DASMARIAS GARMENTS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. RUBEN T.

REYES, Judge, Regional Trial Cour, Manila,

Bran!" #$, and AMERICAN %RESIDENT &INES, &TD., respondents.
'G.R. No. ($)**+ Augu, *-, (++. NAR/ASA, C.J.:0
TO%IC1 Mode of Discovery - Deposition
DOCTRINE1 Deposition was allowed by the Court because the case is an example of one of the exemptions mentioned in
RoC and the deposition would still be admissible because Dasmarinas would still have the opportunity to question the
testimonies by submitting cross-interrogatories.
2ACTS1
. !merican "resident #ines, #td.$!"#% sued Dasmari&as 'arments, (nc $Dasmari&as%. to re!o3er "e ,u4 of )*
+,-,../.0, as well as an amount equivalent to twenty-five percent $.,1% thereof as attorney2s fees and litigation
expenses.
.. Dasmari&as specifically denied any liability to !"# and set up compulsory counterclaims against it.
-. !t the hearing of May -, 3/3, instead of presenting its witnesses, A%& 5iled a 4oion 6ra7ing "a i inended
o a8e "e de6o,iion, o5 H. &ee and Yeong 2ang Ye" in Tai6ei, Tai9an
a. (t further prayed that for this purpose, a 4commission or letters rogatory be issued addressed to the
consul, vice-consul or consular agent of the Republic of the "hilippines in 5aipei . . . 4
b. , days later !"# filed an a4ended 4oion stating that since the "hilippine 'overnment has no
!on,ulae o55i!e in Tai9an in view of its 4one China policy,4 there being in lieu thereof an office set up by
the "resident 4presently occupied by Director 6oaquin Roces which is the !sia 7xchange Center, (nc.,4
i. !"# prayed that prayed 8 4that !o44i,,ion or leer, rogaor7 :e i,,ued addre,,ed o
Dire!or Joa;uin Ro!e,, 7xecutive Director, !sian 7xecutive 7xchange Center, (nc., Room 39,
. Chunghsiao, 7. Road, *ection , 5aipe, Republic of China, to hear and ta:e the oral
deposition of the aforenamed persons . . . .4
0. Motion was opposed by Dasmari&as contending the following;
a. motion was 4fatally defective in that it does not see: . . . that a foreign court examine a person within its
<urisdiction=4
b. issuance of letters rogatory was unnecessary because the witnesses 4can be examined before the
"hilippine Court=4
c. the Rules of Court 4expressly require that the testimony of a witness must be ta:en orally in open court
and not by deposition.4
,. !"# submitted to the R5C the following;
a. the letter received by its counsel from Director 6oaquin R. Roces of the !sian 7xchange Center, (nc.,
dated >ovember .9, 3/3, advising that 4this O55i!e !an onl7 a8e de6o,iion u6on 6re3iou, au"ori7
5ro4 "e De6ar4en o5 2oreign A55air,,< this being 4in consonance with the *upreme Court
!dministrative ?rder requiring courts or <udicial bodies to course their requests through the Department of
@oreign !ffairs=4
b. a letter sent by 4fax4 to the same counsel by a law firm in 5aipei, #in A !ssociates Maritime #aw ?ffice,
transmitting information inter alia of the mode by which, under the 4R?C Civil "rocedure Code,4 4a copy
or an abridged copy4 of documents on file with a 5aiwan Court may be obtained.
B. R5C favored !"#, granting the motion to ta:e testimonies of plaintiff2s 5aiwanese witnesses, Cenneth D. #ee and
Eeong @ah Eeh, by deposition $upon written interrogatories%
a. (t opined that 4the !sian 7xchange Center, (nc. being the authoriFed "hilippine representative in 5aiwan,
may ta:e the testimonies of plaintiff2s witnesses residing there by deposition, but only upon written
interrogatoriesso as to give defendant the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses by serving cross-
examination.4
G. Dasmari&as filed a motion fro reconsideration alleging that;
a. authority of the !sian 7xchange Center, (nc. $!7C(% to ta:e depositions has not been established, it not
being one of those so authoriFed by the Rules of Court to ta:e depositions in a foreign state
b. !7C(2s articles of incorporation show that it is not vested with any such authority=
c. to permit deposition-ta:ing by commission without the authority of the foreign state in which deposition is
ta:en constitutes infringement of <udicial sovereignty
d. depositions by written interrogatories have inherent limitations and are not suitable to matters dependent
on the credibility of witnesses= oral testimony in open court remains the 4most satisfactory method of
investigation of facts24 and 42affords the greatest protection to the rights and liberties of citiFens.4
/. R5C denied the MR for being filed out of time and being a mere rehash of arguments already passed upon. (t also
ordered !"# 4to a8e "e ne!e,,ar7 ,e6, o i46le4en "e order au"ori=ing "e . . . >de6o,iion?a8ing@ o5
i, 9ine,,e, not later than the end of this month, otherwise the Court will consider inaction or lac: of interest as
waiver to adduce additional evidence by deposition.4
3. Dasmari&as instituted a special civil action of certiorari in the C! to nullify the orders of the 5rial Court <ust
described.
a. C! denied the petition for certiorari
b. Dasmari&as sought reconsideration of an adverse disposition, and once again, was rebuffed. (ts motion
for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution of the C!
