The other side introduced my own deposition testimony at trial — can I still present evidence to rebut what it says about the facts?

A broad right to rebut deposition evidence

This provision grants a genuinely broad right that is not limited in any way by who exactly happened to introduce the particular deposition into evidence. At the trial or hearing, any party may rebut any relevant evidence contained in a deposition, whether that evidence was introduced by him or her personally, or instead by any other party involved in the case. This breadth reflects a broader principle running through the discovery rules that no party should be bound irrevocably by deposition testimony without a chance to contextualize or contest it later.

Why the source of the introduction doesn't limit the right

The rule specifically and expressly covers both possible scenarios here — evidence a party themselves introduced from their own earlier deposition, and evidence that another party instead introduced from that very same deposition. Either way, the party against whom that deposition evidence now works, or who simply wishes to further address it, retains the ability to rebut it later at trial. Drawing the line based on who benefits from the evidence at trial, rather than who originally introduced it, keeps the rule simple to apply regardless of how the case has unfolded.

How this connects to the consequence of introducing a deposition

Introducing a deposition can, under certain circumstances described elsewhere, make the deponent the witness of the introducing party, but this particular rebuttal right operates entirely independently of that separate consequence — regardless of whose witness the deponent is ultimately deemed to be by virtue of the introduction, any party may still respond fully with genuine rebutting evidence of their own. This rebuttal right binds only what counts as relevant evidence contained in the deposition; it does not itself decide whether particular deposition content was properly received in the first place, a separate question governed by the ordinary rules on objecting to a deposition's use at trial.

Practical effect at trial

A party whose own earlier deposition testimony ends up being used against them by the opposing side at trial is not left entirely without recourse simply because the words at issue originally came from their own prior deposition — this rule confirms clearly that they retain the standard, ordinary opportunity to present rebuttal evidence directly addressing that particular testimony at the very same trial or hearing where it was introduced.

Related provisions

• Rule 23, Section 9 — Rebutting deposition
• Rule 23, Section 8 — Effect of using depositions
• Rule 23, Section 10 — Persons before whom depositions may be taken within the Philippines