AYALA LAND, INC. VS. TAGLE ET. AL.
, - ruled on objections of Ayala Land
G.R. No. 153667, August 11, 2005
FACTS:
1. A civil case for the nullification of Contract to
Sell Real Properties, Cancellation of
Annotations on Transfer Certificates of Title
and Damages was filed before RTC Cavite, by
ASB Realty and EMRASON against Ayala
Land, et al
2. In the complaint:
- EMRASON, a real estate company which
owns properties in Dasma, entered into a
Letter-Agreement with ASB for the
conditional sale of 65% of the land for
P400M payable in 5 installments
- However, ASB, through president,
received a letter from the children of
Emerito Ramos, Sr. (EMRASON),
informing him that they entered into a
Contract to Sell said real estate
properties with Ayala Land (this
prompted ASB to file complaint)
3. Plaintiff ASB subsequently filed a Motion
for Leave to take testimony by deposition
upon oral examination of Emerito
Ramos, Sr., citing Section 4(c) of Rule 24
- Stating that Ramos, Sr. is already 87
years old and although he was of sound
mind there is always the possibility that
he may not be able to testify on ASB’s
behalf in the course of the trial on the
merits
4. TC: ASB’s motion was granted
5. ASB then obtained the deposition upon
oral examination of Emerito Ramos, Sr.
on 6 different occasions
6. Upon the termination of Emerito’s direct
testimony by deposition, both plaintiffs and
defendants agreed that the cross-
examination be scheduled – dates were
reset to Feb 15, 1995
7. January 30, 1995: Ayala Land filed a
“Motion to Resolve Objections (In
deposition proceedings with Omnibus
Motion) on the propriety, admissibility,
and conformity of the deposition
proceedings to the Rules:
- Ayala Land sought rulings on its
objections to leading questions, violations
of best-evidence rule, rule on presentation
of secondary evidence, incompetence of
the deponent, opinion rule, manner of
presentation of evidence, and testimonies
not forming part of the offer
8. Trial Court:
- cancelled the cross-examination of
Emerito Ramos, Sr.’s deposition
scheduled on Feb 15, 1995;
sustaining some, overruling others and
upholding the propriety of the
presentation of evidence made by ASB
through deposition;
- directed the setting of cross-examination
of deponent
9. Ayala Land filed MR of order setting the
hearing of the case for cross-examination; TC
denied (Sept 7, 1995)
10. TC again directed that the cross-examination
of Emerito Ramos be scheduled -> set on
October 6, 1995
11. Before this date, Ayala Land filed a
Manifestation and Motion praying that the
date set be cancelled and re-scheduled to
another date; TC reset hearing on Oct 27,
1995
12. Ayala Land filed before CA a Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition with urgent
application for TRO and WPI to restrain
Judge Tagle, from implementing the Order
dated Sept 7 and to declare null and void and
expunging the entire deposition proceedings
taken in connection with Civil Case
13. CA: Issued TRO and WPI; denied the petition
of Ayala Land
14. Ayala Land’s MR denied by CA
15. Emerito Ramos, Sr. died. ASB then filed
before TC a motion to introduce in
evidence the deposition of Emerito
Ramos, Sr.
16. Motion was opposed by Ayala Land; ASB filed
its Reply; Ayala Land thereafter filed its
Rejoinder and ASB its Sur-rejoinder
17. TC: set aside the opposition of Ayala Land,
and admitting in evidence the deposition of
Emerito Ramos. Sr; MR filed by Ayala Land
denied
18. Ayala Land again elevated the case to CA by
way of Petition for Review on Certiorari -.
