This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The authority of the trial court to control its own discovery processes cannot be undermined. In this case, the Sandiganbayan's exercise of this power is neither whimsical nor oppressive. A writ of certiorari is available only to review final judgments or decrees, and will be refused where there has been no final judgment or order and the proceeding for which the writ is sought is still pending and undetermined in the lower tribunal. Pursuant to this rule, it has been held that certiorari will not lie to review or correct discovery orders made prior to trial.[24] | |||||
|
2011-12-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The phrase "unable to testify" appearing in both Rule 23 and Rule 130 of the Rules of Court refers to a physical inability to appear at the witness stand and to give a testimony.[127] Hence notwithstanding the deletion of the phrase "out of the Philippines," which previously appeared in Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, absence from jurisdiction[128] - the petitioner's excuse for the non-presentation of Bane in open court - may still constitute inability to testify under the same rule. This is not to say, however, that resort to deposition on this instance of unavailability will always be upheld. Where the deposition is taken not for discovery purposes, but to accommodate the deponent, then the deposition should be rejected in evidence.[129] | |||||
|
2004-08-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The Rules of Court vests in the trial court the discretion to order whether a deposition may be taken or not under specified circumstances that may even differ from those the proponents have intended.[71] However, it is well-settled that this discretion is not unlimited. It must be exercised --not arbitrarily, capriciously or oppressively -- but in a reasonable manner and in consonance with the spirit of the law, to the end that its purpose may be attained.[72] | |||||