G.R. No.

108119 January 19, 1994 The trial court thereafter issued on April 3, 1992 an order 4 that the requested deposition shall
not be taken for the following reasons:
FORTUNE CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs. . . . , the Court opines that the deposition of Juanito A. Teope set on April 7,
HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND INTER-MERCHANTS CORPORATION, respondents. 1992, appears unwarranted since the proposed deponent had earlier
responded to the written interrogatories of the plaintiff and has signified his
Antonio L. Azores for petitioner. availability to testify in court.

Estella and Virtudazo Law Firm for private respondent. To allow the deposition will deprive the Court of the opportunity to ask
clarificatory questions, if any, on the proposed deponent who appears to be a
vital witness.

REGALADO, J.: Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed an original action
for certiorari before the Supreme Court which was docketed as G.R. No. 101526. However, in
a resolution dated May 20, 1992, this Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals for
This petition impugns and seeks the review on certiorari of the decision1 of respondent Court consideration and adjudication on the merits.
of Appeals, dated September 23, 1992, which affirmed the order of the Regional Trial Court
of San Pablo City disallowing the taking of the oral deposition of Juanito S. Teope, Chairman
As earlier stated, respondent Court of Appeals promulgated a decision on September 23,
of the Board of Directors of herein private respondent Inter-Merchants Corporation.
1992, dismissing the petition and holding that:
An action for breach of contract was filed by petitioner Fortune Corporation against
respondent Inter-Merchants Corporation, docketed as Civil Case No. SP-3469, before the It cannot be gainsaid that the respondent court has jurisdiction to direct, in its
Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch 30. After respondent corporation had filed its discretion, that a deposition shall not be taken, if there are valid reasons for
so ruling. This is provided for in Sections 16 and 18,
Answer, petitioner served the former with written interrogatories pursuant to Rule 25 of the
Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. Said sections imply that the right of a party to
Rules of Court. The interrogatories were answered by respondent corporation through its
take depositions as means of discovery is not absolute. Thus, as held in the
board chairman, Juanito A. Teope.
case of Caguiat vs. Torres, 30 SCRA 106, 110:
The pre-trial conference was thereafter scheduled for January 9, February 12 and April 22,
. . . sections 16 and 18 of Rule 24, (which) are precisely
1992.
designed to protect parties and their witnesses, whenever in
the opinion of the trial court, the move to take their
On March 26, 1992, however, petitioner served upon private respondent a Notice to Take depositions under the guise of discovery is actually intended
Deposition Upon Oral Examination2 dated March 26, 1992, notifying the latter that on April 7, to only annoy, embarrass or oppress them. In such
1992, at San Pablo City, herein petitioner would take the deposition of said Juanito A. Teope, instances, these provisions expressly authorize the court to
in accordance with Section 15, Rule 24. either prevent the taking of a deposition or stop one that is
already being taken.
Private respondent filed an Urgent Motion Not To Take Deposition/Vehement Opposition to
Plaintiff's Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination,3 dated March 27, 1992, Moreover, the respondent court, in its assailed Order, has indicated at least
alleging inter alia that : (a) herein petitioner has previously availed of one mode of discovery, three (3) valid reasons for it not to order the deposition taken: First, that the
that is, the written interrogatories which practically covered all the claims, counterclaims and proposed deponent had earlier responded to the written Interrogatories;
defenses in the case; (b) there is absolutely no sound reason or justification advanced for the Second, that the proposed deponent had signified his availability to testify in
taking of the oral deposition; (c) such taking would cause annoyance, embarrassment and court; and Third, that to allow the deposition would deprive the trial court of
oppression upon the prospective deponent, Juanito A. Teope; (d) Mr. Teope has no intention the opportunity to ask clarificatory questions, if any, on the proposed
of leaving the country; and deponent who appears to be a vital witness.
(e) the intended deponent is available to testify in open court if required during the trial on the
merits.