Dismissed; MR opposed by ASB and
EMRASON and denied
19. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the alleged
deposition of witness Emerito Ramos, Sr. is
admissible under the Rules
RULING: YES
CONCEPTS:
 Deposition
- Written testimony of a witness given in
the course of a judicial proceeding in
advance of the trial or hearing upon oral
examination
- Testimony of a witness, put or taken in
writing, under oath or affirmation, before
a commissioner, examiner or other
judicial officer, in answer to interlocutory
 and cross-interlocutory, and usually
subscribed by the witnesses
- May be taken at any time after the
institution of any action, whenever
necessary or convenient
 PURPOSE of a DEPOSITION:
- to give greater assistance to the parties in
ascertaining the truth and in checking
and preventing perjury;
- to provide an effective means of detecting
and exposing false, fraudulent claims and
defenses;
- to make available in a simple, convenient
and inexpensive way, facts which
otherwise could not be proved except
with great difficulty;
- educate the parties in advance of trial as
to the real value of their claims and
defenses thereby encouraging
settlements;
- to expedite litigation;
- to safeguard against surprise;
- to prevent delay;
- to simplify and narrow the issues; and
- to expedite and facilitate both preparation
and trial
 Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the
primary function of which is to supplement
the pleadings for the purpose of disclosing
the real points of dispute between the parties
and affording an adequate factual basis
during the preparation for trial. The liberty of
a party to avail itself of this procedure, as an
attribute of discovery, is “well-nigh
unrestricted if the matters inquired into are
otherwise relevant and not privileged, and
the injury is made in good faith and within
the bounds of the law.
 IN THE CASE AT BAR:
 The trial court permitted the taking of
Emerito Ramos, Sr.’s deposition chiefly
because of his advance age which ground
is considered valid and justified under the
Rules of Court.
 As to prerequisites of a valid
deposition: The depositions of Emerito
Ramos, Sr., taken on the dates earlier
mentioned, were substantially made in
accordance with the requirements of the
Rules. In fact, in its Petition before CA,
Ayala Land confirmed the taking of
deposition on said dates and that it was
duly represented by its counsel during the
proceedings.
 As to the manner by which deposition
was taken: The deposition was taken
inside the courtroom of the trial court,
before the clerk of court. A stenographer
was present, tape recorders and a video
camera were even utilized to record the
proceedings, in the presence of all the
opposing counsels of record including
Ayala Land.
 As to objection of Ayala Land owing to
the lack of signature of the deponent:
A deposition not signed does not preclude
its use during the trial. A deponent’s
signature to the deposition is not in all
events indispensable since the presence
of signature goes primarily to the form of
deposition. The requirement that the
deposition must be examined and signed
by the witness is only to ensure that the
deponent is afforded the opportunity to
correct any errors contained therein and
to ensure its accuracy
- 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
 As to denial of Ayala Land’s
opportunity to cross-examine the
deponent: Ayala Land was given more
than enough opportunity to cross-examine
the deponent and its failure to exercise
such right is solely attributable to its own
inaction.

HYATT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING
CORP. VS. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
G.R. No. 147143, March 10, 2006
FACTS:
1. Respondent Ley Construction and Dev’t Corp
(LCDC) filed a complaint for specific
performance and damages with RTC Makati
against Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp
(Hyatt)
Why?
- Hyatt reneged in its obligation to transfer
40% of the pro indiviso share of a real
property in Makati in favour of LCDC
despite its full payment of purchase price
- Hyatt failed to develop the property in a
joint venture, despite LCDC’s payment of
40% of the pre-construction cost
2. LCDC filed an amended complaint impleading
Princeton as additional defendant claiming
that Hyatt sold the subject property to
Princeton in fraud of LCDC
3. LCDC filed a second amended complaint
adding as defendant, Yu (president of Hyatt),
alleging that LCDC paid the purchase price to
Hyatt through Yu.
4. Responsive pleadings were filed and LCDC
filed notices to take the depositions of
Yu; Pacita Tan Go (Account Officer of
RCBC); and Elena Sy (Finance Officer of
Hyatt)
5. Hyatt also filed notice to take deposition
of Manuel Ley (president of LCDC), while
Princeton filed notice to take deposition
of Manuel and Janet Ley
6. RTC: ordered deposition-taking to proceed
7. At the scheduled deposition of Elena Sy,
Hyatt and Yu prayed that all settings for
depositions be disregarded and pre-trial be
set instead, contending that the taking of
depositions only delay the resolution of the
case; RTC agreed and ordered all depositions
cancelled and pre-trial to take place
8. LCDC moved for reconsideration; RTC denied
9. LCDC filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend
Proceedings Due to Pendency of Petition for
Certiorari in CA
10. Meanwhile, pre-trial proceeded at RTC as
scheduled and with the refusal of LCDC to
enter into pre-trial, Hyatt, Yu and Princeton
moved to declare LCDC non-suited; Granted
by RTC
11. LCDC filed MR; denied; went to CA’ 12th
Division on appeal, denied
12. LCDC then filed with this Court, a petition for
certiorari; dismissed
13. The CA’s then 7th Division found the
appeal meritorious -> case is remanded
to the court a quo for further hearing
and directing the latter to allow the
deposition taking without delay
14. Hyatt and Princeton filed their respective
MRs; denied by CA; hence, this petition for
review on certiorari
ISSUE:
Whether or not CA erred in
remanding the case to the trial court and
order the deposition-taking to proceed
RULING:
NO; CA was correct in remanding the
case to the RTC and ordering the
deposition-taking to proceed
 A deposition should be allowed, absent
any showing that taking it would
prejudice any party.
