Ramon Gerardo B. SAN LUIS v Hon. Pablito M.
ROJAS o It alleges that in June 1997, San Luis received from it certain amounts of
March 3, 2008|Austria-Martinez, J.|Discovery; Depositions before action or pending
appeal
SUMMARY:.Berdex International Inc, a foreign corporation, filed a complaint for a
sum of money against San Luis. Berdex filed a Motion to Authorize Deposition-Taking
Through Written Interrogatories alleging that all its witnesses are Americans who reside
or hold office in US, one of its witnesses is already of advanced age and travel to the
Philippines is extremely difficult, and written interrogatories are ideal since the factual
issue are already few. San Luis opposed the motion and contended that taking the
deposition through written interrogatories would violate his right to cross-examine the
witnesses since he will be limited to cross-interrogatories, which will limit the scope and
spontaneity of his cross-examination. He also alleges that the claim that the travel to the
country will be dangerous is frivolous. RTC granted Berdexs motion. CA denied San
Luis MR because of non-compliance with the requirements. The Court ruled that San
Luis non-compliance with some requirements is not fatal to his petition. As to the issue
of deposition-taking, the Court ruled in favor of Berdex and allowed the deposition-
taking through written interrogatories.In this case, RTC's grant of the motion to allow
deposition-taking was proper considering Berdex's allegation in its motion that its
witnesses are all Americans residing in the US -- which falls under one of the exceptions
for admissibility under Sec 4(c)(2), Rule 23. This will also not result to grave injustice to
San Luis because the admissibility of the deposition does not preclude the
determination of its probative value.
DOCTRINE:The law does not make any distinction or restriction as to who can avail
of the deposition (whether foreign or not). It clearly provides that the testimony of any
person may be taken by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories, at
the instance of the party. However, depositions may be used without the deponent
being actually called to the witness stand by the proponent. These exceptional situations
are governed by Sec 4, Rule 24 of the Rule of Court.
The deposition of any person may be taken wherever he may be, in the Philippines or
abroad. If the party or witness is in the Philippines, his deposition "shall be taken before
any judge, municipal or notary public" (Sec. 10, Rule 24, Rules of Court). If in a foreign
state or country, the deposition "shall be taken: (a) on notice before a secretary or
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the
Republic of the Philippines, or (b) before such person or officer as may be appointed by
commission or under letters rogatory" (Sec. 11, Rule 24).
FACTS:
Berdex International, Inc. is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the
law of USA with principal office in San Francisco, CA, USA. Ramon San Luis is a
businessman engaged in the trading of seafoods.
On July 12, 2001, Berdex filed with the RTC a complaint for a sum of money
against San Luis:
money which were meant partly as advances or loan and partly for the
purchase of 40% shares in both Seanet and Seabest Corporations.
o However, not a single share in the said corporations was transferred to Berdex.
o San Luis proposed the payment of the loan within a period of 3 years, which
was accepted by Berdex with the agreement that in case of non-payment to any
installment on their due dates, the entire amount shall become due and
demandable.
o San Luis later refused to sigh a formal contract of loan.
o San Luis confirmed the loan to Berdexs auditors and only paid US$20,000 and
on further payment was made despite repeated demands.
o Berdex now prays that San Luis be ordered to pay US$150,335.75 plus
interests and attorneys fees.
In his Answer, San Luis alleged the following:
o He received from Berdex US$141,944.71 with instructions that he first deduct
therefrom US$23,748 representing his commission from Berdex in another
transaction.
o The money was intended to be used to buy 70% of the outstanding shares of
Seanet Corporation on behalf of Berdex and the balance as Berdexs advances
as Seanets stockholder.
o However, because of subsequent substantial losses incurred by Seanet and San
Luis desire to maintain good business with Berdex, San Luis offered that the
amounts he received from Berdex be paid by Fuegomar Traders, Inc. a
company San Luis owned and engaged in the same line of business as Seanet.
o Fuegomar will purchase at cost the stock investment of Berdex in Seanet.
o San Luis then gave US$20,000 to Berdex on behalf of Fuegomar, however,
Berdex then claimed that its investment in Seanet was San Luis personal loan
and the amount of US$20,000 paid on behalf of Fuegomar was maliciously
interpreted as San Luis admission of personal liability.