9. Dasmari&as appealed to the *C with the following arguments;
a. ta:ing of deposition is a mode of pretrial discovery to be availed of before the action comes to trial
b. no urgent or compelling reason has been shown to <ustify the departure from the accepted and usual
<udicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open court where their demeanor could be observed by
the trial <udge
c. the situation is inherently unfair for allowing !"#, a foreign entity suing in the "hilippines, to present its
evidence by mere deposition of its witnesses away from the 2penetrating scrutiny2 of the trial 6udge while
Dasmari&as is obligated to bring and present its witnesses in open court sub<ect to the prying eyes and
probing questions of the 6udge=4
d. sanctioning the deposition ta:ing of !"# witnesses in 5aipei, 5aiwan, a foreign <urisdiction not recogniFed
by the "hilippines in view of its 2one-China policy,2 before the !7C(, a private entity not authoriFed by law
to ta:e depositions
ISSUE1 Hhether a party could, during the trial of the case, present its evidence by ta:ing the deposition of its witnesses in
a foreign <urisdiction before a private entity not authoriFed by law to ta:e depositions in lieu of their oral examination in
open Court.
HE&D1 YES
. Depositions are chiefly a mode of discovery. 5hey are intended as a means to compel disclosure of facts resting
in the :nowledge of a party or other person which are relevant in some suit or proceeding in court.
.. Depositions, and the other modes of discovery are meant to enable a party to learn all the material and relevant
facts, not only :nown to him and his witnesses but also those :nown to the adverse party and the latter2s own
witnesses.
-. the o:Ae! o5 di,!o3er7 is to ma:e it possible for all the parties to a case o learn all "e 4aerial and rele3an
5a!,, 5ro4 9"oe3er 4a7 "a3e 8no9ledge "ereo5, o "e end "a "eir 6leading, or 4oion, 4a7 no
,u55er 5ro4 inade;ua!7 o5 5a!ual 5oundaion, and all the relevant facts may be clearly and completely laid
before the Court, without omission or suppression.
a. they are not therefore generally meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party
or witness.
:. 5he deponent must as a rule be presented for oral examination in open court at the trial or hearing. 5his
is a requirement of the rules of evidence. *ection , Rule -..
*ec. . Examination to be done in open court. 8 5he examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be
done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. )nless the witness is incapacitated to spea:, or the question calls for a
different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.
!. 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, 4a7 :e o66o,ed and eB!luded on the ground that it is
"ear,a7 since thereIs no o66oruni7 o !ro,,?eBa4ine "e de6onen a "e i4e "a "i, e,i4on7
i, o55ered
0. HOCE/ER, 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 mentioned ine *ection 0, Rule .0, R?C.
,. 5he principle conceding admissibility to a deposition when the deponent is dead, out of the "hilippines, or
otherwise unable to come to court to testify, is consistent with another rule of evidence, found in *ection 0G, Rule
-. of the Rules of Court.
*ec. 0G. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. 8 5he testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable
to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, <udicial or administrative, involving the same parties and sub<ect matter,
may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him.
B. Dow depositions are ta:en;
a. In the Philippines; deposition 4shall be ta:en before any <udge, municipal or notary public4 $*ec. 9, Rule
.0, Rules of Court%.
:. In a foreign country; $a% on notice before a secretary or embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the "hilippines, or $b% before such person or officer as
may be appointed by commission or under letters rogatory4 $*ec. , Rule .0%.
i. #eave of court is not necessary where the deposition is to be ta:en before 4a secretary or
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the
Philippines,4 and the defendant2s answer has already been served $*ec. Rule .0%.
ii. the deposition is to be ta:en in a foreign country where the "hilippines has no 4secretary or
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent,4 then obviously it
may be ta:en only 4before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under
letters rogatory. *ection ., Rule .0
*ec. .. Commission or letters rogatory. 8 ! commission or letters rogatory shall be issued only when necessary or
convenient, on application and notice, and on such terms and with such directions as are <ust and appropriate. ?fficers
may be designated in notices or commissions either by name or descriptive title and letters rogatory may be addressed
45o the !ppropriate 6udicial !uthority in $here name the country%.4
iii. Co44i,,ion1 an instrument issued by a court of <ustice, or other competent tribunal, to authoriFe
a person to ta:e depositions, or do any other act by authority of such court or tribunal
. addressed to officers . . . designated . . . either by name or descriptive title
iv. &eer, rogaor71 an instrument sent in the name and by the authority of a <udge or court to
another, requesting the latter to cause to be examined, upon interrogatories filed in a cause
pending before the former, a witness who is within the <urisdiction of the <udge or court to whom
such letters are addressed
. addressed to some 4appropriate <udicial authority in the foreign state.4
.. may be applied for and issued only after a commission has been 4returned unexecuted4
as is apparent from @orm . of the 46udicial *tandard @orms4 appended to the Rules of
Court
!. !fter answer, whether the deposition-ta:ing is to be accomplished within the "hilippines or outside, the
law does not authoriFe or contemplate any intervention by the court in the process, all that is required
being that 4reasonable notice4 be given 4in writing to every other party to the action . . . $stating% the time
and place for ta:ing the deposition and the name and address of each person to be examined, if :nown,
and if the name is not :nown, a general description sufficient to identify him or the particular class or
group to which he belongs. . . . 4
i. 5he court intervenes in the process only if a party moves $% to 4enlarge or shorten the time4
stated in the notice, or $.% 4upon notice and for good cause shown,4 to prevent the deposition-
ta:ing, or impose conditions therefor, e.g., that 4certain matters shall not be inquired into4 or that
the ta:ing be 4held with no one present except the parties to the action and their officers or
counsel,4 etc. $*ec. B, Rule .0%, or
$-% to terminate the process on motion and upon a showing that 4it is being conducted in bad faith
or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party4 $*ec
/, Rule .0%.