 It is allowed as a departure from the
accepted and usual judicial proceedings of
examining witnesses in open court where
their demeanor could be observed by trial
judge, consistent with the principle of
promoting just, speedy, and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding;
and provided it is taken in accordance with
the provisions of ROC, i.e., with leave of court
if summons have been served, and without
such leave if an answer has been submitted;
and provided further that a circumstance for
its admissibility exists (Section 4, Rule 23).
 The rules on discovery should not be unduly
restricted; otherwise, the advantage of a
liberal discovery procedure in ascertaining
the truth and expediting the disposal of
litigation would be defeated.
 A.M No. 03-1-09-SC: provided for guidelines
to be observed by trial court judges and
clerks of court in the conduct of pre-trial and
use of deposition-discovery measures
- Trial courts are directed to issue orders
requiring parties to avail of
interrogatories to parties under Rule 45
and request for admission of adverse
party under Rule 26 or at their discretion
make use of depositions under Rule 23 or
other measures under Rule 27 and 28
within 5 days from filing of the answer
- Parties are likewise required to submit, at
least 3 days before the pre-trial, pre-trial
briefs, containing among others a
manifestation of the parties of their
having availed or their intention to avail
themselves of discovery procedures or
referral to commissioners
 IN THE CASE AT BAR:
 LCDC complied with Section 1, Rule 23,
as it made its notice to take depositions
after the answers of defendants have
 been served. LCDC having complied with
the rules then prevailing, the trial court
erred in cancelling the previously
scheduled depositions.
 While it is true that depositions may be
disallowed by trial courts if the
examination is conducted in bad faith; or
in such a manner as to annoy, embarrass,
or oppress the person who is the subject
of the inquiry, or when the inquiry
touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches
upon the recognized domains of privilege,
such circumstances, however, are absent
in the case at bar.
 While speedy disposition of cases is
important, such consideration however
should not outweigh a thorough and
comprehensive evaluation of cases, for
the ends of justice are reached not only
through the speedy disposal of cases but
more importantly, through a meticulous
and comprehensive evaluation of the
merits of the case. Records also show that
the delay of the case is NOT attributable
to the depositions sought by LCDC but
was caused by the many pleadings filed
by all the parties including petitioners.
 The argument that the taking of
depositions would cause unnecessary
duplicity as the intended deponents shall
also be called as witnesses during trial, is
also without merit.
 The trial court, before dismissing LCDC’s
complaint, gave LCDC 2 options: (a) enter
into a pre-trial conference, advising LCDC
that what it would like to obtain at the
deposition may be obtained at the pre-
trial conference, thus expediting early
termination of the case; and (b) terminate
the pre-trial conference and apply for
deposition later on. The trial court
erred in forcing LCDC to choose only
from these options and in dismissing
its complaint upon LCDC’s refusal to
choose either of the two.
 The information sought to be
obtained through the depositions of
Elena and Pacita are necessary to
fully equip LCDC in determining what
issues will be defined at the pre-trial.
Without such information before pre-trial,
LCDC will be forced to prosecute its case
in the dark – the very situation which the
rules of discovery seek to prevent. Indeed,
the rules on discovery seek to make trial
less a game of blind man’s bluff and more
a fair contest with the basic issues and
facts disclosed to the fullest practicable
extent
 had countered with a Motion to Dismiss; but
when this was denied, it filed its Answer.
