Ingrid Sala Santamaria and Astrid Sala Boza cs. Thomas Cleary
G.R. No. 197122
Kathryn Go-Perez vs. Thomas Cleary
G.R. No. 197161
June 15, 2016
Second Division
Ponente: Leonen, J.
Gist:
An American citizen with residence at California, United States of
America who elected to file a civil suit in a Philippine court is allowed to
take his deposition abroad for his direct testimony pursuant to Rule 23, Sec. 4(c)(2)
of the Rules of Court.
Facts:
Mr. Thomas Cleary, an American citizen with office address in
California, filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against
Miranila Land Development Corporation, Manuel S. Go, Ingrid Sala Santamaria,
Astrid Sala Boza, and Kathryn Go-Perez before the RTC in Cebu City. The
complaint involved shares of stock of said corporation. He sued in accordance
with the Stock Purchase and Put Agreement which provides that:
“Any suit, action or proceeding with respect
to this Agreement may be brought in (a) the courts of the State of California,
(b) the united States District Court for the Central District of California, or
(c0 the courts of the country of Corporation’s incorporation, as Cleary may
elect in his sole discretion, and the Parties hereby submit to any such suit,
action, proceeding or judgment and waives any other preferential jurisdiction
by reason of domicile.”
Mr. Cleary elected to file his case in Cebu City. However, he moved
for court authorization to take his deposition before the Consulate-General of
the Philippines in Los Angeles and that such deposition be used as his direct
testimony.
The trial court denied Cleary’s Motion for Court Authorization to Take
Deposition on the ground that supposed deponent is the plaintiff himself who is
not suffering from any impairment, physical or otherwise, and that it would be
best for him to personally appear in court and testify under oath.
The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling and held that
Rule 23, Sec. 1 of the Rules allows the taking of depositions abroad and
applies even to a nonresident foreigner.
Issues:
- Whether the limitations for the taking of deposition under Rule 23, Sec. 16 of the Rules of Court apply in this case; and
- Whether the taking of deposition under Rule 23, Sec. 4(c)(2) of the Rules of Court applies to a nonresident foreigner plaintiff’s direct testimony
Ruling:
1. No, the limitations for the taking of deposition under Rule 23, Sec. 16 of the Rules of Court do not apply in this case. The Court ruled that the fact that neither the presiding judge nor the parties will be able to personally examine and observe the conduct of a deponent does not justify denial of the right to take depositions. The CA was correct in suggesting that the parties may well agree to take depositions by written interrogatories to afford petitioners the opportunity to cross-examine without need to fly to the United States.
2. Yes, the taking of the deposition under Rule 23, Sec. 4(c)(2) of the Rules applies even to a nonresident foreigner plaintiff’s direct testimony.
Jurisprudence
provides that taking of depositions has been allowed as a departure from open
court testimony. Depositions are allowed, provided they are taken in accordance
with the provisions of the Rules of Court.
Rule 23, Sec. 1 of the Rules gives utmost freedom in the taking of depositions. Had the respondent filed the case in American courts, it would be prejudicial to the rights of the petitioners as it is more costly, time-consuming and disadvantageous for the latter to fly to the United States to attend the hearings.
Rule 23, Sec. 1 of the Rules gives utmost freedom in the taking of depositions. Had the respondent filed the case in American courts, it would be prejudicial to the rights of the petitioners as it is more costly, time-consuming and disadvantageous for the latter to fly to the United States to attend the hearings.
