Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
57 views3 pages

Legal Deposition and Testimony Rules

The document summarizes two court cases regarding depositions. In the first case, Santamaria vs. Cleary, the issue was whether a deposition was allowed in the case where the respondent filed a complaint before the court against the petitioners. The court ruled that depositions may be taken by any party and used in court under certain conditions. In the second case, Afulugencia vs. Metrobank, the issue was whether the officers of Metrobank could be compelled to testify for the petitioners since they were not initially served with written interrogatories. The court ruled that a party not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled to give testimony or a deposition by the adverse party.

Uploaded by

Shan Jerome Lapuz Samoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
57 views3 pages

Legal Deposition and Testimony Rules

The document summarizes two court cases regarding depositions. In the first case, Santamaria vs. Cleary, the issue was whether a deposition was allowed in the case where the respondent filed a complaint before the court against the petitioners. The court ruled that depositions may be taken by any party and used in court under certain conditions. In the second case, Afulugencia vs. Metrobank, the issue was whether the officers of Metrobank could be compelled to testify for the petitioners since they were not initially served with written interrogatories. The court ruled that a party not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled to give testimony or a deposition by the adverse party.

Uploaded by

Shan Jerome Lapuz Samoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

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:

You might also like