TOPIC: MODES OF DISCOVERY - RULE 23 - discovery purposes if and Cleary deposed himself as

DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION plaintiff; and (d) such deposition is oppressive because it
would need to incur costs to attend.
INGRID SALA SANTAMARIA and ASTRID SALA BOZA vs. - The RTC denied Cleary’s Motion for Court
THOMAS CLEARY Authorization to Take Deposition and held that
G.R. No. 197122 | June 15, 2016 | LEONEN depositions are not meant to be a substitute for actual
Digested by: ESCUETA, DAVID ANTONIO A. testimony in open court. It also cited Sec.1, Rule 132 of
the ROC which provides “As the supposed deponent is
DOCTRINE: the plaintiff himself who is not suffering from any
- Rule 23, Section 1 of the Rules of Court gives utmost impairment, physical or otherwise, it would be best for
freedom in the taking of depositions. him to appear in court and testify under oath.”
- The right to take statements and the right to use them in - Upon appeal, the CA reversed the RTC decision and held
court have been kept entirely distinct. The utmost that Rule 23, Section 1 of the ROC allows the taking of
freedom is allowed in taking depositions; restrictions are depositions, and that it is immaterial that Cleary is the
imposed upon their use. As a result, there is accorded the plaintiff himself.
widest possible opportunity for knowledge by both
parties of all the facts before the trial. ISSUES:
- That neither the presiding judge nor the parties will be (1) W/N the limitations for the taking of deposition under
able to personally examine and observe the conduct of a Rule 23, Section 16 of the Rules of Court apply in this
deponent does not justify denial of the right to take case. NO
deposition. (2) W/N the taking of deposition under Rule 23, Section 4(c)
(2) of the Rules of Court applies to a non-resident
FACTS: foreigner plaintiff’s direct testimony. YES
- Two (2) consolidated cases which stem from a motion for
court authorization to take deposition in Los Angeles by HELD:
respondent Thomas Cleary, an American citizen and Los
Angeles resident who filed a civil suit against petitioners (1)
Ingrid Sala Santamaria, Astrid Sala Boza, and Kathryn
Go-Perez before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. This
authorization was granted by the CA upon a petition for Utmost freedom governs the taking of depositions to allow the
certiorari filed by Cleary. widest scope in the gathering of information by and for all parties
- On January 10, 2002, Cleary, an American citizen with in relation to their pending case.
office address in California, filed a Complaint for specific
performance and damages against Miranila Land As regards the taking of depositions, Rule 23, Section 1 is clear that
Development Corporation, Manuel S. Go, Ingrid Sala the testimony of any person may be taken by deposition upon oral
Santamaria, Astrid Sala Boza, and Kathryn Go-Perez examination or written interrogatories at the instance of any party.
before the RTC of Cebu. The Complaint involved shares
of stock of Miranila Land Development Corporation, for San Luis vs Rojas explained that this provision "does not make any
which Cleary paid US$191,250.00. distinction or restriction as to who can avail of deposition." Thus,
- Cleary sued in accordance with the Stock Purchase and this Court found it immaterial that the plaintiff was a non-resident
Put Agreement, more specifically paragraph 9.02 of the foreign corporation and that all its witnesses were Americans
Agreement provides: Any suit, action or proceeding with residing in the United States.
respect to this Agreement may be brought in (a) the
courts of the State of California, (b) the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, or The right to take statements and the right to use them in court have
(c) the courts of the country of Corporation’s been kept entirely distinct. The utmost freedom is allowed in taking
incorporation, as Cleary may elect in his sole discretion, depositions; restrictions are imposed upon their use. As a result,
and the Parties hereby submit to any such suit, action there is accorded the widest possible opportunity for knowledge by
proceeding or judgment and waives any other both parties of all the facts before the trial.
preferential jurisdiction by reason of domicile. Cleary
elected to file the case in Cebu. That neither the presiding judge nor the parties will be able to
- On January 22, 2009, Cleary moved for court personally examine and observe the conduct of a deponent does not
authorization to take deposition. He prayed that his justify denial of the right to take deposition. This objection is
deposition be taken before the Consulate-General of the common to all depositions. Allowing this reason will render
Philippines in Los Angeles and be used as his direct nugatory the provisions in the Rules of Court that allow the taking
testimony. of depositions.
- Petitioners opposed this motion, stating in effect that: (a)
the right to take deposition is not absolute; (b) Cleary
chose the Philippine system to file his suit, and yet he In sum, Rule 23, Section 1 of the Rules of Court gives utmost
deprived the court and the parties the opportunity to freedom in the taking of depositions. Section 16, Rule 23 on
observe his demeanor and directly propound questions on protection orders, which include an order that deposition not be
him; (c) the oral deposition was not intended for taken, may only be issued after notice and for good cause shown.
However, petitioners’ arguments in support of the trial court’s judicial affidavit to be submitted on or before 4 June
Order denying the taking of deposition fails to convince as good 2010, while the cross-examination by adverse parties
cause shown. would be on 7 July 2010. The RTC eventually reset the
hearing scheduled for 7 July 2010 to 13 July 2010.
The civil suit was filed pursuant to an agreement that gave - The RTC thereafter scheduled the cross-examination of
respondent the option of filing the case before our courts or the the expected adverse parties on 21 July, 4 August, and 11
courts of California. It would have been even more costly, time- August 2010.
consuming, and disadvantageous to petitioners had respondent filed - On 18 August 2010, the cross-examination of respondent
the case in the United States. finally proceeded. Juan Miguel's new counsel requested
for a continuance to have more time to prepare for the
cross-examination, but the RTC denied his request upon
Further, it is of no moment that respondent was not suffering from noting that he had already been given sufficient time to
any impairment. Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) of the Rules of Court, do so. It likewise observed that the proceedings had
which was invoked by respondent, governs the use of depositions already suffered many delays. BPI's counsel then
taken. This allows the use of a deposition taken when a witness is proceeded to cross-examine respondent; Juan Miguel's
"out of the Philippines." counsel, on the other hand, persisted in his refusal to
participate in the proceedings.
In any case, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court still allows for - Towards the end of the proceedings on 18 August 2010,
objections to admissibility during trial. The difference between the RTC issued an Order declaring that petitioner and
admissibility of evidence and weight of evidence has long been laid Juan Miguel had waived their right to cross-examine
down in jurisprudence. These two are not to be equated. respondent. The RTC also noted that petitioner and his
Admissibility considers factors such as competence and relevance counsel failed to attend the hearing on 11 August 2010
of submitted evidence. On the other hand, weight is concerned with despite due notice, and that their absence caused them to
the persuasive tendency of admitted evidence. miss the announcement of the resetting.
- Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision and held
PETITION IS DENIED. that since depositions consist merely in the taking down
of statements of witnesses for discovery purposes, the
rules governing the procedure are accorded a broad and
TOPIC: MODES OF DISCOVERY – RULE 23 – liberal treatment. Utmost freedom is allowed in taking
DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION depositions and restrictions are imposed upon their use.
No limitations other than relevancy and privilege have
RENATO S. MARTINEZ vs. JOSE MARIA V. ONGSIAKO been placed on the taking of depositions.
G.R. No. 209057 | MARCH 15, 2017 | SERENO
ISSUE: W/N the CA correctly affirmed the RTC ruling that
DOCTRINE: declared petitioner to have waived his right to cross-examine
Depositions previously taken are only admissible in evidence respondent’s deposition. NO
against an adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine
the witness. HELD: We grant the Petition.

