Rule 18 must be read together with Rule 118 of criminal procedure.
What is a pre-trial? Trial before trial, LOL.
Requirements? After the last pleading has been served and filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial. What is that last pleading? Reply.
When pre-trial is set, what happens? Presentation of documents and names of witnesses; marking and identification of evidence
What don’t you find under Rule 18 that you find in Rule 118? Plea-bargaining. There is no plea-bargaining in civil cases, in criminal cases, plea-bargaining is mandatory or the court should at least ask whether they will plea bargain. An application for being a state witness, is that part of plea-bargaining? No. Because it is upon the discretion of the prosecution to recommend, although the final say is with the court. That is not part of plea-bargaining because plea-plea-bargaining is asking the other party to accept your plea to a lower charge, e.g., murder to homicide, and that is done during pre-trial.
Take note that when you plea bargain for the reduction or removal of one of the accused from the charge sheet, it must always be by leave of court.
Under Rule 18, under mandatory requirement there is appearance of the parties and counsels. What are the sanctions if any of the party does not appear? It
depends. If it is the plaintiff, the action will be dismissed
without prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court or in other words, non-suited. If it is the
defendant, it shall be cause to allow plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte. Note that there is no more declaration here, “as in default”. But if the counsel is not present, but the party, plaintiff or defendant, then the rule will not apply because it is the counsel who is not present. Unfortunately there is no sanction for lawyers under this rule. In criminal procedure, however, sanction is up to P20, 000 for private lawyers, and up to P5, 000 for government lawyers.
Present rule:
Rule on national mediation and conciliation proceedings before the Philippine Mediation and Conciliation Office (amended Rule 18 and Rule 118); the term preliminary conference is not limited now to summary procedure only. Even in the pre-trial, as amended, there is
preliminary conference. That preliminary conference is done before the branch clerk of court. Identification of evidence, marking of evidence, stipulations and admissions – they are all done before the branch clerk of court. So when the plaintiff sets pre-trial on a particular day, you go to court and 100% pre-trial will not push through because you will be referred to Philippine Mediation and Conciliation Office, which is mandatory and cannot be waived. Within 30 days, you must find ways and means to settle. And this 30-day period is extendible to another 30 days, maximum of 60 days for mediation and conciliation. What happens if there is settlement there? Mediator will simply draft compromise agreement, and when parties are
amenable, they will sign it, and they give it to the court which will render judgment on compromise that is immediately executory. If there is no settlement before the mediation officer, then it is brought back to the court for preliminary conference before the branch clerk of court. And after the branch clerk of court has
undertaken the preliminary conference, you go now to pre-trial proper before the judge. The judge will now have to issue a pre-trial order. The pre-trial order is mandatory. Without a pre-trial and pre-trial order is a ground for disciplinary action against the judge, and pre-trial must be conducted. In criminal procedure under Rule 121, lack of pre-trial is a ground for new trial.
Summary:
1. Mediation and conciliation with the PMCO;
a. 30 days, extendible for another 30 days 2. If settled
a. Mediation officer drafts compromise agreement;
b. Parties sign;
c. Submit to court;
d. Court issues judgment on compromise (immediately executory).
3. If not settled
a. Case brought back to court for
preliminary conference before branch clerk;
b. After PC before branch clerk, pre-trial proper before the judge;
c. Judge issues pre-trial order.
Rule 19 Intervention
Anonuevo v Intestate Estate of Jalandoni
Who is Anonuevo here? What kind of a party was he?
He was the intervenor. Under Rule 19 on intervention, what are the requirements? Must have legal interest in the matter in litigation, or interest in the success of the plaintiff, or interest in the success of the defendant. The kind of pleading you are bound to file depends on whose interest you are with – if you are with the plaintiff, you file a complaint in intervention; if you are with the defendant, you file an answer in intervention; if neither, you file a complaint in intervention.
Going back to the facts, Anonuevo and siblings filed an intervention in the intestate proceedings. What was their claim? They claim that they have a share in the intestate estate because their grandmother was married to the deceased. What was their evidence? Birth
certificate. The administrator of the estate contends that such was not sufficient because the evidence necessary is a marriage contract, and they were able to establish that their grandmother was married to somebody else. The issue is do the intervenors have interest in this case? The trial court said yes. But on appeal with the CA, it reversed the RTC. The SC ruled that they do not have interest, as they were not able to establish that they were grandchildren to Jalandoni, the deceased.
