TOPIC: MODES OF DISCOVERY – DEPOSITION Considering that the above-entitled case has been pending since

November 24, 1995, and hearings thereof have been delayed

PAJARILLAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS almost always at the instance of the defendant, the latter's
G.R. No. 163515 | October 31, 2008 | Quisumbing, Acting C.J motion for leave of Court to take said defendant's deposition
Digested By: Oreiro, Zafariah Lloren B. upon written interrogatories at this late stage of the proceedings
is hereby denied.
DOCTRINES: Petitioner moved for reconsideration which the trial court
Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the primary function denied. Thus, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of
of which is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997
disclosing the real points of dispute between the parties and Rules of Court. In affirming the trial court's orders,
affording an adequate factual basis during the preparation for
ISSUE:
trial. It should be allowed absent any showing that taking it
Whether the taking of deposition is proper under the
would prejudice any party.
circumstances obtaining in this case. NO
We must emphasize that while the rules on discovery are
HELD:
liberally constructed so as to ascertain truth and to expedite the
There is nothing in the Rules of Court or in jurisprudence which
disposal of cases, the trial court may disallow a deposition if
restricts a deposition to the sole function of being a mode of
there are valid reasons for so ruling. Here, we find the protracted
discovery before trial. Under certain conditions and for certain
delay in the litigation at petitioner's instance coupled with the
limited purposes, it may be taken even after trial has commenced
belated and unsubstantiated allegations of illness and threats to
and may be used without the deponent being actually called to
petitioner's life, more than sufficient reasons for the trial court to
the witness stand. There is no rule that limits deposition-taking
deny petitioner's motion.
only to the period of pre-trial or before it; no prohibition exists
FACTS: against the taking of depositions after pre-trial. There can be no
In 1995, private respondent Thomas T. Kalangeg filed with the valid objection to allowing them during the process of executing
RTC of Bontoc, Mt. Province, Branch 36, a complaint 4 for a final and executory judgments, when the material issues of fact
sum of money with damages against petitioner Isidro T. have become numerous or complicated. 
Pajarillaga.
Such being the case, there is really nothing objectionable, per
se, with petitioner availing of this discovery measure after
Since the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement, trial on
private respondent has rested his case and prior to petitioner's
the merits ensued. In 1997, private respondent presented his first
presentation of evidence. To reiterate, depositions may be taken
witness. At the next scheduled hearing on August 8, 1997,
at any time after the institution of any action, whenever
neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared despite notice. Upon
necessary or convenient.
private respondent's motion, the trial court allowed him to
present his remaining two witnesses subject to petitioner's cross- But when viewed vis the several postponements made by
examination on the next scheduled hearing on September 2, petitioner for the initial presentation of his evidence, we are of
1997. But when the case was called on that date, petitioner and the view that his timing is, in fact, suspect. The records before us
his counsel were again absent. Upon private respondent's show that petitioner stopped attending the hearings after private
motion, the trial court declared petitioner to have waived his respondent presented his first witness. Petitioner offered no
right of cross-examination and allowed private respondent to excuse for his and his counsel's absences. Moreover, the trial
make a formal offer of evidence. court has set four (4) hearing dates for the initial presentation of
his evidence. But he merely moved for its resetting without
In an Order, the trial court admitted all the exhibits formally
invoking the grounds which he now presents before us.
offered by private respondent. It also scheduled petitioner's
presentation of evidence on October 28, 29 and 30, 1997. Besides, even as we scrutinize petitioner's arguments, we think
that he has not sufficiently shown an "exceptional" or "unusual"
Petitioner moved to reset the hearing to November 17, 1997.
case for us to grant leave and reverse the trial and appellate
The trial court granted his motion and reset the hearing to
courts.
December 15, 1997.
In this case, petitioner invokes distance and illness to avail of the
On December 10, 1997, however, petitioner filed a Motion for
discovery measure. We agree with private respondent that the
Leave of Court to Take the Deposition of the Defendant Upon
matter of distance could have been settled had petitioner
Written Interrogatories on the grounds that: (1) petitioner resides
requested for a change of venue earlier in the proceedings.
in Manila which is more than four hundred (400) kilometers
Petitioner has attended the pre-trial and the hearing where
from Bontoc, Mt. Province; and (2) petitioner is suffering from
private respondent presented his first witness. He need not await
an illness which prohibits him from doing strenuous activities.
his turn to present evidence before realizing the great
Private respondent opposed the motion. On December 15, 1997, inconvenience caused by the enormous distance between his
neither petitioner nor his counsel again appeared. Nonetheless, place of residence and the place of hearing.
the trial court reset the case to January 12, 1998 for the
Nor are we inclined to accept petitioner's claim of illness. As
presentation of petitioner's evidence. What transpired on said
aptly observed by the Court of Appeals, the medical certificate
date, however, is not disclosed by the records before this Court.
