PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

SUMMARY: The state immunity is not waived only for the reason that the president created a commission to investigate the incident, or by the president’s act of joining a rally of the complainants. In effect, whatever may be the findings of the Commission, the same shall only serve as the cause of action in the event that any party decides to litigate his/her claim. Therefore, the Commission is merely a preliminary venue. The Commission is not the end in itself. Whatever recommendation it makes cannot in any way bind the State immediately, such recommendation not having become final and executory. This is precisely the essence of it being a fact-finding body. Secondly, whatever acts or utterances that then President Aquino may have done or said, the same are not tantamount to the State having waived its immunity from suit. The President's act of joining the marchers, days after the incident, does not mean that there was an admission by the State of any liability. In fact t

Some instances when a suit against the State is proper are: [1] When the Republic is sued by name; [2] When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency; [3] When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government. While the Republic in this case is sued by name, the ultimate liability does not pertain to the government. Although the military officers and personnel, then party defendants, were discharging their official functions when the incident occurred, their functions ceased to be official the moment they exceeded their authority. Based on the Commission findings, there was lack of justification by the government forces in the use of firearms. Moreover, the members of the police and military crowd dispersal units committed a prohibited act under B.P. Blg. 880 as there was unnecessary firing by them in dispersing the marchers. While it is true that nothing is

Under our Constitution the principle of immunity of the government from suit is expressly provided in Article XVI, Section 3. The principle is based on the very essence of sovereignty, and on the practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. It also rests on reasons of public policy — that public service would be hindered, and the public endangered, if the sovereign authority could be subjected to law suits at the instance of every citizen and consequently controlled in the uses and dispositions of the means required for the proper administration of the government. (Republic vs. Sandoval; G.R. No. 84607, March 19, 1993)

Was the act of Pres. Duterte of declaring martial law first in Marawi City and, after, the whole of Mindanao valid? NOTE: This is a reblog of a previous post. This issue has already been resolved by Lagman vs. Medialdea (G.R. No. 231658). "Effective May 23, 2017, and for a period not exceeding 60 days, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao." Citing the terrorist attack that recently happened in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur (Mindanao), led my the Maute Group, which are apparently sympathizers of ISIS, President Duterte declared the whole island of Mindanao under martial law. Later on, the President suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus also in the whole island of Mindanao. According to the 1987 Constitution, " In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding

What is the general rule regarding overtime work? The general rule remains that no employee may be compelled to render overtime work against his will. Otherwise put, employees have the right to refuse when their employers ask or force them to do overtime work. Is there an exception? Yes, there is. When can an employee be compelled to render overtime work? [1] When the country is at war or when any other national or local emergency has been declared by the National Assembly or the Chief Executive; [2] When overtime work is necessary to prevent loss of life or property or in case of imminent danger to public safety due to actual or impending emergency in the locality caused by serious accident, fire, floods, typhoons, earthquake, epidemic or other disasters or calamities; [3] When there is urgent work to be performed on machines, installations or equipment, or in order to avoid serious loss or damage to the employer or some other causes of similar nature; [4] When the work is neces

Reynold Villania is a Facebook celebrity known for his mission of empowering the police force and the citizenry through legal education. He posted the following on Facebook. For more of Villania's posts, please follow him at https://www.facebook.com/reynoldvillania/. [QUOTE STARTS HERE]  Tanong: Sir, sabi mo hindi kailangan ang court order para buksan ang cellphone, USB, computer at iba pang storage device kapag sila ay nakuha sa pamamagitan ng "warrantless arrest and seizures" AT "may urgency and emergency reason para sila ay buksan" para mahuli ang iba pang suspek o maresolba ang krimen. Ngayon, paano kung sila ay nakuha sa pamamagitan ng search warrant? Kailangan pa ba ang court order para sila ay mabuksan ? [Is a separate search warrant needed to access a mobile phone confiscated by authorities through a prior search warrant?] Sagot: Depende po. [It depends.] 1. Pag ang search warrant ay para sa Cybercrimes (ICT- Enabled Crime )- Hindi na kailangan ang

What is the difference between premium pay and overtime pay? "Premium pay" refers to the additional compensation required by law for work performed within eight (8) hours on non-working days, such as rest days and regular and special holidays. The Labor Code's Article 93 on Premium Compensation.  Where an employee is made or permitted to work on his scheduled rest day, he shall be paid an additional compensation of at least thirty percent (30%) of his regular wage. An employee shall be entitled to such additional compensation for work performed on Sunday only when it is his established rest day. When the nature of the work of the employee is such that he has no regular workdays and no regular rest days can be scheduled, he shall be paid an additional compensation of at least thirty percent (30%) of his regular wage for work performed on Sundays and holidays. Work performed on any special holiday shall be paid an additional compensation of at least thirty percent (30