What was the doctrine in Yao v Perello? When can one intervene in a case, at what point in time – you can only intervene before the rendition of judgment. After rendition of judgment, there is no more right to intervene. Exception: Pinlac v CA: intervenor was the government, in the interest of substantial justice (intervention was already when case was on motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court)
Rule 20, 21, 22 = READ!
Take note of how to quash a subpoena and viatory (not sure about this) right under Sec. 10, Rule 21.
Modes of discovery
How many modes of discovery are there?
I. Depositions pending action;
II. Depositions before action;
III. Depositions pending appeal IV. Depositions before appeal;
V. Interrogatories to parties;
VI. Request for admission by adverse party;
VII. Production of instruments;
VIII. Production of documents IX. Inspection of instrument;
X. Inspection of documents;
XI. Production and inspection of documents and things;
XII. Physical examination;
XIII. Mental examination;
XIV. Physical and mental examination
The least understood of these modes of discovery is Rule 23.
Rule 23
Depositions pending action People v Webb
Judge Tolentino stopped the taking of depositions because there were more than 150 documents already for resolution or as basis for judgment. Instead the accused wanted to take the deposition of 5 more persons in the US. Can the Judge do that under the rules of evidence? The SC said yes. At any time at the course of the trial, the judge can stop the trial because the judge may say that there is more than enough evidence.
But the more important issue is whether depositions are allowed in criminal cases. The SC ruled NO. It is not allowed. But some justices dissented, particularly PUNO and DAVIDE, saying that while depositions under Rule
23 are not allowed in criminal cases, they have their equivalent in criminal cases, which can be found in Sec 12, 13, and 15 of Rule 119. This was illustrated in Vda.
De Manguera v Risos. This case was about a private complainant, who was from the Visayas, but she was confined at Makati Med, and she could not testify, so she asked for deposition taking. Was the deposition taking allowed? Yes. But upon presentation of evidence, it was objected to on the ground that it is not allowed in criminal cases. The SC ruled no deposition in criminal cases under Rule 23, but what should have been applied are Sec. 12, 13 and 15 of Rule 119 or advanced
testimony.
Sec. 1 provides that depositions may be taken with or without leave of court. When is it without leave of court? After answer has been served. When does it require leave of court? Before answer has been served or after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is subject of the action. Why is it that once answer has been served, it must be made without leave of court, and before answer has been served, it must be made with leave of court?
Issues are joined. When issues are joined, why would you ask for leave of court when the questionnaire will be limited already to the issues involved? But if with leave of court, you may ask impertinent questions.
What kind of evidence are depositions? Testimonial evidence. We know from evidence that testimonies must be taken in open court, as a rule. Deposition is the exception as it is taken outside the court. When a deposition is taken, whose evidence is that? It will be the evidence of the party who chooses to offer it. Who offers the deposition? Any party. Take note of Sec. 7 and 8. The fact that you cause the taking of the deposition does not mean that the deposition is your evidence. It is only when somebody offers it. And any party can offer it. Who can cause the taking of deposition? Any party.
Whose deposition should be taken? Any party or non-party, the deponent may be a party or non-party. The deposition is anybody’s evidence until a party offers it.
We all know that evidence is not admissible until it is offered.
How does one take depositions? Let’s say C wants to take the deposition of X. Will it be with leave of court or without? When answer has been served, no need for leave of court; after answer have been served, with
leave of court. What is the effect upon filing and service of answer? Issues are joined. When issues are joined, why would you ask for leave of court when the questionnaire will be limited already to the issues involved? But if with leave of court, you may ask impertinent questions.
Before whom should the deposition be taken? Before a deposition officer. But distinguish whether deposition will be taken within or outside the country. If it is outside the country, deposition will be taken at the PH embassy in that country before the consul or vice consul or any other person authorized by the court through commission or letters rogatory for appointment of a judicial officer to take the deposition of somebody abroad. If within the country, anybody authorized to administer oath, including a notary public.