-Parties submitted their respective Pretrial
Briefs. Trial proceeded without the participation
of petitioner, whose absence during the pretrial,
had led the trial court to declare it in default.
-Petitioner received a copy of the RTC’s Decision
dated June 19, 2001. It filed an Omnibus Motion
for New Trial and Change of Venue. It was
denied.
-Petitioner received a copy of a Writ of
Execution. Alleging that it had yet to receive a
copy of an Order resolving the Omnibus Motion
for New Trial, petitioner filed a Motion to
Quash/Recall Writ of Execution. Later on
counsels of petitioner, Attys. Jaime L. Mario Jr.
and Dioscoro G. Peligro -- submitted separate
withdrawals of appearance. The law firm Ong
Abad Santos & Meneses filed an Entry of
Appearance with Supplement to Motion to
Quash/Recall Writ of Execution.
-Petitioner received a Sheriff’s Notice regarding
the public auction sale of its properties. By
reason of the immediate threat to implement the
Writ of Execution, it filed with the CA on January
14, 2002, a Petition for Prohibition seeking to
enjoin the enforcement of the Writ until the
resolution of the Motion to Quash.
-Petitioner received a copy of respondents’
Vigorous Opposition (Re: Motion to Quash/Recall
Writ of Execution, and its Supplement). Attached
to this pleading were two separate Certifications
supposedly issued by the postmaster of Tacurong
City, affirming that the Order denying the Motion
for New Trial had been received by petitioner’s
two previous counsels of record. The
Certification pertaining to Atty. Peligro alleged
that a certain Michelle Viquira had received on
October 19, 2001, a copy of the Order intended
for him. The Certification as regards Atty. Mario
stated that he had personally received his copy
on December 21, 2001.
-Petitioner personally served counsel for
respondents a Notice to Take Deposition Upon
Oral Examination of Attys. Mario and Peligro.
The Deposition was intended to prove that
petitioner had not received a copy of the Order
JONATHAN LANDOIL INTERNATIONAL CO., denying the Omnibus Motion for New Trial.
INC. VS. MANGUDADATU -RTC Petition for Prohibition denied.
G.R. No. 155010, August 16, 2004, 436 -Motion to Quash denied by RTC.
SCRA 559, 573 -CA denied the petition.

ISSUE:
FACTS: WON the RTC/CA erred in declaring that the
taking of the depositions of petitioner’s
(Respondent) Spouses Suharto and Miriam witnesses was improper
Sangki Mangudadatu filed with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) a Complaint for damages HELD:
against (Petitioner) Jonathan Landoil Yes they erred but the RTC did not totally
International Co., Inc. ("JLI"). Initially, petitioner disregard petitioner’s depositions. In its
February 21, 2001 Resolution, the trial court
considered and weighed -- against all other
evidence -- that its Order denying the Motion for
New Trial filed by petitioner had not been
received by the latter’s counsels. Despite their
depositions, petitioner failed to prove
convincingly its denial of receipt.
-A deposition may be taken with leave of court
after jurisdiction has been obtained over any
defendant or over property that is the subject of
the action; or, without such leave, after an
answer has been served. Deposition is chiefly a
mode of discovery, the primary function of which
is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of
disclosing the real points of dispute between the
parties and affording an adequate factual basis
during the preparation for trial. The liberty of a
party to avail itself of this procedure, as an
attribute of discovery, is "well-nigh unrestricted
if the matters inquired into are otherwise
relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry is
made in good faith and within the bounds of the
law." Limitations would arise, though, if the
examination is conducted in bad faith; or in such
a manner as to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the
person who is the subject of the inquiry; or when
the inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or
encroaches upon the recognized domains of
privilege.
As a mode of discovery resorted to before trial,
deposition has advantages, as follows:
-1. It is of great assistance in ascertaining the
truth and in checking and preventing perjury.
-2. It is an effective means of detecting and
exposing false, fraudulent, and sham claims and
defenses.
-3. It makes available in a simple, convenient,
and often inexpensive way facts which otherwise
could not have been proved, except with great
difficulty and sometimes not at all.
-4. It educates the parties in advance of trial
as to the real value of their claims and defenses,
thereby encouraging settlements out of court.
-5. It expedites the disposal of litigation, saves
the time of the courts, and clears the docket of
many cases by settlements and dismissals which
otherwise would have to be tried.