QUESTION: EMMA, pregnant, and JOKOL, very rich, were informed by their doctor, DR. MASTER BETH, that the baby inside Emma's body has a rare congenital disease which will cause it NON-STOP, excruciating pain the moment it gets born. DR. MASTER BETH explained that the baby's skin is so sensitive to air that it would feel being burned every second of its life from the moment it comes in contact with air. EMMA and JOKOL came to your for legal advice. They want to abort the baby at 5 months. What would be your advice? RELEVANT LAW: ACT NO. 3815 or THE REVISED PENAL CODE (RPC). Below are the RPC's provisions related to abortion. Article 256. Intentional abortion. - Any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman. 2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence, he shall act without the consent of the woman. 3. The penalty of prision co

Below is an excerpt from a piece of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court finding respondent judge of a municipal trial court (MTC) "inefficient and negligent" in writing a decision because of his errors in grammar and syntax. SUPREME COURT:  There can, however, be no dispute behind the errors of grammar and syntax and the fatally infirmed "dispositive portion" is the inefficiency, neglect of duty or carelessness on the part of the respondent betraying the absence of due care, diligence, conscientiousness and thoroughness — qualities which Judges must, among others, possess. Respondent could have easily avoided the errors and defects had he taken a little more time and effort to at least read its original copy before he finally affixed his signature thereon. While [the Supreme] Court cannot expect every Judge to be an expert on the English language or an authority in grammar, he must, however, do everything he can, through constant study, extraordinary diligence,

Ipinaliwanag ni Reynold Villania ang konsepto ng "warrantless search and seizure" sa Facebook. Nakita niyo ba sa TV ngayon lang ang ginawang operation ng PDEA na kung saan may nahuling Indian national na nagbebenta ng ecstasy at iba pang droga sa mga celebrities? May nakuhang cellphone ang PDEA sa suspek na nahuli sa pamamagitan ng warrantless arrest. Binuksan ang cellphone ng walang search warrant at ginamit na ebidensya. Pwede ba ito? Pwede. Basta ang cellphone ay nakuha sa pamamagitan ng warrantless arrest and siezured, otherwise, hindi pwedeng buksan ang cellphone ng walang search warrant. Next topic: Paano ilalatag sa prosecution at korte ang legality ng mga text messages at call history? For more legal education, please follow https://www.facebook.com/reynoldvillania/posts/2033476896918696.

During the speech Mayor KOKO DAYL, a constituent, Ms. ASH HARDYN shouted, "Buwaya ka! Buwaya ka!" She was probably referring to the alleged irregularities in the handling of city funds. KOKO ordered his security guards to effect a "citizen's arrest" on the person of ASH. Immediately, she was surrendered to the nearest police station. [a] Was there valid citizen's arrest? [b] What crime did KOKO commit, if any? [c] What crime did ASH commit, if any?

There is "labor-only" contracting where the person supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of such employer. In such cases, the person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed by him. (Article 106 of the Labor Code of the Philippines) Jollibee is a Filipino multinational chain of fast food restaurants owned by Jollibee Foods Corporation. As of April 2018, JFC had a total of about 1,200 Jollibee outlets worldwide. SOURCE:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jollibee

The United Nations (UN) is afraid that killer robots are being developed by powerful countries. As a result of this fear, the UN’s Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) has called for an assembly to prevent this from happening. Fully autonomous weapons, also known as "killer robots," would be able to select and engage targets without human intervention. Precursors to these weapons, such as armed drones, are being developed and deployed by nations including China, Israel, South Korea, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. It is questionable that fully autonomous weapons would be capable of meeting international humanitarian law standards, including the rules of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity, while they would threaten the fundamental right to life and principle of human dignity. Human Rights Watch calls for a preemptive ban on the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons. Human Rights Watch is a founding membe

The right to claim overtime pay is not subject to a waiver. In other words, a worker cannot be considered to have waived his right to collect overtime salary even though his acts appear to have such an effect. Such right is governed by law and not merely by the agreement of the parties. Under Philippine civil law, rights may be waived. However, such waiver must not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. Nevertheless, if the waiver of overtime compensation is done in exchange for and in consideration of certain valuable privileges, among them that of being given tips when doing overtime work, there being no proof that the value of said privileges did not compensate for such work, such waiver may be considered valid.