 Finally, anent private respondent's contention that certiorari does not lie in accordance with these rules. The deposition of a person confined in prison
this case, it should be recalled that certiorari presupposes either lack or may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes.
excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. In the instant case, no
question of jurisdiction is possible simply because the respondent court The seeming unreceptive and negative attitude of lawyers and the courts towards discovery
undoubtly had jurisdiction over petitioner's case. On the question of abuse of procedures has heretofore been observed and discommended by the Court in this wise:
discretion, appeal and not certiorariis the proper remedy for the correction of
any error as to the admission or rejection of a deposition being offered as
. . . Now, it appears to the Court that among far too many lawyers (and not a
evidence since such a situation would involve an error of law constituting a few judges), there is, if not a regrettable unfamiliarity and even outright
violation of rules of evidence. Hence, as held in the case of Dearing
ignorance about the nature, purposes and operations of the modes of
vs. Fredwilson (sic) & Co., Inc., 98 SCRA 758, 764:
discovery, at least a strong yet unreasoned and unreasonable disinclination
to resort to them — which is a great pity for the intelligent and adequate use
. . . . Thus, the jurisprudential rule is that the admission or of the deposition-discovery mechanism, coupled with pre-trial procedure,
rejection of certain interrogatories in the course of discovery could, as the experience of other jurisdictions convincingly demonstrates,
procedure could be an error of law but not an abuse of effectively shorten the period of litigation and speed up adjudication. . . . . 5
discretion, much less a grave one. . . .
It would do well, therefore, to point out the finer attributes of these rules of discovery, the
With the denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the instant petition was filed, availment of which, we are convinced, would contribute immensely to the attainment of the
submitting the following issues for resolution: judiciary's primordial goal of expediting the disposition of cases.

1. Whether or not the conclusion of the Honorable Court of Appeals, based The rules providing for pre-trial discovery of testimony, pre-trial inspection of documentary
on a gross misapprehension of facts, constitutes reversible error; evidence and other tangible things, and the examination of property and person, were an
important innovation in the rules of procedure. The promulgation of this group of rules
2. Whether or not the said order, based on the three reasons stated therein, satisfied the long-felt need for a legal machinery in the courts to supplement the pleadings,
is arbitrary or whimsical because it is contrary to reason, logic or equity; for the purpose of disclosing the real points of dispute between the parties and of affording an
adequate factual basis in preparation for trial. The rules are not grounded on the supposition
3. Whether or not mere allegation, without proof, that the examination sought that the pleadings are the only or chief basis of preparation for trial. On the contrary, the
by petitioner was intended merely to annoy, embarrass or oppress the limitations of the pleadings in this respect are recognized. In most cases under the rules the
proposed deponent is, as a matter of law, "good cause" within the purview of function of the pleadings extends hardly beyond notification to the opposing parties of the
Rule 24, Section 16, Rules of Court; and general nature of a party's claim or defense. It is recognized that pleadings have not been
successful as fact-sifting mechanisms and that attempts to force them to serve that purpose
have resulted only in making the pleadings increasingly complicated and technical, without
4. Whether or not, absent the requisite element of "good cause" as mandated
any corresponding disclosure of the issues which it will be necessary to prove at the trial.
by Section 16 of Rule 24, Rules of Court, a trial court has unbridled discretion
to forbid the taking of deposition upon oral examination as authorized under Thus the rules provide for simplicity and brevity in pleadings, which in most cases will
Rule 24, Section 15, Rules of Court. terminate with the answer; and at the same time adapt the old and familiar deposition
procedure to serve as a device for ascertaining before trial what facts are really in dispute
and need to be tried. Experience had shown that the most effective legal machinery for
Rule 24 of the Rules of Court provides: reducing and clarifying the issues was a preliminary examination, as broad in scope as the
trial itself, of the evidence of both parties.6
Sec. 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken. — By leave of court
after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or property which is Stated otherwise, the rules seek to make a trial less a game of blind man's buff and more a
the subject of the action, or without such leave after an answer has been fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent. 7
served, the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may be taken, at
the instance of any party, by deposition upon oral examination or written
interrogatories. The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of The elemental purpose of the discovery procedure was pithily explained by the Court,
speaking through now Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, in the recent case of Republic
a subpoena as provided in Rule 23. Depositions shall be taken only in
vs. Sandiganbayan,8 which opinion, we feel, should be reiterated through an extended Initially, that undertaking of laying the facts before the court is accomplished
reproduction, to wit: by the pleadings filed by the parties; but that, only in a very general way.
