2. Santa Maria and Boza v.

Cleary
GR. No. 197122, June 15, 2016

Facts:
Cleary, an American citizen with office address in California, filed a Complaint for specific
performance and damages against Miranila Land Development Corporation, Manuel S. Go,
Ingrid Sala Santamaria (Santamaria), Astrid Sala Boza (Boza), and Kathryn Go-Perez (Go-
Perez) before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu.

The Complaint involved shares of stock of Miranila Land Development Corporation, for
which Cleary paid US$191,250.00. Cleary sued in accordance with the Stock Purchase and Put
Agreement he entered into with Miranila Land Development Corporation, Manuel S. Go,
Santamaria, Boza, and Go-Perez. Paragraph 9.02 of the Agreement provides:
Any suit, action or proceeding with 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 (c) the
courts of the country of Corporation’s incorporation, as Cleary may elect in his sole discretion, and the
Parties hereby submit to any such suit, action proceeding or judgment and waives any other preferential
jurisdiction by reason of domicile.

Cleary elected to file the case in Cebu.

Cleary moved for court authorization to take deposition. He prayed that his deposition be
taken before the Consulate-General of the Philippines in Los Angeles and be used as his direct
testimony.

Santamaria and Boza opposed the Motion and argued that the right to take deposition is not
absolute. They claimed that Cleary chose the Philippine system to file his suit, and yet he
deprived the court and the parties the opportunity to observe his demeanor and directly
propound questions on him.

The trial court denied Cleary’s Motion for Court Authorization to Take Deposition. It held
that depositions are not meant to be a substitute for actual testimony in open court. As a rule,
a deponent must be presented for oral examination at trial as required under Rule 132, Section
1 of the Rules of Court. This was eventually reversed by CA in its ruling.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the limitations for the taking of deposition under Rule 23, Section 16 of the
Rules of Court apply in this case; and
2. Whether or not the taking of deposition under Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) of the Rules of Court
applies to a non-resident foreigner plaintiff’s direct testimony.

Ruling:

Rule 23 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 deposition upon oral examination or
written interrogatories. The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of a subpoena as
provided in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken only in accordance with these Rules. The deposition of
a person confined in prison may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes.
Hence, Rule 23, Section 1 is clear that the testimony of any person may be taken by deposition
upon oral examination or written interrogatories at the instance of any party. San Luis
explained that this provision "does not make any distinction or restriction as to who can avail
of deposition." Thus, this Court found it immaterial that the plaintiff was a non-resident
foreign corporation and that all its witnesses were Americans residing in the United States.

This Court has held that "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 cases are enumerated in Rule 23, Section 4(c) as follows:
SEC 4. Use of depositions. – At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or 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 one of the following provisions:
....
(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 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.

Under the concept adopted by the new Rules, the deposition serves the double function of a
method of discovery —with use on trial not necessarily contemplated — and a method of
presenting testimony. Accordingly, no limitations other than relevancy and privilege have
been placed on the taking of depositions, while the use at the trial is subject to circumscriptions
looking toward the use of oral testimony wherever practicable.

Thus, depositions 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.

Rule 23, Section 16 of the Rules of Court is on orders for the protection of parties and
deponents from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. The provision reads:

SEC. 16. Orders for the protection of parties and deponents. — After notice is served for taking a
deposition by oral examination, upon motion seasonably made by any party or by the person to be
examined and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may make an order that
the deposition shall not be taken, or that it may be taken only at some designated place other than that
stated in the notice, or that it may be taken only on written interrogatories, or that certain matters shall
not be inquired into, or that the scope of the examination shall be held with no one present except the
parties to the action and their officers or counsel, or that after being sealed the deposition shall be opened
only by order of the court, or that secret processes, developments, or research need not be disclosed, or
that the parties shall simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed
envelopes to be opened as directed by the court or the court may make any other order which justice
requires to protect the party or witness from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.

A plain reading of this provision shows that there are two (2) requisites before a court may
issue a protective order: (1) there must be notice; and (2) the order must be for good cause
shown.

The matter of good cause is to be determined by the court in the exercise of judicial discretion. Good
cause means a substantial reason—one that affords a legal excuse. he requirement, however, that good
cause be shown for a protective order puts the burden on the party seeking relief to show some plainly
adequate reasons for the order. What constitutes good cause furthermore depends upon the kind of
protective order that is sought.
In light of the general philosophy of full discovery of relevant facts and the board statement of scope in
Rule 24, and in view of the power of the court under Sections 16 and 18 of said Rule to control the
details of time, place, scope, and financing for the protection of the deponents and parties, it is fairly
rare that it will be ordered that a deposition should not be taken at all. All motions under these
subparagraphs of the rule must be supported by "good cause" and a strong showing is required before
a party will be denied entirely the right to take a deposition. A mere allegation, without proof, that the
deposition is being taken in bad faith is not a sufficient ground for such an order. Neither is an allegation
that it will subject the party to a penalty or forfeiture. The mere fact that the information sought by
deposition has already been obtained through a bill of particulars, interrogatories, or other depositions
will not suffice, although if it is entirely repetitious a deposition may be forbidden. The allegation that
the deponent knows nothing about the matters involved does not justify prohibiting the taking of a
deposition, nor that whatever the witness knows is protected by the "work product doctrine," nor that
privileged information or trade secrets will be sought in the course of the examination, nor that all the
transactions were either conducted or confirmed in writing.

Rule 23, Section 1 of the Rules of Court gives utmost freedom in the taking of depositions.
Section 16 on protection orders, which include an order that deposition not be taken, may only
be issued after notice and for good cause shown. (Petitioners’ arguments in support of the
trial court’s Order denying the taking of deposition fails to convince as good cause shown.)

In any case, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court still allows for objections to admissibility during
trial. The difference between admissibility of evidence and weight of evidence has long been
laid down in jurisprudence. These two are not to be equated. Admissibility considers factors
such as competence and relevance of submitted evidence. On the other hand, weight is
concerned with the persuasive tendency of admitted evidence.

As regards weight of evidence, "the admissibility of the deposition does not preclude the
determination of its probative value at the appropriate time." In resorting to depositions,
respondent takes the risk of not being able to fully prove his case.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-Ramil A. Escaso