G. (n the case at bar, R5C issued a commission to the 4!sian 7xchange Center, (nc. thru Director 6oaquin R. Roces4
4to ta:e the testimonies of . . . Cenneth D. #ee and Eeong @ah Eeh, by deposition $upon written interrogatories%4
a. ! prima facie showing not rebutted by Dasmarinas that the Center may, 4upon request and authority of
the Ministry $now Department% of @oreign !ffairs, Republic of the "hilippines4 issue a 4Certificate of
!uthentications4 attesting to the identity and authority of >otaries "ublic and other public officers of the
Republic of China, 5aiwan.
:. (t also appears that the commission is to be coursed through D@! under Circular >o. 0 issued by C6
5eehan:ee pursuant to D@! directing all <udges of the R5C, Me5C, M5C in Cities and M5C and MC5C to
course all requests for the ta:ing of deposition of witnesses residing abroad through the D@! to enable it
and 4the "hilippine @oreign *ervice establishments to act on the matter in a <udicious and expeditious
manner=4 this, 4in the interest of <ustice,4 and to avoid delay in the deposition-ta:ing.
/. On the One-China Policy; C"a 4aer, i, "a "e de6o,iion i, a8en :e5ore a %"ili66ine o55i!ial a!ing :7
au"ori7 o5 "e %"ili66ine De6ar4en o5 2oreign A55air, and in virtue of a commission duly issued by the
"hilippine Court in which the action is pending, and in accordance, moreover, with the provisions of the "hilippine
Rules of Court pursuant to which opportunity for cross-examination of the deponent will be fully accorded to the
adverse party.
3. 5here is no rule that limits deposition-ta:ing only to the period of pre-trial or before it= no prohibition against the
ta:ing of depositions after pre-trial. C"a "e la9 au"ori=e, "e a8ing o5 de6o,iion, o5 9ine,,e, :e5ore or
a5er an a66eal i, a8en 5ro4 "e Audg4en o5 a RTC <o 6er6euae "eir e,i4on7 5or u,e in "e e3en o5
5ur"er 6ro!eeding, in "e ,aid !our<, and e3en during "e 6ro!e,, o5 eBe!uion o5 a 5inal and eBe!uor7
Audg4en
9. the deposition-ta:ing in the case at bar is a 4departure from the accepted and usual <udicial proceedings of
examining witnesses in open court where their demeanor could be observed by the trial <udge=4 but "e
6ro!edure i, no on "a a!!oun rendered illegal nor i, "e de6o,iion "ere:7 a8en, inad4i,,i:le.
a. (t precisely 5all, 9i"in one o5 "e eB!e6ion, 9"ere "e la9 6er4i, ,u!" a ,iuaion, i.e., the use of
deposition in lieu of the actual appearance and testimony of the deponent in open court and without being
4sub<ect to the prying eyes and probing questions of the 6udge.4 5his is allowed provided the deposition is
ta:en in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rules of Court and the existence of any of the
exceptions for its admissibility
:. R5C saw fit to permit the ta:ing of the depositions of the witnesses in question only by written
interrogatories, removing the proponent2s option to ta:e them by oral examination, , i.e., by going to 5aipei
and actually questioning the witnesses verbally with the questions and answers and observations of the
parties being recorded stenographically.
!. 5he ostensible reason given by the 5rial Court for the condition 8 that the deposition be ta:en 4only upon
written interrogatories4 8 is 4so as to give defendant $Dasmari&as% the opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses by ,er3ing !ro,,?inerrogaorie,.4 5he statement implies that opportunity to cross-examine
will not be accorded the defendant if the depositions were to be ta:en upon oral examination, which, of
course, is not true.
i. e3en i5 "e de6o,iion, 9ere o :e a8en on oral eBa4inaion in Tai6ei, "e ad3er,e 6ar7 i,
,ill a!!orded 5ull rig" o !ro,,?eBa4ine "e de6onen, :7 "e la9, ei"er :7 6ro!eeding o
Tai6ei and "ere !ondu!ing "e !ro,,?eBa4inaion orall7, or o6ing o !ondu! ,aid !ro,,?
eBa4inaion 4erel7 :7 ,er3ing !ro,,?inerrogaorie,.