FACTS: The right to cross-examine opposing witnesses has long been

- On 17 May 2010, respondent filed a Petition before the considered a fundamental element of due process in both civil and
RTC of Makati seeking permission to perpetuate his criminal proceedings. In proceedings for the perpetuation of
testimony under Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. testimony, the right to cross-examine a deponent is an even more
He alleged that the taking of his deposition was vital part of the procedure. In fact, the Revised Rules on Evidence
necessary, because (a) he expected to be a party to certain provide that depositions previously taken are only admissible in
actions involving properties in which he had an interest; evidence against an adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-
(b) his health continued to deteriorate; and (d) he needed examine the witness. Because depositions are an exception to the
to preserve his testimony on certain material facts in general rule on the inadmissibility of hearsay testimony, the process
anticipation of future suits. He also identified the areas to of cross-examination is an important safeguard against false
be covered by his proposed testimony. statements.
- Petitioner objected to the proceedings on the ground that
estate proceedings over the properties which respondent The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing
was a party thereof, were then pending before Branch 58 witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or
of the RTC Makati. in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial
- The RTC granted the Petition. It noted that all the powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. Such
requirements under Rule 24 of the ROC had been right may be waived expressly or impliedly.
satisfied, and ordered his deposition to be taken. After
considering the contentions of the motion for In this case, we find that the conduct of petitioner cannot be
reconsideration of all the parties, the RTC thereafter construed as a waiver of his right to cross-examine respondent.
denied the motions in open court. The hearing then
proceeded with the parties agreeing that the direct ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS
testimony of respondent would be taken through a PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF THE 18 AUGUST 2010 HEARING
An examination of the records of the RTC reveals that petitioner
and his counsel had not been properly notified of the hearing to be
held on 18 August 2010. Consequently, their failure to attend the
hearing must be considered an excusable circumstance, and not a
waiver of the right to cross-examine respondent. It is therefore
evident that the CA committed a reversible error when it sustained
the pronouncement of the RTC depriving petitioner of his right to
cross-examine respondent.

While the RTC ordered that Notices of Hearing be sent to both

petitioner and his counsel, they did not receive these processes in
time for the hearing through no fault of their own.

With respect to the Notice of Hearing sent to petitioner himself, the

registry receipt attached to the records of the RTC indicates that the
letter was only received on 14 September 2010. The reason for the
delay in the delivery of the notice is unclear.

On the other hand, the Notice of Hearing sent to petitioner's

counsel never reached the intended recipient because of the
incorrect address indicated on the registered envelope containing
the letter.

Taking all factors into account, it would be unfair and unjust to

consider the failure of petitioner to attend the hearing on 18 August
2010 as signifying his intention to waive the right to cross-examine
respondent.

PETITION IS GRANTED. CASE REMANDED TO THE

RTC.