Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • ALAG - Malonzo, Et Al. v. Sucere Foods

    Uploaded by

    Miguel Alag
    469 views5 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that it is not necessary to state the purpose for taking a deposition in the notice to take deposition under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. Rule 23 does not require the party requesting an oral deposition to state the purpose. It only requires the notice to state the time and place of the deposition and the name and address of the person to be examined. The trial court cannot expand the explicit requirements of Rule 23. Requiring the purpose would burden parties with an extra requirement not in the rules. The objective of depositions is to give parties full information before trial and obtain evidence, so courts should encourage use of discovery modes without extra burdens.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    1. ALAG_Malonzo, Et Al. v. Sucere Foods

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that it is not necessary to state the purpose for taking a deposition in the notice to take deposition under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. Rule 23 does not require the party requesting an oral deposition to state the purpose. It only requires the notice to state the time and place of the deposition and the name and address of the person to be examined. The trial court cannot expand the explicit requirements of Rule 23. Requiring the purpose would burden parties with an extra requirement not in the rules. The objective of depositions is to give parties full information before trial and obtain evidence, so courts should encourage use of discovery modes without extra burdens.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    469 views5 pages

    ALAG - Malonzo, Et Al. v. Sucere Foods

    Uploaded by

    Miguel Alag
    The Supreme Court ruled that it is not necessary to state the purpose for taking a deposition in the notice to take deposition under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. Rule 23 does not require the party requesting an oral deposition to state the purpose. It only requires the notice to state the time and place of the deposition and the name and address of the person to be examined. The trial court cannot expand the explicit requirements of Rule 23. Requiring the purpose would burden parties with an extra requirement not in the rules. The objective of depositions is to give parties full information before trial and obtain evidence, so courts should encourage use of discovery modes without extra burdens.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    ANSELMO D.

    MALONZO, ET
    AL.
    VS.
    SUCERE FOODS
    CORPORATION
    G.R. NO. 240773 | FEBRUARY 05, 2020
    SECOND DIVISION | JUSTICE HENRI JEAN PAUL INTING
    FACTS:
     MALONZO, ET AL. filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title,  The RTC denied SUCERE FOODS’ notices for having been filed
    Recovery of Possession, and Damages against SUCERE FOODS without leave of court.
    CORPORATION (Sucere Foods).

    COMPLAINT FOR RTC


    QUIETING OF TITLE

     SUCERE FOODS filed with the RTC a NOTICE TO TAKE  SUCERE FOODS filed another NOTICE TO TAKE
    DEPOSITION with a request for the issuance of subpoena ad DEPOSITION of ANSELMO MALONZO, and ATTY.
    testificandum SAMPANA or his representative.
    – for the deposition through oral examination of ANSELMO
    MALONZO, and ATTY. SAMAPANA or his representative,
    NOTICE TO TAKE in his capacity as ROD of Guiguinto, Bulacan. NOTICE TO TAKE
    DEPOSITION DEPOSITION

     SUCERE FOODS filed an ADDITIONAL NOTICE TO TAKE  MALONZO, ET AL. OPPOSED the notice.
    DEPOSITION – It lacked the specific purpose(s) for the deposition.
    – for the deposition through oral examination of DAR USEC.
    GRAGEDA or his representative.

    ADDITIONAL MALONZO, et al.’s


    NOTICE TO TAKE CONTENTION
    DEPOSITION
    ISSUE:
    WHETHER OR NOT IT IS NECESSARY
    TO STATE THE PURPOSE FOR TAKING
    DEPOSITION IN THE NOTICE TO TAKE
    DEPOSITION UNDER RULE 23 OF THE
    RULES OF COURT.
    RULING:
     It is NOT NECESSARY to state the purpose for taking deposition in the Notice to Take Deposition.
     There is no provision in Rule 23 that requires the party requesting for an oral deposition to state the purpose(s) of
    the deposition.

    Section 15, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court


    Section 15. Deposition upon oral examination; notice; time and place. – A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon
    oral examination shall give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to the action. The notice shall state 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. On motion of any party upon
    whom the notice is served, the court may for cause shown enlarge or shorten the time.

     The only matters that have to be stated in the notice under Section 15 of Rule 23 are:
    (1) the time and place for taking the deposition;
    (2) the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, or if unknown;
    (3) a general description sufficient to identify the person to be examined or the class or group to which he belongs.
    IN THIS CASE:
     The trial court cannot expand the requirements under Rule 23.
     Therefore, it is not necessary for Sucere Foods to state the purpose for taking deposition in the notice to
    take deposition because there is no provision under Rule 23 which provides for such requirement.

     The objective of the deposition-discovery procedure:


    – 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.
     Hence, the courts should encourage the use of the modes of discovery rather than burden the parties with
    requirements that are not stated in the rules.

    You might also like