Only "ultimate facts" are set forth in the pleadings; hence, only the barest
The resolution of controversies is, as everyone knows, the outline of the factual basis of a party's claims or defenses is limned in his
raison d'etre of courts. This essential function is accomplished by first, the pleadings. The law says that every pleading "shall contain in a methodical
ascertainment of all the material and relevant facts from the pleadings and and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on
from the evidence adduced by the parties, and second, after that which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be,
determination of the facts has been completed, by the application of the law omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.
thereto to the end that the controversy may be settled authoritatively,
definitely and finally. Parenthetically, if this requirement is not observed, i.e., the ultimate facts are
alleged too generally or "not averred with sufficient definiteness or
It is for this reason that a substantial part of the adjective law in this particularly to enable . . . (an adverse party) properly to prepare his
jurisdiction is occupied with assuring that all the facts are indeed presented responsive pleading or to prepare for trial," a bill of particulars seeking a
to the Court; for obviously, to the extent that adjudication is made on the "more definite statement" may be ordered by the court on motion of a party.
basis of incomplete facts, to that extent there is faultiness in the The office of a bill of particulars is, however, limited to making more particular
approximation of objective justice. It is thus the obligation of lawyers no less or definite the ultimate facts in a pleading. It is not its office to supply
than of judges to see that this objective is attained; that is to say, that there evidentiary matters. And the common perception is that said evidentiary
be no suppression, obscuration, misrepresentation or distortion of the facts; details are made known to the parties and the court only during the trial,
and that no party be unaware of any fact material and relevant to the action, when proof is adduced on the issues of fact arising from the pleadings.
or surprised by any factual detail suddenly brought to his attention during the
trial. The truth is that "evidentiary matters" may be inquired into and learned by
the parties before the trail. Indeed, it is the purpose and the policy of the law
Seventy-one years ago, in Alonzo vs. Villamor, this Court described the that the parties — before the trial if not indeed even before the pre-trial —
nature and object of litigation and in the process laid down the standards by should discover or inform themselves of all the facts relevant to the action,
which judicial contests are to be conducted in this jurisdiction. It said: not only those known to them individually, but also those known to their
adversaries; in other words, the desideratum is that civil trials should not be
carried on in the dark; and the Rules of Court make this ideal possible
A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more
through the deposition-discovery mechanism set forth in Rules 24 to 29. The
deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement
and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather a experience in other jurisdictions has been that ample discovery before trial,
contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays under proper regulation, accomplished one of the most necessary ends of
before the court the facts in issue and then brushing aside modern procedure: It not only eliminates unessential issues from trial thereby
as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and shortening them considerably, but also requires parties to play the game with
technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done on the the cards on the table so that the possibility of fair settlement before trial is
merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not be won by a rapier's measurably increased. . . . .
thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an
aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief As just intimated, the deposition-discovery procedure was designed to
enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There remedy the conceded inadequacy and cumbersomeness of the pre-trial
should be no vested right in technicalities. . . . . functions of notice-giving, issue-formulation and fact revelation theretofore
performed primarily by the pleadings.
The message is plain. It is the duty of each contending party to lay before the
court the facts in issue — fully and fairly; i.e., to present to the court all the The various modes or instruments of discovery are meant to serve (1) as a
material and relevant facts known to him, suppressing or concealing nothing, device, along with the pre-trial hearing under Rule 20, to narrow and clarify
nor preventing another party, by clever and adroit manipulation of the the basic issues between the parties, and (2) as a device for ascertaining the
technical rules of pleading and evidence, from also presenting all the facts facts relative to those issues. The evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable the
within his knowledge. parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain the fullest possible
 knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that 1. It is of great assistance in ascertaining the truth and in checking and
said trials are carried on in the dark. preventing perjury. The reasons for this are:

To this end, the field of inquiry that may be covered by depositions or (a) The witness (including a party) is examined while his
interrogatories is as broad as when the interrogated party is called as witness memory is fresh:
to testify orally at trial. The inquiry extends to all facts which are relevant,
whether they be ultimate or evidentiary, expecting only those matters which (b) The witness (including a party) is generally not coached
are privileged. The objective is as much to give every party the fullest in preparation for a pre-trial oral examination with the result
possible information of all the relevant facts before the trial as to obtain that his testimony is likely to be more spontaneous. Where
evidence for use upon said trial. The principle is reflected in Sec. 2, Rule 24 the examination is upon written interrogatories, however, it
(governing depositions ) which generally allows the examination of a appears that some lawyers furnish the witness with copies of
deponent — the interrogatories and thereby enable him to prepare his
answers in advance.
