Rule 17.
It should be considered as adjudication on the merits of the case, where the
1 Ching vs Cheng
In order to invoke the two-dismissal rule in Rule 17, both dismissals must be upon the
instance of the plaintiff. In this case, the first dismissal was upon the instance of the
plaintiff. Thus, the second dismissal is without prejudice.
2 Pinga vs Heirs of Santiago
The dismissal of the complaint does not carry with it the dismissal of the counterclaim,
compulsory or permissive. The dismissal on the instance of the plaintiff is without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim. To hold otherwise
would be injustice.
Rule 18. Pre-trial
3 Philippine National Bank vs Perez
The absence, therefore, of the requisite notice of pre-trial to private respondents through no
fault or negligence on their part, nullifies the order of default issued by the petitioner Judge
for denying them their day in courta constitutional right. In such, the order suffers from
an inherent procedural defect and is null and void. Under such circumstance, the granting
of relief to private respondents becomes a matter of right; and the court proceedings
starting from the order of default to the default judgment itself should be considered null
and void and of no effect.
4 Chingkoe vs Republic of the Philippines
The rule is clear enough that an order of dismissal based on failure to appear at pre-trial is
with prejudice, unless the order itself states otherwise. Nevertheless, the respondent is not
then left without a remedy, since the Rules itself construes the dismissal to be with
prejudice.
proper remedy is an appeal under Rule 41.
Rule 19: Intervention
5 Malvar vs Kraft Foods Philippines
On considerations of equity and fairness, the Court disapproves of the tendencies of clients
compromising their cases behind the backs of their attorneys for the purpose of
unreasonably reducing or completely setting to naught the stipulated contingent fees. Thus,
the Court grants the Intervenors Motion for Intervention to Protect Attorneys Rights as a
measure of protecting the Intervenors right to its stipulated professional fees that would be
denied under the compromise agreement. The Court does so in the interest of protecting the
rights of the practicing Bar rendering professional services on contingent fee basis.
6 Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs Heirs of Mioza
The allegation that the intervenors are the true heirs of the deceased and the original
plaintiffs are not a valid ground for a motion for intervention. Firstly, the interest is
contingent upon proof that they are the true heirs. A motion for intervention requires that
the interest be direct and actual. Secondly, such allegation would cause the presentation of
additional evidence to prove fraud on the part of original plaintiffs.
In general, an independent controversy cannot be injected into a suit by intervention, hence,
such intervention will not be allowed where it would enlarge the issues in the action and
expand the scope of the remedies. It is not proper where there are certain facts giving the
intervenors case an aspect peculiar to himself and differentiating it clearly from that of the
original parties; the proper course is for the would-be intervenor to litigate his claim in a
separate suit.
 taken only on written interrogatories. Evidently the trial court exercises a certain degree of
discretion in connection with the taking of a deposition.
Rules 23-29: Modes of Discovery
7 Jonathan Landoil vs Spouses Mangungudatu
11 Spouses Zepeda vs China Banking Corporation
The Rules of Court and jurisprudence, however, do not restrict a deposition to the sole
Consequences enumerated in Section 3(c) of Rule 29 would only apply where the party
function of being a mode of discovery before trial. Thus, depositions may be taken at any
upon whom the written interrogatories is served, refuses to answer a particular question in
time after the institution of any action, whenever necessary or convenient. There is no rule
the set of written interrogatories and despite an order compelling him to answer the
that limits deposition-taking only to the period of pre-trial or before it; no prohibition
particular question, still refuses to obey the order. The proper remedies are in Section 5 of
against the taking of depositions after pre-trial. There can be no valid objection to
Rule 29.
allowing them during the process of executing final and executory judgments, when the
SEC. 3. (c): An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings
material issues of fact have become numerous or complicated.
until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or
rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party.