submitted by petitioner merely contained a remark that the
In an Order 6 dated January 29, 1998, the trial court denied "patient is advised to avoid strenuous activity". It was not
petitioner's motion, in this wise: alleged that the travel from Manila to Mt. Province for the
scheduled hearings was too strenuous to endanger petitioner's In his Opposition and Comment, petitioner contends: If indeed
health. there was an oral contract and petitioner was liable to private
respondent for the amount he received from the latter, the
We also agree with the Court of Appeals that the threats to
documents attached to private respondent's complaint did not
petitioner's life by private respondent's relatives appear to be a
support its claim, but rather supported his position. There is a
mere afterthought since it was raised only in petitioner's motion
very strict standard in proving an oral contract. Taking the
for reconsideration of the trial court's denial of his motion for
deposition through written interrogatories would deprive the
leave. We also note that the incident which gave rise to the
court of the opportunity to observe the general bearing and
alleged threats took place prior to the pre-trial. Surely, petitioner
demeanor of witnesses. Petitioner's right to cross-examine the
could have informed the trial court of this incident had there
witnesses will be prejudiced, since he will be limited to cross-
been truth to, and serious implication of, his allegation.
interrogatories which will severely limit not only the scope but
PETITION IS DENIED FOR LACK OF MERIT. the spontaneity of his cross-examination. It is doubtful whether
TOPIC: MODES OF DISCOVERY – DEPOSITION the witnesses will give their deposition under sanction of the
penalties prescribed by Philippine law for perjury. The claim
SAN LUIS v. ROJAS that travel to the Philippines would be dangerous for the
G.R. No. 159127 | March 3, 2008 | Austria-Martinez, J. witnesses who are all Americans is frivolous, since respondent
Digested By: Oreiro, Zafariah Lloren B. 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
DOCTRINES: legal system. Old age was not a valid reason.
Depositions are chiefly a mode of discovery. They are intended
as a means to compel disclosure of facts resting in the The RTC granted private respondent's Motion, as it found the
knowledge of a party or other person which are relevant in some same appropriate and sanctioned by the rules on deposition-
suit or proceeding in court. Depositions, and the other modes of taking. According to the last paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46 in
discovery are meant to enable a party to learn all the material relation to Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1994 Rules of Civil
and relevant facts, not only known to him and his witnesses but Procedure, non-compliance with the requirements is a sufficient
also those known to the adverse party and the latter's own ground for the dismissal of the petition.
witnesses. In fine, the object of discovery is to make it possible CA denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. In denying
for all the parties to a case to learn all the material and relevant the motion, the CA found that non-compliance with the
facts, from whoever may have knowledge thereof, to the end requirements as a result of misapprehension and unfamiliarity
that their pleadings or motions may not suffer from inadequacy with the rules is not excusable.
of factual foundation, and all the relevant facts may be clearly
and completely laid before the Court, without omission or ISSUE:
suppression. 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
FACTS: deposition upon written interrogatories taken outside the
On July 12, 2001, Berdex International, Inc. (private respondent) Philippines to prove an oral contract.
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (RTC) a YES
complaint for a sum of money against petitioner, alleging that: it
is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of HELD:
the United States of America with principal office in San Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, which substantially
Francisco, California, U.S.A. Petitioner confirmed such loan to reproduced Section 1, Rule 24 of the old Rules, provides as
private respondent's auditors on August 8, 2000; and he had only follows:
paid US$20,000.00 and no further payment was made despite SECTION 1.  Depositions pending action, when may be taken.
repeated demands. Private respondent prayed that petitioner be — By leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over
ordered to pay the amount of US$150,335.75 plus interest until any defendant or over property which is the subject of the
fully paid and attorney's fees. action, or without such leave after an answer has been served,
the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may be
On April 4, 2002, private respondent filed a MOTION (To taken, at the instance of any party, by depositions upon oral
Authorize Deposition-Taking Through Written examination or written interrogatories.
Interrogatories) alleging that initial presentation of its evidence Unequivocally, the rule does not make any distinction or
is set on May 3, 2002; that however, all of its witnesses are restriction as to who can avail of deposition. The fact that
Americans who reside or hold office in the USA; that one of the private respondent is a non-resident foreign corporation is
witnesses is already of advanced age and travel to the immaterial. The rule clearly provides that the testimony of any
Philippines may be extremely difficult if not dangerous; and person may be taken by deposition upon oral examination or
there is a perceived danger to them in the aftermath of the written interrogatories, at the instance of any
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2002; that written party. Depositions serve as a device for ascertaining the facts
interrogatories are ideal in this case since the factual issues are relative to the issues of the case. The evident purpose is to
already very few; that such mode of deposition-taking will save enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to
precious judicial and government time and will prevent needless obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts
delays in the case. before civil trials and thus prevent the said trials from being
carried out in the dark.
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 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.
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.
PETITION IS GRANTED.