1) "regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject of
the pending action, whether relating to the claim or defense of any other (c) A party or witness whose deposition has been taken at
party," an early stage in the litigation cannot, at a later date, readily
manufacture testimony in contradiction to his deposition;
2) as well as:
(d) Testimony is preserved, so that if a witness unexpectedly
(a) "the existence, description, nature, custody, condition dies or becomes unavailable at the trial, his deposition is
and location of any books, documents, or other tangible available.
things" and
2. It is an effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent, and
(b) "the identity and location of persons having knowledge of sham claims and defenses.
relevant facts."
3. It makes available in a simple, convenient, and often inexpensive way
What is chiefly contemplated is the discovery of every bit of information facts which otherwise could not have been proved, except with great difficulty
which may be useful in the preparation for trial, such as the identity and and sometimes not at all.
location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts; those relevant facts
themselves; and the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and 4. It educates the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their
location of any books, documents, or other tangible things. Hence, the claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements out of court.
deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment.
No longer can the time-honored cry of fishing expedition serve to preclude a
5. It expediates the disposal of litigation, saves the time of the courts, and
party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent's case. Mutual
clears the docket of many cases by settlements and dismissals which
knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to
otherwise would have to be tried.
proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge
whatever facts he has in his possession. The deposition-discovery procedure
simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be compelled from 6. It safeguards against surprise at the trial, prevents delays, and narrows
the time of trial to the period preceding it, this reducing the possibility of and simplifies the issues to be tried, thereby expediting the trial.
surprise. . . . . (Emphases in the original text.)
7. It facilitates both the preparation and trial of the cases.9
The other principal benefits derivable from the availability and operation of a liberal discovery
procedure are the following: We shall now proceed to resolve the issues raised by herein petitioner.
I. Petitioner avers that the decision of respondent court dismissing its petition on the ground The advisory of the United States Supreme Court said that this provision is
that appeal and not certiorari is the proper remedy in this case, is erroneous for the reason intended to be one of the safeguards for the protection of the parties and
that such ruling is based on facts which are not obtaining in the case at bar, viz.: (a) that deponents on account of the unrestricted right to discovery given by sections
petitioner had already obtained a deposition, which it had not; (b) that said deposition was 1 and 2 of this Rule. A party may take the deposition of a witness who knows
offered as evidence, which was not done because there was nothing yet to offer; and (c) that nothing about the case, with the only purpose of annoying him or wasting the
said offer was rejected, which did not happen because there was nothing to reject as nothing time of the other parties. In such case, the court may, on motion, order that
was offered. the deposition shall not be taken. Or, a party may designate a distinct place
for the taking of a deposition, and the adverse party may not have sufficient
Petitioner claims that since the very purpose of Rule 24 of the Rules of Court is to authorize means to reach that place, because of poverty or otherwise, in which case
the taking of a deposition in a pending action, either to make a discovery in preparation for or the court, on motion, may order that the deposition be taken at another place,
to be used as evidence upon the trial of such action, the taking of the deposition in the case or that it be taken by written interrogatories. The party serving the notice may
at bar should be done and finished before trial. Hence, it would be a grave abuse of wish to inquire into matters the disclosure of which may be oppressive or
discretion to compel petitioner to proceed with the trial of the case without the proposed embarrassing to the deponent, especially if the disclosure is to be made in
deposition being first undertaken. Appeal will be utterly inadequate to remedy the situation the presence of third persons, or, the party serving the notice may attempt to
because, in that case, the court shall have rendered its decision without the petitioner having inquire into matters which are absolutely private of the deponent, the
been afforded the opportunity to make use of the answers that the deponent would have disclosure of which may affect his interests and is not absolutely essential to
otherwise given as a result of the deposition. Reversal on appeal of the said decision by the the determination of the issues involved in the case. Under such
public respondent may only entail retrial in the lower court and added expense, as well as circumstances, the court, on motion, may order "that certain matter shall not
unnecessary delay in the case. By its very nature, the taking of the deposition in the case at be inquired into or that the scope of the examination shall be limited to
bar should be made and completed before trial, and the remedy of appeal to determine certain matters, or that the examination shall be held with no one present
whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner except the parties to the action and their officers or counsel, or that after
thereof is neither proper, much less adequate. being sealed the deposition shall be opened only by order of the court, or
that secret processes, developments, or research need not be disclosed, or
that the parties shall simultaneously file specific documents or informations
We agree with petitioner.
enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court." In
other words, this provision affords the adverse party, as well as the
Under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the writ of certiorari lies if the following deponent, sufficient protection against abuses that may be committed by a
requisites concur : (a) that it is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial party in the exercise of his unlimited right to discovery. As a writer said: "Any
functions; (b) that such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction discovery involves a prying into another person's affairs, a prying that is quite
or with grave abuse of discretion; and (c) that there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and justified if it is to be a legitimate aid to litigation, but not justified if it is not to
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. be such an aid." For this reason, courts are given ample powers to forbid
discovery which is intended not as an aid to litigation, but merely to annoy,
Section 16 of Rule 24 provides that after notice is served for taking a deposition by oral embarrass or oppress either the deponent or the adverse party, or both." 10
examination, upon motion seasonably made by any party or by the person to be examined
and upon notice and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may, The rule is that certiorari will generally not lie to review a discretionary action of any tribunal.
among others, make an order that the deposition shall not be taken. Also, as a general proposition, a writ of certiorari is available only to review final judgments or
decrees, and will be refused where there has been no final judgment or order and the
This provision explicitly vests in the court the power to order that the deposition shall not be proceeding for which the writ is sought is still pending and undetermined in the lower tribunal.
taken and this grant connotes the authority to exercise discretion in connection therewith. It is Pursuant to this rule, it has been held that certiorari will not lie to review or correct discovery
well settled, however, that the discretion conferred by law is not unlimited: that it must be orders made prior to trial. 11 This is because, like other discovery orders, orders made under
exercised, not arbitrarily, capriciously, or oppressively, but in a reasonable manner and in Section 16, Rule 24 are interlocutory and not appealable, 12 considering that they do not
consonance with the spirit of the law, to the end that its purpose may be attained. Referring to finally dispose of the proceeding or of any independent offshoot of it. 13
the objective of Section 16 of then Rule 18 (now Rule 24) of the Rules of Court, former Chief
Justice Manuel V. Moran had these comments: However, such rules are subject to the exception that discretionary acts will be reviewed
where the lower court or tribunal has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, where an
interlocutory order does not conform to essential requirements of law and may reasonably
cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy of appeal will The requirement, however, that good cause be shown for a protective order puts the burden
be inadequate, or where there is a clear or serious abuse of discretion. 14 on the party seeking relief to show some plainly adequate reasons for the order. A particular
and specific demonstration of facts, as distinguished from conclusory statements, is required
It is our considered opinion that on the bases of circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, to establish good cause for the issuance of a protective order. 16 What constitutes good
and which will hereinavfter be discussed, certiorari may be availed of to review the cause furthermore depends upon the kind of protective order that is sought. 17
questioned order of the trial court.
In light of the general philosophy of full discovery of relevant facts and the board statement of
II. Petitioner asseverates that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in ordering that the scope in Rule 24, and in view of the power of the court under Sections 16 and 18 of said Rule
deposition be not taken in the absence of good cause therefor. It asserts that the reasons to control the details of time, place, scope, and financing for the protection of the deponents
advanced by the trial court cannot be considered "good cause" within the contemplation of and parties, it is fairly rare that it will be ordered that a deposition should not be taken at all.
the law, which reasons, to repeat, are: (a) that the proposed deponent had earlier responded All motions under these subparagraphs of the rule must be supported by "good cause" and a
to written interrogatories; (b) that the proposed deponent had signified his availability to testify strong showing is required before a party will be denied entirely the right to take a deposition.