Modes of taking a deposition:
1. Oral examination a. Process:
i. Give notice to all parties, to deposition officer, and to prospective deponent
ii. Notice to consist of time, place, and name of deposition officer iii. Once notified, they may or may
not attend. Parties may waive right to attend.
iv. What happens? Like a trial = direct, cross, re-direct, re-cross
1. All will be taken by stenographic notes v. The transcript sealed in an
envelope and transferred to the court.
1. Whose evidence is that? No body’s
evidence; merely forms part of the record of the case; anybody can use it.
2. Written interrogatories a. Process:
i. Questions are prepared beforehand = direct examination questions
ii. The one who prepared to send to all parties
iii. Parties who receive it to prepare cross examination questions and send it to the one who prepared the direct
iv. Then if there is re-direct, send again
v. Then re-cross, if the party wishes to.
b. Why is this allowed nonetheless though tedious?
i. Because what is encouraged is a combination of both methods.
Sec. 4, uses of deposition
1. Any deposition may be used to impeach the testimony of the deponent;
a. Is it not that a deposition is testimonial evidence, why is it that you may use it to impeach that testimony of the deponent?
i. If the deponent happens to be a witness also in open court, and his testimony in his deposition is contrary to what his
testimony in open court.
2. It may be used for any purpose
3. Instances where you may avail of deposition under the following circumstances of par. C of Sec. 4, Rule 23.
Deposition v judicial affidavit GR: Affidavits are hearsay.
EX: affidavits taken in lieu of direct testimony, subject to cross-examination, i.e., judicial affidavit
Mere submission of JA is not testimony yet. It must be authenticated.
Rule 24
Depositions before action or pending appeal
Why is this allowed, deposition pending appeal? This is because, at that time, appellate courts are not allowed to accept new evidence. Right now, with more reason that this is of great use because appellate courts are allowed to take new evidence. Another reason is in case of remand to the trial court. Whether you take the deposition before the lower court or appellate court, the deposition may come in handy in case of remand.
What is perpetuation of testimony or deposition before action? This is allowed because by the time you file a case, the person might already be dead. This is in case a person dies before a probable case arises against him.
The taking of a deposition, is it real or personal?
Personal. What then is the venue? (trick question ni Sir kay Mica) The rule on venue will not apply, because the rule itself provides for the venue of the taking of the deposition before action or pending appeal = residence of the respondent
Rule 25
Interrogatories to parties
Is this pending action, before action or pending appeal?
This is pending action. You cannot avail of this against non-parties, solely against parties.
Where is the sanction under this rule? Sec. 6. Failure to serve written interrogatories. Who is being sanctioned?
The one who failed to prepare the questions/supposed to prepare the questions. As a result/sanction, the other party may not be compelled to testify on the matter of the interrogatories. How would the court know or determine whether a party should be sanctioned for failure to serve written interrogatories? During trial, when a witness/other party is asked a question that should have been asked in written interrogatories.
Rule 26
Request for admission by adverse party
Who should request for admission? Any party may request for admission. Aren’t there stipulations and admissions during pre-trial, why would one request for admission? This applies when the party did not wait for the pre-trial. Does this request for admission contradict Sec. 8, Rule 8 as regards actionable documents which provides that when you do not specifically deny the claim of one party as against an action document, you are deemed to have admitted the authenticity and due execution of the document, why would one use this? No, there is no contradiction. Because the documents sought to be admitted under Rule 26 are not actionable documents. They are only relevant and material
documents, but they are not actionable. What are
examples of these non-actionable documents, which must be sought for admission? Voluminous receipts, when such would take time to have each admitted one by one.
Rule 27
Production or inspection of documents or things Will exhumation of a cadaver fall under this rule? Yes, because cadavers are considered things. This is very common in criminal cases – ocular inspection.
Rule 28
Physical and mental examination of persons Available in actions where it is relevant
Example of relevant cases where this may be applied:
1. Annulment of contract by reason of imbecility of a contracting party;
2. Common in paternity cases;
Sec. 4 = waiver of privilege
Section 4. Waiver of privilege. — By requesting and