The Labor Code gives no definition for the term "part-time work." Moreover, there is no universally accepted definition of part-time work or employment. The International Labor Organization (ILO) describes "part-time work" as "a single, regular or voluntary form of employment with hours of work substantially shorter than those considered as normal in the establishment." A "part-time worker" is an employed person whose normal hours of work are less than those of comparable full-time workers. Just because an employee's number of work hours is reduced does not mean that he is a part-time employee. Full-time workers affected by partial unemployment, that is by a collective and temporary reduction in their normal hours of work for economic, technical or structural reasons, are not considered to be part-time workers. This definition excludes certain forms of employment which although referred to as part-time work, are in particular, irregular

On its face, EO 420 shows no constitutional infirmity because it even narrowly limits the data that can be collected, recorded and shown compared to the existing ID systems of government entities. EO 420 further provides strict safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the data collected, in contrast to the prior ID systems which are bereft of strict administrative safeguards. The right to privacy does not bar the adoption of reasonable ID systems by government entities. Some one hundred countries have compulsory national ID systems, including democracies such as Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, and Portugal. Other countries which do not have national ID systems, like the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the Nordic Countries and Sweden, have sectoral cards for health, social or other public services. Even with EO 420, the Philippines will still fall under the countries that do not have compulsory national ID systems but allow only sectora

G.R. No. 152154. July 15, 2003; sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/152154.htm This is one of the many pieces of jurisprudence that Marcos loyalists do not have time to read or do not want to read. This is only one of the many decisions of the Highest Court regarding the corruption of the Marcos Family. Please see GMA News' special report quoted and cited below. Below are parts of the Supreme Court decision finding the Marcoses guilty of having amassed ill-gotten wealth at the expense of the Filipino people. The High Court forfeited the Marcos' ill-gotten  US$658,175,373.60 in favor of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. The judgment portion of the decisions reads: "WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated January 31, 2002 is SET ASIDE. The Swiss deposits which were transferred to and are now deposited in escrow at the Philippine National Bank in the estimated aggregate amount of US$658,17

PHOTO LINKED FROM:  https://www.prodigygame.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017-03-09-Math-on-Whiteboard-condensed-2.jpg QUESTION:  LINO MATA is a law student. He is so intelligent that he always gets a minimum of 95% in his examinations. As a result of this, many of his classmates and juniors request that he teach them for a fee. LINO agreed at 300 pesos per hour. From then on, LINO has been earning 1,200 pesos every Saturday. MAK PELO, a professor of law in LINO's school, discovered this and reported the same to the Supreme Court. MAK wants LINO to be disciplined by the Court for his "practice of law." Should the Court discipline LINO? CAYETANO v. MONSOD.  Attorney-client relationship. Engaging in the practice of law presupposes the existence of lawyer-client relationship. Hence, where a lawyer undertakes an activity which requires knowledge of law but involves no attorney-client relationship, such as teaching law or writing law books or articles, he cannot be said

Article 809. In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of article 805. (Civil Code of the Philippines) While Article 809 allows substantial compliance for defects in the form of the attestation clause, Richard likewise failed in this respect. The statement in the Acknowledgment portion of the subject last will and testament that it "consists of 7 pages including the page on which the ratification and acknowledgment are written" cannot be deemed substantial compliance. The will actually consists of 8 pages including its acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be explained by mere examination of the will itself but through the presentation of evidence aliunde. (G.R. No. 189984) Article 805. E

Workers paid by results may be classified into: [1] Supervised workers; and [2] Unsupervised workers. As can be inferred from the term itself, "supervised workers" are those whose manner of work is under the control of the employer. On the other hand, unsupervised workers are those whose work is controlled more in the results rather than in the manner or method of performing the work. The law does not distinguish among workers paid by results. Therefore, the workers may be on pakyao (alternatively spelled “pakyaw”) basis, takay basis, or piece-rate or output basis. All of these results-based workers are similar in character in that they are all paid on the basis of the results of their work. When the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.

