Santamaria v. Cleary
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Thomas Cleary, an American citizen residing in Los Angeles, filed a civil suit for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu against petitioners Ingrid Sala Santamaria, Astrid Sala Boza, Kathryn Go-Perez, and others, concerning shares of stock of Miranila Land Development Corporation. The Stock Purchase and Put Agreement allowed Cleary to elect the venue for filing suit, and he chose Cebu. Procedural History: Cleary, in his pre-trial brief, indicated his intent to testify either on the witness stand or by oral deposition. Subsequently, he moved for court authorization to take his deposition in Los Angeles to be used as his direct testimony, invoking Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) of the Rules of Court, as he was 'out of the Philippines.' Petitioners opposed, arguing that Cleary chose Philippine courts and should therefore testify in open court, and that taking the deposition abroad would be oppressive and costly. The RTC denied Cleary's motion, stating that depositions are not substitutes for actual testimony in open court and that Cleary, being the plaintiff and not suffering from any impairment, should appear personally. Cleary elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted his petition for certiorari, reversing the RTC's order. The CA held that Rule 23, Section 1 allows depositions, and it is immaterial that Cleary is the plaintiff. The CA denied reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners Santamaria and Boza, and petitioner Go-Perez, filed separate petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the limitations for the taking of deposition under Rule 23, Section 16 of the Rules of Court apply in this case. Whether 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
The Supreme Court denied the petitions for lack of merit. It affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision granting Thomas Cleary's motion for court authorization to take his deposition in Los Angeles, USA.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue regarding limitations for taking deposition under Rule 23, Section 16: The Court reiterated that Rule 23, Section 1 grants broad freedom in taking depositions, allowing any person's testimony to be taken by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories at the instance of any party, after jurisdiction has been obtained or an answer has been served. Rule 23, Section 16, which pertains to protective orders, grants the court discretion to deny a deposition, but this discretion must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily. The provision requires notice and 'good cause shown,' which means a substantial reason supported by a particular and specific demonstration of facts. Petitioners' arguments that the deposition would be costly, time-consuming, disadvantageous, and that Cleary chose Philippine courts and should therefore testify in open court, were found insufficient to constitute 'good cause' to deny the deposition entirely. The Court noted that Cleary had the contractual right to choose the venue, and filing in the US would have been even more costly for the petitioners. On the second issue regarding the application of Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) to a non-resident foreigner plaintiff's direct testimony: The Court clarified the distinction between the taking of depositions (Rule 23, Section 1) and the use of depositions (Rule 23, Section 4). Rule 23, Section 1 allows depositions to be taken without distinction as to who can avail of them. Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) permits the use of a deposition if the witness resides more than 100 kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless the absence was procured by the party offering the deposition. The Court found that Cleary's invocation of being 'out of the Philippines' under this rule was valid, as he is an American citizen residing in the United States. The Court emphasized that the rule does not qualify the condition of the deponent who is outside the Philippines. Furthermore, the Court stated that the objection that neither the judge nor the parties can observe the deponent's demeanor is common to all depositions and does not justify denial, as the rules allow depositions to serve as a method of discovery and presenting testimony. The Court also noted that objections to admissibility and weight of evidence can be raised during the trial, as per Rule 23, Sections 6 and 29.
Main Doctrine
The taking of a deposition is governed by Rule 23, while its use is governed by Rule 23, Section 4. The utmost freedom is allowed in taking depositions, with restrictions imposed on their use. A motion for a protective order under Rule 23, Section 16 requires notice and good cause shown, which necessitates a substantial reason and a particular, specific demonstration of facts, not merely conclusory statements. The fact that a deponent is the plaintiff himself and is not suffering from any impairment does not, by itself, constitute good cause to deny the taking of his deposition, especially when the ground invoked is that the deponent is 'out of the Philippines' under Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2).