-6. It safeguards against surprise at the trial,
prevents delays, and narrows and simplifies the
issues to be tried, thereby expediting the trial.
-7. It facilitates both the preparation and the
trial of cases.
The Rules of Court and jurisprudence, however,
do not restrict a deposition to the sole function of
being a mode of discovery before trial. Under
certain conditions and for certain limited
purposes, it may be taken even after trial has
commenced and may be used without the
deponent being actually called to the witness
stand. In Dasmariñas Garments v. Reyes, we
allowed the taking of the witnesses’ testimonies
through deposition, in lieu of their actual
presence at the trial.
Thus, "[d]epositions may be taken at any time
after the institution of any action, whenever
necessary or convenient. There is no rule that
limits deposition-taking only to the period of pre-
trial or before it; no prohibition against the
taking of depositions after pre-trial." There can
be no valid objection to allowing them during the
process of executing final and executory
judgments, when the material issues of fact have
become numerous or complicated.
In keeping with the principle of promoting the
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every
action and proceeding, depositions are allowed
as a "departure from the accepted and usual
judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in
open court where their demeanor could be
observed by the trial judge." Depositions are
allowed, provided they are taken in accordance
with the provisions of the Rules of Court (that is,
with leave of court if the summons have been
served, without leave of court if an answer has
been submitted); and provided, further, that a
circumstance for their admissibility exists
(Section 4, Rule 23, Rules of Court).
The Rules of Court vests in the trial court the
discretion to order whether a deposition may be
taken or not under specified circumstances that
may even differ from those the proponents have
intended. However, it is well-settled that this
discretion is not
unlimited. It must be exercised -- not arbitrarily,
capriciously or oppressively -- but in a
reasonable manner and in consonance with the
spirit of the law, to the end that its purpose may
be attained.
When a deposition does not conform to the
essential requirements of law and may
reasonably cause material injury to the adverse
party, its taking should not be allowed. This was
the primary concern in Northwest Airlines v.
Cruz. In that case, the ends of justice would be
better served if the witness was to be brought to
the trial court to testify. The locus of the oral
deposition therein was not within the reach of
ordinary citizens, as there were time constraints;
and the trip required a travel visa, bookings, and
a substantial travel fare. In People v. Webb, the
taking of depositions was unnecessary, since the
trial court had already admitted the Exhibits on
which the witnesses would have testified.
The Rules of Court provides adequate safeguards
to ensure the reliability of depositions. The right
to object to their admissibility is retained by the
parties, for the same reasons as those for
excluding evidence if the witness were present
and had testified in court; and for errors and
irregularities in the deposition. As a rule,
depositions should be allowed, absent any
showing that taking them would prejudice any
party.
Depositions may be used for the trial or for the
hearing of a motion or an interlocutory
proceeding, under the circumstances specified
under Rule 23 Sec. 4 the case involved a
circumstance that fell under the above-cited
Section 4(c)(2) of Rule 23 -- the witnesses of
petitioner in Metro Manila resided beyond 100
kilometers from Sultan Kudarat, the place of
hearing. Petitioner offered the depositions in
support of its Motion to Quash (the Writ of
Execution) and for the purpose of proving that
the trial court’s Decision was not yet final. As
previously explained, despite the fact that trial
has already been terminated, a deposition can
still be properly taken.
Disposition
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and
the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

PAJARILLAGA VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 163515, October 31, 2008

FACTS:
1. Private respondent Thomas T. Kalangeg
filed with the RTC of
Bontoc, Mt. Province, Branch 36, a
complaint for a sum of money with
damages against petitioner Isidro T.
Pajarillaga.
2. On March 10, 1997, private respondent
presented his first witness. At the next
scheduled hearing on August 8, 1997,
neither petitioner nor his counsel
appeared despite notice. Upon private
respondent’s motion, the trial court
 allowed him to present his remaining two
witnesses subject to petitioner’s cross-
examination on the next scheduled
hearing on September 2, 1997. But when
the case was called on that date,
petitioner and his counsel were again
absent. Upon private respondent’s
motion, the trial court declared petitioner
to have waived his right of cross-
examination and allowed private
respondent to make a formal offer of
evidence, which the trial court admitted.