HUSBAND and WIFE have a child, SON. SON is 30 years old but he still lives with his parents. SON is jobless and lazy so the couple sued him for unlawful detainer in order to eject him from the premises of their home. They argue that their son is old enough to be evicted and he should find his own house. Will the action for unlawful detainer prosper? LAW IN POINT: RULE 70 on Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer. Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. — Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one

PHOTO LINKED FROM:  http://pluspng.com/img-png/png-lazy-son-unemployed-parents-nervous-lazy-baggy-home-942.png HUSBAND and WIFE have a child, SON. SON is 30 years old but he still lives with his parents. SON is jobless and lazy so the couple sued him for unlawful detainer in order to eject him from the premises of their home. They argue that their son is old enough to be evicted and he should find his own house. Will the action for unlawful detainer prosper? LAW IN POINT: RULE 70 on Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer. Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. — Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the

Philippine laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction. Article 816 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides that the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country. (G.R. No. 169144, January 26, 2011)

What are the relevant factors to consider in fixing minimum wage?  The minimum wage rates to be established by the Regional Board shall be as nearly adequate as is economically feasible to maintain the minimum standards of living necessary for the health, efficiency and general well-being of the workers within the framework of national economic and social development goals. In the determination of regional minimum wages, the Board shall, among other relevant factors, consider the following: Needs of workers and their families Demand for living wages; Wage adjustment vis-à-vis the consumer price index; Cost of living and changes therein; Needs of workers and their families; Improvements in standards of living. Capacity to pay Fair return on capital invested and capacity to pay of employers; Productivity. Comparable wages and incomes Prevailing wage levels. Requirements of economic and social development Need to induce industries to invest in the countryside; Effect

Heirs cannot be held personally responsible for the debts of their predecessor. The heirs’ extent of liability to the creditor is limited to the value of the estate which they inherited from the decedent. Under Philippine laws, "it is the estate or mass of the property left by the decedent, instead of the heirs directly, that becomes vested and charged with his rights and obligations which survive after his death.” (G.R. No. 186332, October 23, 2013)

Instituted heirs to a part of the free portion of the decedent’s estate have no right to claim a stake over a specific property of the decedent. As instituted heirs only to a part of the free portion of the estate, they are entitled to receive their share of the same, if any, only after payment of all debts, funeral charges, expenses of administration, allowance to the widow and inheritance tax. Otherwise stated, their share would be dependent on whether anything is left of the estate after payment of all its obligations. (780 SCRA 348, 2010)

The will of XXX states that a house and a parcel of land in the City of Manila shall be transferred under the names of AAA and BBB, his children, for purposes of administration only but no one of them shall be the sole owner of the same. Is the condition in the will valid? Why? No, it is contrary to law and public policy. When a will provides for indivision of a property, it is subject to statutory limitation as the law provides that the prohibition to divide a property in a co-ownership can only last for twenty (20) years. (Arts. 494, 870 and 1083). While the Civil Code is silent as to the effect of the indivision of a property for more than 20 years, it would be contrary to public policy to sanction co-ownership beyond the period expressly mandated by the Civil Code. (G.R. No. 179859).

What shall the notice state?  It 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 (Rule 23, Sec. 15).

What is the requirement in taking deposition upon oral examination? 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. (Rule 23, Sec. 15)

Deposition can be taken within or without the Philippines. If outside  the Philippines, deposition may be taken before the following persons: [1] On notice, before a secretary of embassy or legation, consul-general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Philippines (Rule 23, Sec. 11); or [2] Before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or letters rogatory; or [3] Any person authorized to administer oaths, as stipulated by the parties in writing. (Rule 23, Sec. 14) Before whom may depositions be taken? Within the Philippines Deposition can be taken within or without the Philippines. If within the Philippines, deposition may take before the following persons: xxx.

Deposition can be taken within or without the Philippines. If within the Philippines, deposition may be taken before the following persons: [1] Judge; or [2] Notary public (Rule 23, Sec. 10,) ; or [3] Any person authorized to administer oaths, as stipulated by the parties in writing. (Rule 23, Sec. 14) A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as a part of a panel of judges. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. The judge is supposed to conduct the trial impartially and, typically, in an open court. The judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the barristers of the case, assesses the credibility and arguments of the parties, and then issues a ruling on the matter at hand based on his or her interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgment. In some jurisdictions, the judge's powers may be shared with a jury. In inquisitor

Article 101 of the Labor Code is the law on “non-time” workers. They are called this because they are paid not on the basis of the time spent on their work but according to the quantity, quality or kind of job and the consequent results thereof. In other words, their compensation is not based on how many hours have been spent on the job but on other bases of computing compensation such as number of products produced. Owing to the unique manner by which non-time work is compensated as distinguished from the compensation calculated on the basis of hours, days, etc., it has become necessary to create more regulations (in the form of Department Orders or DOs) in order to ensure the payment of fair and reasonable wage rates. Under the current state of our labor standards law, there are two (2) popular modes to determine fairness or reasonableness of wage rates among non-time workers. [1] Time and motion study. The time and motion study is the more scientific and preferred method.; or [