8 Northwest Airlines vs Court of Appeals
SEC. 5. Failure of party to attend or serve answers.If a party or an officer or managing
The deposition document clearly indicates that while the consul swore in the witness and
agent of a party willfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take his deposition,
the stenographer, it was another officer in the Philippine Consulate who undertook the
after being served with a proper notice, or fails to serve answers to interrogatories
entire proceedings thereafter. Thus, the motion to suppress the deposition based on irregular
submitted under Rule 25 after proper service of such interrogatories, the court on motion
conduct should be allowed.
and notice, may strike out all or any part of any pleading of that party, or dismiss the action
or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by default against that party, and in
9 Dasmarias Garments vs Reyes its discretion, order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the other, including
Noteworthy in this connection is the indication in the Rules that letters rogatory may be attorneys fees.
applied for and issued only after a commission has been returned unexecuted as is
apparent from Form 21 of the Judicial Standard Forms appended to the Rules of Court. 12 Concrete Aggregates vs Court of Appeals

10 Delos Reyes vs Court of Appeals

A trial Judge must possess certain measure of control over the right of parties in the taking
of depositions in order to prevent abuse. Under Section 16 of the Rules of Court, the court
in which the action is pending may, among others, make an order that the deposition be
A party should not be compelled to admit matters of fact already admitted by his pleading
and concerning which there is no issue nor should he be required to make a second denial
of those already denied in his answer to the complaint. A request for admission is not
intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting party's pleading
but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or documents described in and
exhibited with the request, whose purpose is to establish said party's cause of action or
defense
13 Briboneria vs Court of Appeals
The request for admission must be served directly upon the party; otherwise, the party to
whom the request is directed cannot be deemed to have admitted the genuineness of any
relevant document in and exhibited with the request or relevant matters of fact set forth
therein, on account of failure to answer the request for admission.
14 Laada vs Court of Appeals
Interpretation of the phrase the party to whom the request is directed - when Rule 26 states
that a party shall respond to the request for admission, it should not be restrictively
construed to mean that a party may not engage the services of counsel to make the response
in his behalf. Indeed, the theory of petitioner must not be taken seriously; otherwise, it will
negate the principles on agency in the Civil Code, as well as Sec. 23, Rule 138, of the Rules
of Court.
15 Air Philippines Corp. vs Pennswell
Rule 27 sets an unequivocal proviso that the documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things that may be produced and inspected should not be
privileged.
Also, Section 24 of Rule 130 draws the types of disqualification by reason of privileged
communication, to wit: (a) communication between husband and wife; (b) communication
between attorney and client; (c) communication between physician and patient; (d)
communication between priest and penitent; and (e) public officers and public interest.
There are, however, other privileged matters that are not mentioned by Rule 130. Among
them are the following: (a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of
published news; (b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted; (c) trade
secrets; (d) information contained in tax census returns; and (d) bank deposits.
16 Chan vs Chan
It is of course possible to treat Josielenes motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces
tecum covering the hospital records as a motion for production of documents, a discovery
procedure available to a litigant prior to trial. However, the right to compel the production
of documents under Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure has a limitation: the
documents to be disclosed are not privileged.
Instead of a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, Josielene Lara Chan
should avail of the mode of discovery under Rule 28 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule
28 pertains to the physical or mental examination of persons. This may be ordered by the
court, in its discretion, upon motion and showing of good cause by the requesting party, in
cases when the mental and/or physical condition of a party is in controversy. Aside from
showing good cause, the requesting party needs only to notify the party to be examined
(and all other parties) and specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the
examination, including the name of the physician who will conduct the examination.
Rule 31: Consolidation or Severance
17 Republic vs Oribello
Where all except one of several actions are stayed until one is tried, in which case the
judgment in the one trial is conclusive as to the others. This is not actually consolidation
but is referred to as such. (quasi-consolidation) (2) Where several actions are combined into
one, lose their separate identity, and become a single action in which a single judgment is
rendered. This is illustrated by a situation where several actions are pending between the
same parties stating claims which might have been set out originally in one complaint.
(actual consolidation) (3) Where several actions are ordered to be tried together but each
retains its separate character and requires the entry of a separate judgment. This type of
consolidation does not merge the suits into a single action, or cause the parties to one action
to be parties to the other. (consolidation for trial).