in court; and (c) that to allow the deposition would deprive the trial court of the opportunity to A mere allegation, without proof, that the deposition is being taken in bad faith is not a
ask clarificatory questions to the vital witness. It further claims that a mere allegation, without sufficient ground for such an order. Neither is an allegation that it will subject the party to a
any proof in support thereof, that petitioner intended to annoy, harass or oppress the penalty or forfeiture. The mere fact that the information sought by deposition has already
proposed deponent, and therefore acted in bad faith, is not sufficient justification to order that been obtained through a bill of particulars, interrogatories, or other depositions will not
the deposition shall not be taken. suffice, although if it is entirely repetitious a deposition may be forbidden. The allegation that
the deponent knows nothing about the matters involved does not justify prohibiting the taking
It is true that to ensure that availment of the modes of discovery would be untrammeled and of a deposition, nor that whatever the witness knows is protected by the "work product
efficacious, Rule 29 imposes serious sanctions on the party who refuses to comply with or doctrine," nor that privileged information or trade secrets will be sought in the course of the
examination, nor that all the transactions were either conducted or confirmed in writing. 18
respond to the modes of discovery, such as dismissing his action or proceeding or part
thereof, or rendering judgment by default against the disobedient party; contempt of court, or
arrest of the party or agent of the party; payment of the amount of reasonable expenses In the present case, private respondent failed to sufficiently establish that there is good cause
incurred in obtaining a court order to compel discovery; taking the matters inquired into as to support the order of the trial court that the deposition shall not be taken, for several
established in accordance with the claim of the party seeking discovery; refusal to allow the reasons.
disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses; striking out his
pleadings or parts thereof; or staying further proceedings. 1. We agree with petitioner's submission that the fact that petitioner had previously availed of
the mode of discovery, which is by written interrogatories supposedly covering all claims,
But then, there are concomitant limitations to discovery, even when permitted to be counterclaims and defenses in the case, cannot be considered "good cause", because: (a)
undertaken without leave of court and without judicial intervention. As indicated by the Rules, the fact that information similar to that sought had been obtained by answers to
limitations inevitably arise when it can be shown that the examination is being conducted in interrogatories does not bar an examination before trial, and is not a valid objection to the
bad faith or in such a manner as to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the person subject to the taking of a deposition where there is no duplication and the examining party is not acting in
inquiry. Also, further limitations come into existence when the inquiry touches upon the bad faith; and (b) knowledge of the facts by the petitioner concerning which the proposed
irrelevant or encroaches upon the recognized domains of privilege. deponent is to be examined does not justify a refusal of such examination.

In fine, as we have earlier clarified, the liberty of a party to make discovery is well-nigh As a general rule, the scope of discovery is to be liberally construed so as to provide the
unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the litigants with information essential to the expenditious and proper litigation of each of the facts
inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of law. in dispute. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that the various methods of discovery as provided
for in the Rules are clearly intended to be cumulative, as opposed to alternative or mutually
Section 16 of Rule 24 clearly states that it is only upon notice and for good cause that the exclusive. 19
court may order that the deposition shall not be taken. The matter of good cause is to be
determined by the court in the exercise of judicial discretion. Good cause means a substantial The issue of whether a party who has resorted to a particular method of discovery will be
reason — one that affords a legal excuse. Whether or not substantial reasons exist is for the barred in subsequently using other discovery devices has been definitely discussed and
court to determine, as there is no hard and fast rule for determining the question as to what is resolved as follows:
meant by the term "for good cause shown." 15
 On the question of whether an oral deposition might be taken after service of involve the interrogation of the witness with respect to those particulars upon
interrogatories, the courts took a relatively liberal view. In Howard v. States which he was examined by
Marine Corp., the first case in which this question was raised, Judge Hilbert interrogatories. 22
said that:
2. In actual effectiveness, interrogatories are far inferior to the oral
Where it develops that examination by interrogatories has examination. Their defects are quite obvious. In the first place, they give the
been inadequate, the court unquestionably has, and in a party to whom they are addressed more time to study their effect, which
proper case should exercise, discretion to permit an oral furnishes a better opportunity to frame protective answers which conceal or
examination. But it should be made to clearly appear that the evade. In the next place, as a means of forcing a specific, detailed and
relevant subject matter will not involve the interrogation of thorough disclosure from a reluctant party, there is a tendency for the
the witness with respect to those particulars upon which he interrogatories to grow in number, complexity and variety of form so as to call
was examined by interrogatories. for as many aspects of the proof as possible, with the result that they often
become difficult to administer. . . . .