3. The trial court scheduled petitioner’s
presentation of evidence but the
petitioner moved to reset the hearing. The
TC granted the motion.
4. Five days before the scheduled hearing,
the petitioner filed a Motion for Leave of
Court to Take the Deposition of the
Defendant Upon Written Interrogatories
a. Petitioner resides in Manila which
is more than four hundred (400)
kilometers from Bontoc,
Mt. Province;
b. Petitioner is suffering from an
illness which prohibits him from
doing strenuous activities.
2. Private respondent opposed the motion.
3. On December 15, 1997, neither petitioner
nor his counsel again appeared.
Nonetheless, the trial court reset the case
to January 12, 1998 for the presentation
of petitioner’s evidence.
4. In an Order dated January 29, 1998, the
trial court denied petitioner’s motion.
Petitioner’s MR: denied.
5. CA affirmed.
a. Denial of petitioner’s motion was
not tainted with grave abuse of
discretion since the trial court
gave petitioner full opportunity to
present his evidence.
b. Petitioner’s motion came much too
late in the proceedings since
private respondent has already
rested his case
c. The medical certificate which
petitioner submitted to validate his
allegation of illness merely
contained a remark that the
“patient is advised to avoid
strenuous activity.” It did not state
that the travel from Manila to Mt.
Province for the scheduled
hearings was too strenuous to
endanger petitioner’s health.
The threats to petitioner’s life by private
respondent’s relatives were belatedly alleged
only in his motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether the taking of petitioner’s deposition by
written interrogatories is proper and should have
been granted by the court.
HELD:
NO.
RATIO:
Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the
primary function of which is to supplement the
pleadings for the purpose of disclosing the real
points of dispute between the parties and
affording an adequate factual basis during the
preparation for trial. It should be allowed absent
any showing that taking it would prejudice any
party.
 It is accorded a broad and liberal
treatment and the liberty of a party to
make discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if
the matters inquired into are otherwise
relevant and not privileged, and the
inquiry is made in good faith and within
the bounds of law. It is allowed as a
departure from the accepted and usual
judicial proceedings of examining
witnesses in open court where their
demeanor could be observed by the trial
judge, consistent with the principle of
promoting just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and
proceeding; and provided it is taken in
accordance with the provisions of the
Rules of Court, i.e., with leave of court if
summons have been served, and without
such leave if an answer has been
submitted; and provided further that a
circumstance for its admissibility exists.
 There is nothing in the Rules of Court or
in jurisprudence which restricts a
deposition to the sole function of being a
mode of discovery before trial. Under
certain conditions and for certain limited
purposes, it may be taken even after trial
has commenced and may be used without
the deponent being actually called to the
witness stand. There is no rule that limits
deposition-taking only to the period of
pre-trial or before it; no prohibition exists
against the taking of depositions after
pre-trial. There can be no valid objection
to allowing them during the process of
executing final and executory judgments,
when the material issues of fact have
become numerous or complicated.
 There is really nothing
objectionable, per se, with petitioner
availing of this discovery measure after
private respondent has rested his case
and prior to petitioner’s presentation of
evidence. To reiterate, depositions may be
taken at any time after the institution of
 any action, whenever necessary or advised to avoid strenuous activity.” It
convenient. But when viewed vis the was not alleged that the travel from
several postponements made by Manila to Mt. Province for the scheduled
petitioner for the initial presentation of hearings was too strenuous to endanger
his evidence, his timing is suspect. petitioner’s health.
 The records show that petitioner stopped While the rules on discovery are liberally
attending the hearings after private constructed so as to ascertain truth and to
respondent presented his first expedite the disposal of cases, the trial court
witness. Petitioner offered no excuse for may disallow a deposition if there are valid
his and his counsel’s absences. Moreover, reasons for so ruling.
the trial court has set four (4) hearing
dates for the initial presentation of his
evidence. But he merely moved for its
resetting without invoking the grounds.
 Petitioner has not sufficiently shown
an “exceptional” or “unusual” case for us
to grant leave and reverse the trial and
appellate courts.
o Under Section 4, Rule 23 of the
Rules of Court, depositions may be
used for the trial or for the hearing
of a motion or an interlocutory
proceeding, under the following
 (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 resides at a
distance more than one
hundred (100) 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 or 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.
