Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ALAG - Malonzo, Et Al. v. Sucere Foods
ALAG - Malonzo, Et Al. v. Sucere Foods
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).
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.
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.