In Canuso v. City of Niagara Falls, the fact that a bill of particulars had
previously been served and interrogatories answered was held no objection In view of these limitations upon the effectiveness of written interrogatories, it
to an oral examination since no duplication was involved and bad faith had is evident that they are not well adapted for the purpose of general
not been shown. And in Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., oral examination. It is only when the facts sought are few, formal and isolated,
examination was allowed, even though the individual had previously that this method can be satisfactorily employed. So long as the discovery is
answered interrogatories, except as to matters with respect to which he had restricted to the case of the examiner, and he is not permitted to inquire into
"given responsive and categorical testimony." 20 the case of his adversary, the facts sought by discovery will usually be few,
formal and isolated, and written interrogatories will perhaps serve reasonably
It is quite clear, therefore, and we so hold that under the present Rules the fact that a party well. For a small task, a feeble instrument may suffice. But if discovery is to
has resorted to a particular method of discovery will not bar subsequent use of other involve a thorough inquiry into the vital and highly controversial phases of the
discovery devices, as long as the party is not attempting to circumvent a ruling of the court, or case, resort must be had to an oral examination. . . . .
to harass or oppress the other party. As a matter of practice, it will often be desirable to resort
to both interrogatories and depositions in one or the other sequence. Additional lines of . . . Where the facts to be elicited are relatively few and important, whether
inquiry may come to light after the deposition has been taken, as to which written ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, the legal machinery of interrogatories is a
interrogatories probably would be adequate, and there is no reason why the examining party very useful, expeditious and inexpensive method; but where they are very
should not be entitled to obtain all the relevant information he desires if no substantial numerous, . . . they tend to become unduly burdensome, oppressive and
prejudice is done to the party from whom discovery is sought. On the other hand, vexatious to the adverse party and difficult for the court to administer. . . . .
interrogatories may well be used as a preliminary to the taking of depositions, in order to Furthermore, the procedure tends to be unnecessarily wasteful of judicial
ascertain what individuals have the information sought. And, of course, if the answers to time. The judicial ruling upon the interrogatories themselves is not
interrogatories are evasive and unsatisfactory, the interrogating party should be able to utilize necessarily conclusive or even important in most cases as determinative of
the more effective method of oral examination rather than have to reframe interrogatories. the issues in the case. The purpose of the interrogating party is to develop
Ordinarily, however, there will be no occasion for a party to use both methods at the same information or force admission; but if the answers are not satisfactory or
time, at least to obtain the same information. 21 useful, the time spent in considering them and the objections thereto is
generally wasted, because the answers do not become evidence in the case
It has long been recognized that there are far greater advantages in obtaining the facts and unless voluntarily introduced by the interrogator as admissions against
circumstances involved in a confronting examination than in a written one. Hence: interest on the part of the party interrogated.

1. Examination by interrogatories is both more cumbersome and less efficient . . . Where a more comprehensive examination of the adverse party is
than oral examination before trial. Where it develops that examination by desired it should ordinarily be done by taking his deposition. 23
interrogatories has been inadequate, the court unquestionably has, and in a
proper case should exercise, discretion to permit an oral examination. But it 3. The obvious advantage of interrogatories over a deposition is that they are
should be made to clearly appear that the relevant subject matter will not much less expensive. There is no significant expense for the party sending
 the interrogatories except for the time spent in preparing the questions. In the concept adopted by the new Rules, the deposition serves the double function of a method
addition, interrogatories are a much simpler device. There are none of the of discovery — with use on trial not necessarily contemplated — and a method of presenting
details that must be taken care of in arranging for a deposition, such as testimony. Accordingly, no limitations other than relevancy and privilege have been placed on
obtaining a court reporter and fixing the time and place for the examination. the taking of depositions, while the use at the trial is subject to circumscriptions looking
toward the use of oral testimony wherever practicable. 27
On the other hand, depositions are preferable if a searching interrogation of
the other party is desired. At a deposition, the examining party has great 3. We are also in conformity with petitioner's submission that the mere fact that the court
flexibility and can frame his questions on the basis of answers to previous could not thereby observe the behavior of the deponent does not justify the denial of the right