On April 4, 2002, Berdex filed a Motion to Authorize Deposition-Taking
Through Written Interrogatories alleging that initial presentation of its evidence
is set on May 3, 2002.
o All of its witnesses are Americans who reside or hold office in the USA
o One of the witnesses is already of advanced age and travel to the Philippines
may be extremely difficult it not dangerous.
o There is a perceived danger to them in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on
Sept 11, 2002.
o Written interrogatories are ideal in this case since the factual issues are already
very few
o Such mode of deposition-taking will save precious judicial and government
time and will prevent needless delays in the case.
In his Opposition and Comment, San Luis contends:
o If indeed there was an oral contract and he is liable to Berdex, the documents
attached to Berdexs complain did not support such claim.
o Taking the deposition through written interrogatories would deprive the court
of the opportunity to observe the general bearing and demeanor of witnesses.
 o His right to cross-examine the witnesses will be prejudiced since he will be
limited to cross-interrogatories which will limit the scope and spontaneity of
his cross-examination.
o Instead of saving time, it may lengthen the trial, as both parties will have the
right to review and to object to interrogatories submitted by the other party.
o The claim that the travel to the Philippines would be dangerous for the
witnesses is frivolous, since Berdex has not presented evidence that the US
government has prohibited its citizens from traveling to the Philippines. And if
there was a prohibition, it was not binding on our own legal system. Also, old
age was not a valid reason.
RTC granted Berdexs Motion. San Luis MR was denied.
San Luis filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of TRO and/or
preliminary injunction.
CA denied petition because of non-compliance with the requirements under Sec 3,
Rule 46.
o No affidavit of service is attached
o Some Annexes were blurred
o The pleadings were filed before the RTC are not attached.
CA denied MR and cited SC Administrative Circular No 3-96 stating that
subsequent compliance with the requirement shall not warrant a reconsideration.
RULING:
Whether San Luis non-compliance with the requirements is fatal to his petition?
- NO
PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS:
o CA focused on technicality, notwithstanding that he subsequently complied
with all the requirements and attached them to his MR.
o His failure to attach an affidavit of service was due to his belief that the
affidavit can be dispensed with in case of personal service of the petition to the
parties who received the same.
o The blurred Annexes was due to inadvertence during the reproduction of the
numerous annexes
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS:
o CAs dismissal was proper because Circular 19-91 was clear that any petition
under Rule 65 may be denied outright if there is no proof of service on the
lower court.
COURT:
San Luis failure to attach the affidavit of service was not fatal to the petition since
it showed that copies of the petition were personally served on the RTC and
Berdexs counsel as evidence by the parties official receiving stamps appearing
opposite their names.
Non-attachment of affidavit of service is not fatal to the petition when the registry
receipts attached to the petition clearly show that respondents were served copies
of the petition.
With respect to the blurred Annexes, the Court found petitioners explanation as
satisfactory. Also, the said Annexes were not necessary for the resolution of the
case.
As to the non-attachment to the petition of the pleadings filed in the RTC, the
Court held that there was no need to attach all other pleadings. Nonetheless, he
submitted all the pleadings when he filed his MR.
CAs reliance on the Circular is misplaced. Although it provides that subsequent
compliance with the requirement shall not warrant a reconsideration, it does not
apply to the petition filed this case. The said circular deals with copies of judgment
or resolution sought to be reviewed
The Court reiterated that technicalities should never be used to defeat the
substantive rights of the other party.
Whether RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing deposition-taking
through written interrogatories? NO
Whether Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court allows a non-resident foreign
corporation the privilege of having all its witnesses, all of whom are foreigners, to
testify through deposition upon written interrogatories taken outside the
Philippines to prove an oral contract? - YES
SECTION 1, RULE 132. Depositions pending action, when may be taken. - By leave of court
after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is the subject of the
action, or without such leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of any person, whether
a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of any party, by depositions upon oral examination
or written interrogatories.
The rule does not make any distinction or restriction as to who can avail of
deposition. It clearly provides that the testimony of any person may be taken by
deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories, at the instance of any
party.
The purpose is to enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to
obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and
thus prevent the said trials from being carried out in the dark.
However, depositions may be used without the deponent being actually
called to the witness stand by the proponent, under certain conditions and
for certain limited purposes. These exceptional situations are governed by
Section 4, Rule 24 of the Rules of Court.
