude in granting motions for discovery in order to enable the parties to prepare for trial or otherwise to
settle the controversy prior thereto.—It is clear that courts are given wide latitude in granting motions for discovery in order to
enable parties to prepare for trial or otherwise to settle the controversy prior thereto.
 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.—“What is chiefly contemplated is the discovery of every bit of information which
may be useful in the preparation for trial, such as the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts; those relevant facts
themselves; and the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things. Hence, ‘the
deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment. 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, x x.’ ”—
 A litigation is rather a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then,
brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be
done on the merits.— Litigation is essentially an abiding quest for truth undertaken not by the judge alone, but jointly with
the parties. Litigants, therefore, must welcome every opportunity to achieve this goal; they must act in good faith to reveal
documents, papers and other pieces of evidence material to the controversy. In Alonzo v. Villamor, the Court ruled: “A
litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and
position, entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the
court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities
of procedure, asks that justice be done on the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier’s thrust.
Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves
 scant consideration from courts. There should be no vested right in technicalities, x x.”—
 Same; Same; Requisites.—Petitioner points out that a party may be compelled to produce or allow the inspection of
documents if six procedural requisites are complied with, viz.: “(a) The party must file a motion for the production or
inspection of documents or things, showing good cause therefor; (b) Notice of the motion must be served UT all other parties
of the case; (c) The motion must designate the documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
things which the party wishes to be produced and inspected;
(d) Such documents, etc are not privileged; (e) Such documents, etc constitute or contain evidence material to any matter
involved in the action; and (f) Such documents, etc are in the possession, custody or control of the other party.”
 The courts, in passing upon a motion for discovery, should be liberal in determining whether the documents in question are
relevant to the subject matter of the action.—The rule is that courts, in passing upon a motion for discovery, should be liberal
in determining whether the documents in question are relevant to the subject matter of the action. To repeat, the rule on
discovery “requires the parties to play the game with cards on the table so that the possibility of fair settlement before trial is
measurably increased.”

11 Solidbank v. Gateway, G.R. No. 164805, 30 April 2008

 Remedial Law; Evidence; Modes of Discovery; Rule 27 of the Revised Rules of Court permits “fishing” for evidence, the
only limitation being that the documents, papers, etc., sought to be produced are not privileged, that they are in the possession of
the party ordered to produce them and that they are material to any matter involved in the action; Requisites in order that a party
may compel the other party to produce or allow the inspection of documents or things.—The modes of discovery are accorded a
broad and liberal treatment. Rule 27 of the Revised Rules of Court permits “fishing” for evidence, the only limitation being that the
documents, papers, etc., sought to be produced are not privileged, that they are in the possession of the party ordered to produce
them and that they are material to any matter involved in the action. The lament against a fishing expedition no longer precludes a
party from prying into the facts underlying his opponent’s case. Mutual knowledge of all 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.
However, fishing for evidence that is allowed under the rules is not without limitations. In Security Bank Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, 323 SCRA 330 (2000), the Court enumerated the requisites in order that a party may compel the other party to produce or
allow the inspection of documents or things,viz.: (a) The party must file a motion for the production or inspection of documents or
things, showing good cause therefor; (b) Notice of the motion must be served to all other parties of the case; (c) The motion must
designate the documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things which the party wishes to be
produced and inspected;
(d) Such documents, etc., are not privileged; (e) Such
documents, etc., constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action, and (f) Such documents, etc., are in the
possession, custody or control of the other party.
 Solidbank’s motion was fatally defective and must be struck down because of its failure to specify with particularity the documents
 it required Gateway to produce.—Solidbank was able to show good cause for the production of the documents. It had also shown
that the said documents are material or contain evidence relevant to an issue involved in the action. However, Solidbank’s motion
was fatally defective and must be struck down because of its failure to specify with particularity the documents it required Gateway
to produce.
Solidbank’s motion for production and inspection of documents called for a blanket inspection. Solidbank’s request for inspection of
“all documents pertaining to, arising from, in connection with or involving the Back-end Services Agreement” was simply too broad
and too generalized in scope.
 A motion for production and inspection of documents should not demand a roving inspection of a promiscuous mass of documents.
—A motion for production and inspection of documents should not demand a roving inspection of a promiscuous mass of
documents.
The inspection should be limited to those documents designated with sufficient particularity in the motion, such that the adverse party
can easily identify the documents he is required to produce. - Sanctions for refusal to make discovery (Rule 29)