questions. Moreover, the party being examined does not have the to take deposition. As we have already explained:
opportunity to study the questions in advance and to consult with his attorney
before answering, as he does if interrogatories are used. Attempts at The main reason given in support of the contested order is that, if the
evasion, which might be met by a persistent oral examination, cannot be deposition were taken, the court could not observe the behavior of the
easily dealt with by interrogatories. The flexibility and the potency of oral deponents. The insufficiency of this circumstance to justify the interdiction of
depositions is in large part lacking in written interrogatories. It is for these the taking of the deposition becomes apparent when we consider that,
reasons that depositions are . . . by far the most widely used of the discovery otherwise, no deposition could ever be taken, said objection or handicap
devices. being common to all depositions alike. In other words, the order of
respondent Judge cannot be sustained without nullifying the right to take
xxx xxx xxx depositions, and therefore, without, in effect repealing section 1 of Rule 18
(now Rule 24) of the Rules of Court, which, clearly, was not intended by the
Furthermore, . . . written interrogatories are most valuable as a device to framers of section 16 of the same rule. 28
compel admissions and the disclosure of major factual matters not
concerned with details; the deposition is the best device suited to compel 4. Finally, in the absence of proof, the allegation that petitioner merely intended to annoy,
disclosure of detailed information. 24 harass or oppress the proposed deponent cannot ably support the setting aside of a notice to
take deposition.
2. The availability of the proposed deponent to testify in court does not constitute "good
cause" to justify the court's order that his deposition shall not be taken. That the witness is Orders to protect the party or witness from annoyance, embarrassment or oppression may be
unable to attend or testify is one of the grounds when the deposition of a witness may be issued if the following requirements are complied with:
used in court during the trial. 25 But the same reason cannot be successfully invoked to (a) that there is a motion made by any party or by the person to be examined;
prohibit the taking of his deposition. (b) that the motion has been seasonably filed; (c) that there is good cause shown; and (d)
that notice of such motion has been served to the other party. 29
The right to take statements and the right to use them in court have been kept entirely
distinct. The utmost freedom is allowed in taking depositions; restrictions are imposed upon Once a party has requested discovery, the burden is on the party objecting to show that the
their use. As a result, there is accorded the widest possible opportunity for knowledge by both discovery requested is not relevant to the issues, 30 and to establish the existence of any
parties of all the facts before the trial. Such of this testimony as may be appropriate for use as claimed privilege. 31 These, private respondent has failed to do so. Consequently, its
a substitute for viva voce examination may be introduced at the trial; the remainder of the objection to the taking of the deposition cannot be sustained.
testimony, having served its purpose in revealing the facts to the parties before trial, drops
out of judicial picture. 26 Furthermore, the fact that the deposition is to be taken in San Pablo City, whereas the
proposed deponent lives in Manila, is not sufficient to establish private respondent's theory
Regardless of the development of devices for pre-trial fact investigation, our legal system is that the requested deposition was intended to annoy and harass the proposed deponent.
now thoroughly committed to the notion that on trial itself the adducing of facts by viva
voce testimony of witnesses — whose demeanor and manner are subject to the observation Inconvenience to the party whose deposition is to be taken is not a valid objection to the
of the judge — is superior to the use of written statements of the same witnesses. Preference taking of his deposition. 32No doubt, private respondent and its representative who is to be
for oral testimony has dictated most of the limitations on the use of depositions as evidence. examined will be inconvenienced — as are all parties when required to submit to examination
And since their use as evidence was originally conceived as the sole function of depositions — but this is no ground for denial of the deposition-discovery process. 33 The mere fact that
proper, the limitations on their taking dovetailed with the limitations on their use. But under an officer of private respondent would be required to attend the examination and thereby
absent himself from some of his usual business affairs during the taking of the deposition is
utterly insufficient to justify the court in ruling that he is being annoyed, embarrassed or
oppressed, within the meaning of this language. Something far beyond this is required in this
connection to grant a party relief. At any rate, petitioner has signified its willingness to select
a suitable office in Manila for the taking of the deposition in order to accommodate the
proposed deponent. 34

On the bases of the foregoing disquisitions, we find and so hold that the trial court committed
a grave abuse of discretion in issuing an order that the deposition shall not be taken in this
case, and that respondent court erred in affirming the same.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned decision of respondent Court of

SO ORDERED.