 Petitioner’s claim of illness: the medical
certificate submitted by petitioner merely
contained a remark that the “patient is
 o however, not a single share in
those corporations was transferred
to private respondent by petitioner
and the shares were retained by
the latter;
o the parties then agreed to treat all
the payments/advances made by
private respondent to petitioner as
the latter's loan;
- petitioner proposed the payment of the
loan within a period of 3 years, which
proposal was accepted by private
respondent with the agreement that in
case of non-payment of any installment on
their due dates, the entire amount shall
become due and demandable;
- petitioner later refused to sign a formal
contract of loan; petitioner confirmed
such loan to private respondent's auditors
on August 8, 2000; and he had only paid
US$20,000.00 and no further payment
was made despite repeated demands.
Private respondent prayed that petitioner
be ordered to pay the amount of
US$150,335.75 plus interest until fully
paid and attorney's fees.
Pretrial conference terminated and the case was
subsequently set for trial.
- PR filed a motion to authorize deposition-
taking thru written interrogatories
- alleging that initial presentation of its
evidence is set on May 3, 2002; that
o however, all of its witnesses are
Americans who reside or hold
office in the USA;
o that one of the witnesses is
already of advanced age and travel
to the Philippines may be
extremely difficult if not
dangerous;
o and there is a perceived danger to
them in the aftermath of the
SAN LUIS VS. ROJAS
terrorist attacks on September 11,
G.R. No. 159127, March 3, 2008
2002;6
o that written interrogatories are
FACTS:
ideal in this case since the factual
- Berdex Intl. (PR)- filed with RTC a
issues are already very few; that
complaint for a sum of money against Pet
such mode of deposition-taking will
- Alleging that a foreign corporation save precious judicial and
organized and existing under the laws of government time and will prevent
US with principal office in San Francisco needless delays in the case.
Cali
- This was opposed by PR on the ground
- Is maintaining an action only to enforce that:
its right by virtue of an isolated o Taking the deposition through
transaction with the pet
written interrogatories would
- That pet received from it certain amounts deprive the court of the
of money which were meant opportunity to observe the general
o partly as advances or loan and bearing and demeanor of
o partly for the purchase of 40% witnesses.
shares in both Seanet and Seabest o The claim that travel to the
Corporations, Philippines would be dangerous for
 the witnesses who are all
Americans is frivolous, since
respondent has not presented
evidence that the US government
has prohibited its citizens from
traveling to the Philippines; and if
ever there was such prohibition, it
was not binding on our own legal
system. Old age was not a valid
reason.
o
- RTC granted PR’s Motion to take
deposition thru writted interrogatories
- Pet’s MR was denied
- Pet filed certiorari with the CA, denied.
Ruled in favour of PR
ISSUE:
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
HELD:
Yes. Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court,
which substantially reproduced Section 1, Rule
24 of the old Rules, provides as follows:
SECTION 1. 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.
Unequivocally, the rule does not make any
distinction or restriction as to who can avail of
deposition. The fact that private respondent is a
non-resident foreign corporation is immaterial.
- The rule 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.
- Depositions serve as a device for
ascertaining the facts relative to the
issues of the case.
- The evident 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.22
In Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. v. Reyes23, where
we upheld the right of plaintiff during the trial
stage of the case to present its evidence by
deposition of its witnesses in a foreign
jurisdiction in lieu of their oral examination in
court, we said:
- Depositions are chiefly a mode of
discovery. They are intended as a means
to compel disclosure of facts resting in
the knowledge of a party or other person
which are relevant in some suit or
proceeding in court. Depositions, and the
other modes of discovery (interrogatories
to parties; requests for admission by
adverse party; production or inspection of
documents or things; physical and mental
examination of persons) are meant to
enable a party to learn all the material
and relevant facts, not only known to him
and his witnesses but also those known to
the adverse party and the latter's own
witnesses. In fine, the object of discovery
is to make it possible for all the parties to
a case to learn all the material and
relevant facts, from whoever may have
knowledge thereof, to the end that their
pleadings or motions may not suffer from
inadequacy of factual foundation, and all
the relevant facts may be clearly and
completely laid before the Court, without
omission or suppression.