The Rules of Court provide six (6) different modes of discovery that parties may make use of. They are under Rules 23 to 28. They are the following: [1] Depositions pending action (Rule 23) [2] Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24) [3] Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25) [4] Admission by adverse party (Rule 26) [5] Production or inspection of documents and things (Rule 27) [6] Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28) Deposition is a mode of discovery and an alternative mode of discovery.  It is a mode of discovery . Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery. This purpose is explained under Section 2 of Rule 23. It allows a broad scope of examination regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject of the pending action, whether relating to the claim or defense of any other party, the only requirement is that it be relevant and not privileged. It is an alternative mode of testimony . Section 4 of Rule 23 on the use of depos

A deposition is the taking of the testimony of any person, whether he be a party or not, but at the instance of a party to the action. This testimony is taken out of court. Deposition may be: [1] An oral examination; and [2] Written interrogatories (Rule 23, Sec 1,)

Pre-trial is a procedural device by which the Court is called upon after the filing of the last pleading to compel the parties and their lawyers to  appear before it, and negotiate an amicable settlement or otherwise make a formal statement and embody in a single document the issues of fact and law involved in the action, and such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action, such as the number of witnesses the parties intend to present, the tenor or character of their testimonies, their documentary evidence, the nature and purpose of each of them and the number of trial dates that each will need to put on his case. One of the objectives of pre-trial procedure is to take the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering. (G.R. No. 29776) Pre-trial also lays down the foundation and structural framework of another concept, that is, the continuous trial system. (Circular No. 1-89, Administrative Circular No. 4, September 4, 1988) Pre-trial is mandatory

What modes of discovery cannot be availed of without leave of court? Obviously, these modes interfere with a person's privacy and the sound discretion of the court must be invoked first before availing of them. [1] Production or inspection of documents or things under Rule 27; and [2] Physical and mental examination of persons under Rule 28, which may be granted upon due application and showing of due cause.

[1] Depositions (whether by oral examination or written interrogatories) under Rule 24. This is before action or pending appeal; [2] Interrogatories to parties under Rule 25; and [3] Requests for admission under Rule 26. Under the Rules of Court, leave of court is NOT  necessary to avail of the aforementioned modes of discovery after an answer to the complaint has been served. It is only when an answer has not yet been filed (but after jurisdiction has been obtained over the defendant or property subject of the action) that prior leave of court is needed, the reason being that at that time the issues are not yet joined and the disputed facts are not clear.

There are six (6) different modes of discovery available under the Rules of Court. They are: [1] Depositions pending action (Rule 23); [2] Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24); [3] Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25); [4] Admission by adverse party (Rule 26); [5] Production or inspection of documents and things (Rule 27); and [6] Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28). Among the above, there are three (3) modes which can be availed of without court intervention. What modes of discovery may be availed of without leave of court and, generally, without court intervention? [1] Depositions (whether by oral examination or written interrogatories) under Rule 24. This is before action or pending appeal; [2] Interrogatories to parties under Rule 25; and [3] Requests for admission under Rule 26.

The Rules of Court provide six (6) different modes of discovery that parties may make use of. They are under Rules 23 to 28. They are the following: [1] Depositions pending action (Rule 23) [2] Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24) [3] Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25) [4] Admission by adverse party (Rule 26) [5] Production or inspection of documents and things (Rule 27) [6] Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28) The various modes or instruments of discovery are meant to serve as: [1] A device, along with pre-trial under Rule 18, to narrow down and clarify  the actual issues between the parties, which are the real reasons why they are in court; and [2] A device for ascertaining  the facts relative to those issues. Such device exists to enable the parties, subject to rules on privileges, to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that said trials be carried on with the parties gropi

What are the different modes of discovery available to parties under the Rules of Court? [1] Depositions pending action (Rule 23) [2] Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24) [3] Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25) [4] Admission by adverse party (Rule 26) [5] Production or inspection of documents and things (Rule 27) [6] Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28)

Once a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute, such has an effect of adjudication on the merits  and is understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another action unless otherwise provided for in the order of dismissal. (De Knecht vs. CA) Dismissal for failure to prosecute is an adjudication on the merits. Therefore, such dismissal should be challenged by appeal  within the reglementary period. (G.R. No. 186175)

There are three situations contemplated in the term "failure to prosecute." They are discussed in Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. Any of these cases may be used as a ground to dismiss the complaint and the general rule is that such dismissal is with prejudice. [1] If the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of trial;  [2] If he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time; and [3] If he fails to comply with the Rules of Court or any order of the court.