Jacinto v. Amparo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Nicanor Jacinto filed a complaint against respondent Jose Cojuangco for an accounting of partnership assets. Cojuangco filed an answer with a counter-claim, and Jacinto replied. Procedural History: Upon motion of Jacinto, the case was set for trial on February 22, 1952. On February 8, Jacinto served notice to take Cojuangco's deposition on February 12. The deposition was postponed multiple times due to settlement discussions. On February 18, one hour before the scheduled deposition, Cojuangco served notice of his motion to prevent the deposition, setting it for hearing on February 22, the trial date. Cojuangco also served notice to take Jacinto's deposition on February 22. The respondent Judge, in open court, denied Cojuangco's motion to prevent the deposition, stating it was discretionary, unnecessary, would delay proceedings, and would lead to no practical result. Cojuangco's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner Nicanor Jacinto filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to set aside the respondent Judge's order denying the taking of Cojuangco's deposition and to compel the taking of said deposition.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to take the deposition of Jose Cojuangco. Whether certiorari and mandamus are proper remedies in this case.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The order of the respondent Judge denying the taking of the deposition is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to take the deposition of Jose Cojuangco: The Court held that the granting of a motion to take a deposition is discretionary with the trial court under Section 16 of Rule 18. The respondent Judge's reasons for denying the deposition, namely that it was unnecessary and would delay the proceedings, were found to be plausible and cogent. There was no showing that the deponent was about to leave the country or that essential facts could only be elicited through a deposition. The Court reiterated that the trial court has the authority to prevent the taking of a deposition if it finds that it would serve no practical purpose and would only cause undue delay. The ruling in Frank & Co. vs. Clemente was cited, emphasizing that the taking of a deposition rests largely in the sound discretion of the court. On the issue of whether certiorari and mandamus are proper remedies in this case: The Court ruled that certiorari does not lie because there was no excess of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent court. Mandamus is also not available as it is only used to compel the performance of a mandatory and ministerial act, which is not the case here, as the granting of a deposition is discretionary. Therefore, the extraordinary remedies sought by the petitioner were deemed inappropriate.
Main Doctrine
The granting of a motion to take a deposition is discretionary with the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, especially when the taking of the deposition would merely delay the proceedings without any practical result.