Dasmariñas Garments Inc v.

Reyes

Doctrine:
Deposition of any person may be taken wherever he may be, in the Philippines or abroad.
If the party or witness is in the Philippines, his deposition shall be taken before any judge,
municipal or notary public (Sec. 10, Rule 24, Rules of Court). If in a foreign state or
country, the deposition shall be taken: (a) on notice before a secretary or embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the
Philippines, or (b) before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or
under letters rogatory.

Facts:
Sometime in September, 1987, in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, the American
President Lines, Ltd. sued Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. to recover the sum of $53,228.45,
as well as an amount equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) thereof as attorney's fees
and litigation expenses. For its part, defendant Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. specifically
denied any liability to the plaintiff (hereafter simply APL), and set up compulsory
counterclaims against it. The case was in due course scheduled for trial on April 27, 1988.
On that date APL presented its first witness whose testimony was completed on
November 12, 1988. The case was reset to May 3, 1989 for reception of the testimony of
two (2) more witnesses in APL's behalf.

At the hearing of May 3, 1989, instead of presenting its witnesses, APL filed a motion
praying that it intended to take the depositions of several people in Taipei, Taiwan, and
prayed that for this purpose, a commission or letters rogatory be issued addressed to the
consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines in Taipei. APL
later filed an amended motion stating that since the Philippine Government has no
consulate office in Taiwan. Instead, there was the Asia Exchange Center set up by the
President presently occupied by Director Joaquin Roces. As such, commission or letters
rogatory was instead issued addressed to Director Joaquin Rocesto. However, the Asian
Exchange Center, Inc. advised that it cannot take oral depositions without being
authorized by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The motion to take deposition was opposed by Dasmariñas. It contended that: (a) the
motion was fatally defective in that it does not seek that a foreign court examine a person
within its jurisdiction; (b) issuance of letters rogatory was unnecessary because the
witnesses can be examined before the Philippine Court; and (c) the Rules of Court
expressly require that the testimony of a witness must be taken orally in open court and
not by deposition.

The trial court resolved the issue in an Order dated 15 March 1991 wherein it declared
that the AEC was empowered to take depositions, due to it being the government’s
authorized representative in the country, but only upon written interrogatories so as to
give defendant the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses by serving cross-
examination.
Dasmariñas sought reconsideration by motion on the grounds that: (1) authority of the
Asian Exchange Center, Inc. (AECI) to take depositions has not been established; (2)
AECI's articles of incorporation show that it is not vested with any such authority; and (3)
to permit deposition-taking by commission without the authority of the foreign state in
which deposition is taken constitutes infringement of judicial sovereignty. The
reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals likewise ruled against the petitioner.

Issue:
Is the trial court correct in allowing depositions to be taken abroad despite the
government non-recognition of Taiwan's jurisdiction?

Held:
Yes. Depositions are chiefly a mode of discovery. They are intended as a means to
compel disclosure of facts resting in the knowledge 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
known to him and his witnesses but also those known to the adverse party and the latter's
own witnesses.

Depositions are principally made available by law to the parties as a means of informing
themselves of all the relevant facts; they are not therefore generally meant to be a
substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness. The deponent must,
as a rule, be presented for oral examination in open court at the trial or hearing. However,
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 situations are governed by Section 4, Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the
principle conceding admissibility to a deposition is when the deponent is dead, out of the
Philippines, or otherwise unable to come to court to testify, is consistent with another rule
of evidence, found in Section 47, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

It is apparent then that the deposition of any person may be taken wherever he may be, in
the Philippines or abroad. If the party or witness is in the Philippines, his deposition shall
be taken before any judge, municipal or notary public (Sec. 10, Rule 24, Rules of Court).
If in a foreign state or country, the deposition shall be taken: (a) on notice before a
secretary or embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of
the Republic of the Philippines, or (b) before such person or officer as may be appointed
by commission or under letters rogatory. Where the deposition is to be taken in a foreign
country where the Philippines has no "secretary or embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice-consul, or consular agent," then obviously it may be taken only "before such
person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters rogatory.

In the case at bar, the Regional Trial Court has issued a commission to the Asian
Exchange Center, Inc. thru Director Joaquin R. Roces. That itself already gives Director
Roces the authority to take oral depositions. What matters here is that the deposition is
taken before a Philippine official acting by authority of the Philippine Department of
Foreign Affairs and in virtue of a commission duly issued by the Philippine Court in
which the action is pending, and in accordance, moreover, with the provisions of the
Philippine Rules of Court pursuant to which opportunity for cross-examination of the
deponent will be fully accorded to the adverse party.