Sales v. Sabino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Cyril A. Sabino filed an amended complaint for damages against petitioner Jowel Sales, the driver involved in an accident that caused the death of respondent's son, Elbert. During the proceedings, respondent sought to present the deposition of one Buaneres Corral as evidence. The deposition was taken with the active participation and cross-examination by petitioner's counsel. Procedural History: The trial court admitted the deposition (Exhibits "DD" and "EE") and a certification from the Bureau of Immigration (Exhibit "BB") attesting to the deponent's departure abroad. Petitioner opposed the admission, arguing that the jurisdictional requirements for using the deposition were not met. After the trial court denied his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Petition: The CA upheld the trial court's decision, stating that petitioner's active participation in the deposition taking and his subsequent adoption of it as his own exhibit estopped him from assailing its admissibility. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner now seeks review of the CA's decision before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the requirements of Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court were satisfied for the admission of the deposition, specifically regarding the deponent's unavailability. Whether the petitioner, by cross-examining the deponent during the deposition, waived any and all objections to its admissibility.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the trial court's admission of the deposition. While the issue of estoppel was raised, the Court found that the deponent's unavailability was sufficiently established, making the deposition admissible under Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. The Court also clarified that active participation in a deposition does not automatically waive the right to object to its admissibility at trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the deposition under Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court: The Court reiterated that depositions may be used as evidence provided certain conditions are met, including the witness residing more than 100 kilometers from the place of trial, being out of the Philippines, or being unable to attend for other valid reasons. The Court found that the certification from the Bureau of Immigration, showing the deponent's departure for abroad, adequately substantiated the trial court's finding that the deponent was unavailable to testify in person. The Court noted that if the deponent had returned, the petitioner could have presented evidence to that effect, but he did not. Therefore, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in admitting the deposition. On whether the petitioner waived objections by cross-examining the deponent: The Court clarified that while opportunity for cross-examination is crucial, the act of cross-examining during the deposition taking does not automatically waive the right to object to the deposition's admissibility during the trial proper. The Court cited Section 29, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, which allows objections to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony to be made for the first time at the trial. Therefore, the petitioner was not estopped from challenging the admissibility of the deposition simply because he participated in its taking. The Court also noted that a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy for an order admitting or rejecting a deposition, with appeal from the final judgment being the correct recourse.
Main Doctrine
A party who actively participates in the taking of a deposition, including cross-examination of the deponent, is not automatically estopped from objecting to its admissibility as evidence during the trial proper, as objections to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony may be made for the first time at the trial.