- Depositions are principally made available
by law to the parties as a means of
informing themselves of all the relevant
facts; they are not therefore generally
meant to be a substitute for the actual
testimony in open court of a party or
witness. The deponent must as a rule be
presented for oral examination in open
court at the trial or hearing. This is a
requirement of the rules of evidence.
Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
provides:
- "SECTION 1. Examination to be done in
open court. — The examination of
witnesses presented in a trial or hearing
shall be done in open court, and under
oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or the question
calls for a different mode of answer, the
answers of the witness shall be given
orally."
- Indeed, any deposition offered to prove
the facts therein set out during a trial or
hearing, in lieu of the actual oral
testimony of the deponent in open court,
 may be opposed and excluded on the
ground that it is hearsay: the party
against whom it is offered has no
opportunity to cross-examine the
deponent at the time that his testimony is
offered. It matters not that opportunity
for cross-examination was afforded during
the taking of the deposition; for normally,
the opportunity for cross-examination
must be accorded a party at the time that
the testimonial evidence is actually
presented against him during the trial or
hearing.
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 2424 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
fifty25 (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.
The principle conceding admissibility to a
deposition when the deponent is dead, out of the
Philippines, or otherwise unable to come to court
to testify, is consistent with another rule of
evidence, found in Section 47, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court.
SEC. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former
proceeding. — The testimony or deposition of a
witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a
former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties and
subject matter, may be given in evidence against
the adverse party who had the opportunity to
cross-examine him."
- It is apparent then 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 the Philippines,"
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).26 (Emphasis
supplied)
Thus, we find no grave abuse of discretion
committed by the RTC in granting private
respondent's MOTION (To Allow Deposition-
Taking Through Written Interrogatories)
considering private respondent's allegation in its
MOTION that its witnesses are all Americans
residing in the U.S. This situation is one of the
exceptions for its admissibility under Section 4(c)
(2), Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, i.e., that the
witness resides at a distance of more than one
hundred (100) 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.
- While there are limitations to the rules of
discovery, even when permitted to be
undertaken without leave and without
judicial intervention,27 such limitations
inevitably arise when it can be shown that
the examination is being conducted in bad
faith;28 or in such a manner as to annoy,
embarrass, or oppress the person subject
to the inquiry;29 or when the inquiry
touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches
upon the recognized domains of
privilege.30
It has been repeatedly held that deposition
discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and
liberal treatment31 and should not be unduly
restricted if the matters inquired into are
otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the
inquiry is made in good faith and within the
bounds of law. Otherwise, the advantage of a
liberal discovery procedure in ascertaining the
truth and expediting the disposal of litigation
would be defeated.32 In fact, we find nothing in
the rules on deposition that limits their use in
case of oral contract as alleged by petitioner.
In any event, 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.33
- We also find 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:
- 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).26 (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, we find no grave abuse of discretion
committed by the RTC in granting private
respondent's MOTION (To Allow Deposition-
Taking Through Written Interrogatories)
considering private respondent's allegation in its
MOTION that its witnesses are all Americans
residing in the U.S. This situation is one of the
exceptions for its admissibility under Section 4(c)
(2), Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, i.e., that the
witness resides at a distance of more than one
hundred (100) 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.
- While there are limitations to the rules of
discovery, even when permitted to be
undertaken without leave and without
judicial intervention,27 such limitations
 inevitably arise when it can be shown that
the examination is being conducted in bad
faith;28 or in such a manner as to annoy,
embarrass, or oppress the person subject
to the inquiry;29 or when the inquiry
touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches
upon the recognized domains of
privilege.30
cross interrogatories upon the party
proposing to take the deposition.
Thus, petitioner may submit cross-
interrogatories upon private respondent with
sufficient fullness and freedom.

It has been repeatedly held that deposition

discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and
liberal treatment31 and should not be unduly
restricted if the matters inquired into are
otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the
inquiry is made in good faith and within the
bounds of law. Otherwise, the advantage of a
liberal discovery procedure in ascertaining the
truth and expediting the disposal of litigation
would be defeated.32 In fact, we find nothing in
the rules on deposition that limits their use in
case of oral contract as alleged by petitioner.

In any event, 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.33

- We also find 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-