This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-11-24 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| "The modes of discovery are accorded a broad and liberal treatment."[46] The evident purpose of discovery procedures is "to enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials"[47] and, thus, facilitating an amicable settlement or expediting the trial of the case.[48] | |||||
|
2014-11-24 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| All told, respondent failed to allege sufficient reasons for us to reconsider our decision. Verily, the production and inspection of the LSPA and its annexes fulfill the discovery-procedures objective of making the trial "less a game of blind man's buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent."[67] | |||||
|
2007-07-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner also relies on Fortune Corporation v. Court of Appeals[14] to strengthen its claim that the Rules of Court and not the Interim Rules applies. According to petitioner, said case enumerates two uses of deposition. First, deposition as a mode of discovery where the Interim Rules on intra-corporate controversies applies. Second, deposition as a mode of presenting testimony where the Rules of Court applies. The significant portion of Fortune cited by the petitioner is hereby reproduced in part:[U]nder the concept adopted by the new Rules, the deposition serves the double function of a method of discovery with use on trial not necessarily contemplated and a method of presenting testimony. Accordingly, no limitations other than relevancy and privilege have been placed on the taking of depositions, while the use at the trial is subject to circumscriptions looking toward the use of oral testimony wherever practicable. (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2006-03-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The case of Fortune Corp. v. Court of Appeals[46] which already settled the matter, explained that:The availability of the proposed deponent to testify in court does not constitute "good cause" to justify the court's order that his deposition shall not be taken. That the witness is unable to attend or testify is one of the grounds when the deposition of a witness may be used in court during the trial. But the same reason cannot be successfully invoked to prohibit the taking of his deposition. | |||||