SEC 4. Use of depositions. At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion of an interlocutory
proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be
used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had
due notice thereof, in accordance with any of the following provisions:
(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the
testimony of deponent as a witness;
(b) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer,
director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation, partnership, or association which is
a party may be used by an adverse party for any purpose;
 (c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any
party for any purpose if the court finds: (1) that the witness is dead; or (2) that the
witness if out of the province and at a greater distance than fifty (50)
kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines,
unless it appears that his absence was procured by the party offering the
deposition; or (3) that the witness is unable to attend to testify because of age, sickness,
infirmity, or imprisonment; or (4) that the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure
the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (5) upon application and notice, that such
exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due
regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the
deposition to be used;
(d) If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, the adverse party may require him
to introduce all of it which is relevant to the party introduced, and any party may introduce any
other parts.
It is apparent that the deposition of any person may be taken wherever he may be,
in the Philippines or abroad. If the party or witness is in the Philippines, his
deposition "shall be taken before any judge, municipal or notary public" (Sec. 10,
Rule 24, Rules of Court). If in a foreign state or country, the deposition "shall be
taken: (a) on notice before a secretary or embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines, or (b)
before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under
letters rogatory" (Sec. 11, Rule 24).
Leave of court is not necessary where the deposition is to be taken before "a
secretary or embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular
agent of the Republic of thePhilippines," and the defendant's answer has already
been served (Sec. 1, Rule 24).
After answer, whether the deposition-taking is to be accomplished within
the Philippines or outside, the law does not authorize or contemplate any
intervention by the court in the process, all that is required being that "reasonable
notice" be given "in writing to every other party to the action . . (stating) 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 . . . "(Sec. 15,
Rule 24).
The court intervenes in the process only if a party moves (1) to "enlarge or shorten
the time" stated in the notice (id.), or (2) "upon notice and for good cause shown,"
to prevent the deposition-taking, or impose conditions therefor, e.g., that "certain
matters shall not be inquired into" or that the taking be "held with no one present
except the parties to the action and their officers or counsel," etc. (Sec. 16, Rule
24), or (3) to terminate the process on motion and upon a showing that "it is being
conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or
oppress the deponent or party" (Sec 18, Rule 24).
In this case, RTCs grant of the motion to allow deposition-taking was proper
considering Berdexs allegation in its motion that its witnesses are all Americans
residing in the US.
This situation is one of the exceptions for its admissibility under Sec 4(c)(2), Rule
23 of the RoC.
Whether allowing the deposition would result to grave injustice to the other
party? - NO
San Luis claims that the right to take depositions upon written interrogatories
would result in grave injustice to him, as Berdex is seeking to establish the existence
of an oral contract which requires stricter standard in proving the same. This
argument is untenable.
The admissibility of the deposition does not preclude the determination of its
probative value at the appropriate time. The admissibility of evidence should not be
equated with weight of evidence. The admissibility of evidence depends on its
relevance and competence while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence
already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.
There is also no merit in petitioner's claim that his right to cross-examine private
respondent's witnesses will be curtailed since petitioner is fully accorded the
opportunity for cross-examination under Section 25, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court,
to wit:
SEC. 25. Depositions upon written interrogatories; service of notice and of
interrogatories. - A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon written
interrogatories shall serve them upon every other party with a notice stating the
name and address of the person who is to answer them and the name or descriptive
title and address of the officer before whom the deposition is to be taken. Within
ten (10) days thereafter, a party so served may serve cross interrogatories upon the
party proposing to take the deposition. Within five (5) days thereafter, the latter
may serve re-direct interrogatories upon a party who has served cross
interrogatories. Within three (3) days after being served with re-direct
interrogatories, a party may serve re-cross interrogatories upon the party proposing
to take the deposition.
Thus, petitioner may submit cross-interrogatories upon private respondent
with sufficient fullness and freedom.
San Luis also contends that since private respondent will have the
testimonies of its witnesses in another jurisdiction, the sanction of penalty
for perjury under our laws would not apply to them; and petitioner may not
be able to enforce its own claim against private respondent, since it is
domiciled in a foreign country and does not appear to have any assets in the
Philippines. The Court did not rule on this because it is premature,
conjectural and anticipatory.