G.R. Nos.

L-26948 and L-26949 October 8, 1927

SILVESTRA BARON, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
PABLO DAVID, defendant-appellant.
And
GUILLERMO BARON, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
PABLO DAVID, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Respondent Pablo David has been engaged in running a rice mill in the Province of
Pampanga. In March, April and May, 1920, Petitioner Silvestra Baron, David’s aunt, placed
1,012 cavans and 24 kilos of palay in respondent’s mill. During the same period, Guillermo
Baron, David’s uncle, placed other 1,865 cavans and 43 kilos of palay in the mill. No
compensation has ever been received by Silvestra while Guillermo received advancement
amounting to P2,800.00. In January 1921, a fire occurred that destroyed the mill and its contents.
Two actions were instituted in the CFI of Pampanga for recovery of the value of palay.
Both the petitioners claim that the palay was sold to the defendant. They further say that their
palay was delivered to the defendant at his special request, coupled with a promise to pay for the
same at the highest price per cavan at which palay would sell during the year 1920. In early part
of August 1920, petitioners make demand upon the defendant for a settlement which he evaded
or postponed leaving the exact amount due to the plaintiffs undetermined. Deposition of
Guillermo Baron was presented in court as evidence and was admitted as an exhibit, without
being actually read to the court.
On the otherhand, the defendant claims that the palay was deposited subject to future
withdrawal by the depositors or subject to some future sale which was never effected.
Respondent David supposes himself to be relieved from all responsibility by virture of the fire
mentioned. He also asserted that the deposition of Guillermo Baron is not available as evidence
to the plaintiff because it was not actually read out in court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the deposition of Guillermo Baron is available as evidence to the plaintiff.

HELD:
Yes, the deposition of Guillermo Baron is available as evidence. Section 364 of the Code
of Civil Procedure provides that a deposition, once taken, may be read by either party and will
then be deemed the evidence of the party reading it. The use of the word "read" in this section
finds its explanation of course in the American practice of trying cases for the most part before
juries. When a case is thus tried the actual reading of the deposition is necessary in order that the
jurymen may become acquainted with its contents. But in courts of equity, and in all courts
where judges have the evidence before them for perusal at their pleasure, it is not necessary that
the deposition should be actually read when presented as evidence.