Since each action does not lose its distinct character, severance of one action from the other
is not necessary to appeal a judgment already rendered in one action. There is no rule or
law prohibiting the appeal of a judgment or part of a judgment in one case which is
consolidated with other cases. Further, severance is within the sound discretion of the court
for convenience or to avoid prejudice. It is not mandatory under the Rules of Court that the
court sever one case from the other cases before a party can appeal an adverse ruling on
such case.
Rule 33: Demurrer to Evidence
18 GMA Network, Inc. vs Central CATV, Inc.
The plaintiffs evidence should not be the only basis in resolving a demurrer to evidence.
The "facts" referred to in Section 8 should include all the means sanctioned by the Rules of
Court in ascertaining matters in judicial proceedings. These include judicial admissions,
mattersof judicial notice, stipulations made during the pre-trial and trial, admissions, and
presumptions, the only exclusion being the defendants evidence.
19 Republic vs Tuvera
The Sandiganbayan justified the grant of demurrer with res judicata as rationale. Res
judicata is an inappropriate ground for sustaining a demurrer to evidence, even as it stands
as a proper ground for a motion to dismiss. A demurrer may be granted if, after the
presentation of plaintiffs evidence, it appears upon the facts and the law that the plaintiff
has shown no right to relief. In contrast, the grounds for res judicata present themselves
even before the presentation of evidence, and it should be at that stage that the defense of
res judicata should be invoked as a ground for dismissal. Properly speaking, the movants
for demurral who wish to rely on a controlling value of a settled case as a ground for
demurrer should invoke the ground of stare decisis in lieu of res judicata.
20 Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation vs Del Monte Motor Works
A demurrer to evidence abbreviates judicial proceedings, it being an instrument for the
expeditious termination of an action. Caution, however, must be exercised by the party
seeking the dismissal of a case upon this ground as under the rules, if the movants plea for
the dismissal on demurrer to evidence is granted and the order of dismissal is reversed on
appeal, he loses his right to adduce evidence. If the defendants motion for judgment on
demurrer to evidence is granted and the order is subsequently reversed on appeal, judgment
is rendered in favor of the adverse party because the movant loses his right to present
evidence.
The reviewing court cannot remand the case for further proceedings; rather, it
Rule 34: Judgment on the Pleadings
21 Pacific Rehouse vs Export & Industry Bank
When what is left are not genuinely issues requiring trial but questions concerning the
proper interpretation of the provisions of some written contract attached to the pleadings,
judgment on the pleadings is proper.
Rule 35: Summary Judgments
22 Philippine Business Bank vs Chua
23 Philippine Bank of Communications vs Go
24 Pineda vs Heirs of Eliseo Guevarra
25 Ybiernas vs Tanco-Gabaldon.
Rule 36: Judgments, Final Orders and Entry Thereof
105.Shimizu Phils. Contractors vs Magsalin
106.So vs Food Fest Land, Inc.
107.Marchadesch vs Vda. De Yepes
Rule 37: New Trial or Reconsideration
108.Neypes vs Court of Appeals..
109.Verginesa-Suarez vs Dilag
110.Uy vs First Metro Integrated School Corporation..
Rule 38: Relief from Judgments,Orders, or other Proceedings
111.Madarang vs Spouses Morales
112.Purcon vs MRM Philippines, Inc.
113.Mesina vs Meer
Rule 39: Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgment
114.Apo Fruits Corporation vs Land Bank of the Philippines..
115.City of Cebu vs Dedamo, Jr.
116.Lou vs Siapno.
117.Bergonia vs Decano..
118.Top Management Programs, Corp. vs Fajardo.
119.Spouses Topacio vs Banco Filipino
120.Campit vs Gripa
121.Raymundo vs Galen Realty...
122.Republic vs Yahon.
123.Cabling vs Lumapas
124.Esguerra vs Holcim.
125.Corpuz vs Sto. Tomas
126.Infante vs Aran Builders, Inc.
127.Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs Serra
128.GSIS vs Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. .
129.Leachon vs Pascua.
130.Golden Sun Finance Corporation vs Albano
131.Heirs of Miranda vs Miranda..