G.R. No.

108229 August 24, 1993 jurisdiction;" (b) issuance of letters rogatory was unnecessary because the witnesses "can be
examined before the Philippine Court;" and
DASMARIÑAS GARMENTS, INC., petitioner, (c) the Rules of Court "expressly require that the testimony of a witness must be taken orally
vs. in open court and not by deposition."
HON. RUBEN T. REYES, Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 50, and
AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., respondents. Extensive argument on the matter thereafter followed, through various pleadings filed by the
parties, in the course of which APL submitted to the Trial Court (a) the letter received by its
Sobreviñas, Diaz, Haudini & Bodegon Law Offices for petitioner. counsel from Director Joaquin R. Roces of the Asian Exchange Center, Inc., dated November
20, 1989, advising that "this Office can only take deposition upon previous authority from the
Department of Foreign Affairs," this being "in consonance with the Supreme Court
Tan, Manzano & Velez Law Offices for private respondent.
Administrative Order requiring courts or judicial bodies to course their requests through the
Department of Foreign Affairs;" and (b) a letter sent by "fax" to the same counsel by a law
firm in Taipei, Lin & Associates Maritime Law Office, transmitting information inter alia of the
mode by which, under the "ROC Civil Procedure Code," "a copy or an abridged copy" of
RESOLUTION documents on file with a Taiwan Court may be obtained.

NARVASA, C.J.: By Order dated March 15, 1991, the Trial Court resolved the incident in favor of APL,
disposing as follows:
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 US $53,228.45 as well as ACCORDINGLY, the motion to take testimonies of plaintiff's Taiwanese
an amount equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) thereof as attorney's fees and litigation witnesses, Kenneth H. Lee and Yeong Fah Yeh, by deposition (upon written
expenses. interrogatories) is hereby GRANTED. The Asian Exchange Center, Inc. thru
Director Joaquin R. Roces is hereby COMMISSIONED to take down the
In its answer dated December 1, 1987, Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. (hereafter, simply deposition. Compliance with the Rules on the taking of testimony by
Dasmariñas) specifically denied any liability to the plaintiff (hereafter simply APL), and set up deposition upon written interrogatories under Sections 25-29 of Rule 24,
compulsory counterclaims against it. Rules of Court is enjoined.

The case was in due course scheduled for trial on April 27, 1988. On that date APL presented Let this Order be coursed through the Department of Foreign Affairs, Manila,
its first witness whose testimony was completed on November 12, 1988. The case was reset pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 4 dated April 6, 1987.
to May 3, 1989 for reception of the testimony of two (2) more witnesses in APL's behalf.
The Court opined that "the Asian Exchange Center, Inc. being the authorized Philippine
At the hearing of May 3, 1989, instead of presenting its witnesses, APL filed a motion praying representative in Taiwan, may take the testimonies of plaintiff's witnesses residing there by
that it intended to take the depositions of H. Lee and Yeong Fang Yeh in Taipei, Taiwan and deposition, but only upon written interrogatories so as to give defendant the opportunity to
prayed that for this purpose, a "commission or letters rogatory be issued addressed to the cross-examine the witnesses by serving cross-examination."
consul, vice-consul or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines in Taipei . . . " Five (5)
days later APL filed an amended motion stating that since the Philippine Government has no Dasmariñas sought reconsideration by motion filed June 25, 1991 on the following grounds:
consulate office in Taiwan in view of its "one China policy," there being in lieu thereof an (1) authority of the Asian Exchange Center, Inc. (AECI) to take depositions has not been
office set up by the President "presently occupied by Director Joaquin Roces which is the established, it not being one of those so authorized by the Rules of Court to take depositions
Asia Exchange Center, Inc.," it was necessary — and it therefore prayed — "that commission in a foreign state; (2) AECI's articles of incorporation show that it is not vested with any such
or letters rogatory be issued addressed to Director Joaquin Roces, Executive Director, Asian authority; (3) to permit deposition-taking by commission without the authority of the foreign
Executive Exchange Center, Inc., Room 901, 112 Chunghsiao, E. Road, Section 1, Taipe, state in which deposition is taken constitutes infringement of judicial sovereignty; and (4)
Republic of China, to hear and take the oral deposition of the aforenamed persons . . . ." 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 "most
The motion was opposed by Dasmariñas. It contended that (a) the motion was "fatally satisfactory method of investigation of facts'" and "'affords the greatest protection to the rights
defective in that it does not seek . . . that a foreign court examine a person within its and liberties of citizens."
By Order dated July 5, 1991, the motion for reconsideration was denied because "filed out of 3) "in sanctioning the deposition taking of . . . (APL's) witnesses in Taipei,
time" and being a mere rehash of arguments already passed upon. In the same Order, APL Taiwan, a foreign jurisdiction not recognized by the Philippines in view of its
was directed "to take the necessary steps to implement the order authorizing the . . . 'one-China policy,' before the AECI, a private entity not authorized by law to
(deposition-taking) of its witnesses not later than the end of this month, otherwise the Court take depositions."
will consider inaction or lack of interest as waiver to adduce additional evidence by
deposition." 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
Dasmariñas instituted a special civil action of certiorari  in the Court of Appeals to nullify the some suit or proceeding in court. Depositions, and the other modes of discovery
orders of the Trial Court just described. Said Appellate Court restrained enforcement of the (interrogatories to parties; requests for admission by adverse party; production or inspection
orders of March 15, 1991 and July 5, 1991 "in order to maintain the status quo and to prevent of documents or things; physical and mental examination of persons) are meant to enable a
the infliction of irreparable damage and injury upon the petitioner." 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. In fine, the object of
After due proceedings, the Court of Appeals (Third Division) rendered judgment on discovery is to make it possible for all the parties to a case to learn all the material and
September 23, 1992 denying Dasmariñas petition for certiorari and upholding the challenged relevant facts, from whoever may have knowledge thereof, to the end that their pleadings or
orders of the Trial Court. Once again, Dasmariñas sought reconsideration of an adverse motions may not suffer from inadequacy of factual foundation, and all the relevant facts may
disposition, and once again, was rebuffed. Its motion for reconsideration was denied in a be clearly and completely laid before the Court, without omission or suppression.
Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated December 11, 1992.
Depositions are principally made available by law to the parties as a means of informing
Once again Dasmariñas has availed of the remedy of appeal. It has come to this Court and themselves of all the relevant facts; they are not therefore generally meant to be a substitute
prays for the reversal of the Appellate Court's Decision of September 23, 1992 and for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness. The deponent must as a rule be
Resolution dated December 11, 1992. Once again, it will fail. presented for oral examination in open court at the trial or hearing. This is a requirement of
the rules of evidence. Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides:
Dasmariñas ascribes to the Court of Appeals the following errors, to wit:
Sec. 1. Examination to be done in open court. — The examination of
witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and
1) "in holding that a party could, during the trial of the case, present its
under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the
evidence by taking the deposition of its witnesses in a foreign jurisdiction
question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness
before a private entity not authorized by law to take depositions in lieu of their
shall be given orally.
oral examination in open Court considering that:

Indeed, any deposition offered to prove the facts therein set out during a trial or hearing, in
a) the taking of deposition is a mode of pretrial discovery to
lieu of the actual oral testimony of the deponent in open court, may be opposed and excluded
be availed of before the action comes to trial;
on the ground that it is hearsay; the party against whom it is offered has no opportunity to
cross-examine the deponent at the time that his testimony is offered. It matters not that that
b) no urgent or compelling reason has been shown to justify opportunity for cross-examination was afforded during the taking of the deposition; for
the departure from the accepted and usual judicial normally, the opportunity for cross-examination must be accorded a party at the time that the
proceedings of examining witnesses in open court where testimonial evidence is actually presented against him during the trial or hearing.
their demeanor could be observed by the trial judge;"
However, depositions may be used without the deponent being actually called to the witness
2) "in disregarding the inherently unfair situation in allowing private stand by the proponent, under certain conditions and for certain limited purposes. These
respondent, a foreign entity suing in the Philippines, to present its evidence exceptional situations are governed by Section 4, Rule 24 of the Rules of Court.
by mere deposition of its witnesses away from the 'penetrating scrutiny' of the
trial Judge while petitioner is obligated to bring and present its witnesses in
Sec. 4. Use of depositions. — At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion of
open court subject to the prying eyes and probing questions of the Judge;"
an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as
and
admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used against any party who
 was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due Leave of court is not necessary where the deposition is to be taken before "a secretary or
notice thereof, in accordance with any of the following provisions: embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic
of the Philippines," and the defendant's answer has already been served (Sec. 1 Rule 24).
(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting After answer, whether the deposition-taking is to be accomplished within the Philippines or
or impeaching the testimony of deponent as a witness; outside, the law does not authorize or contemplate any intervention by the court in the
process, all that is required being that "reasonable notice" be given "in writing to every other
party to the action . . . (stating) the time and place for taking the deposition and the name and
(b) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of taking the
address of each person to be examined, if known, and if the name is not known, a general
deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private
description sufficient to identify him or the particular class or group to which he belongs. . . . "
corporation, partnership, or association which is a party may be used by an
(Sec. 15, Rule 24). The court intervenes in the process only if a party moves (1) to "enlarge or
adverse party for any purpose;
shorten the time" stated in the notice (id.), or (2) "upon notice and for good cause shown," to
prevent the deposition-taking, or impose conditions therefor, e.g., that "certain matters shall
(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any not be inquired into" or that the taking be "held with no one present except the parties to the
party for any purpose if the court finds: (1) that the witness is dead; or (2) that action and their officers or counsel," etc. (Sec. 16, Rule 24), or
the witness if out of the province and at a greater distance than fifty (50) (3) to terminate the process on motion and upon a showing that "it is being conducted in bad
kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or
unless it appears that his absence was procured by the party offering the party" (Sec 18, Rule 24).
deposition; or (3) that the witness is unable to attend to testify because of
age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or (4) that the party offering the
Where the deposition is to be taken in a foreign country where the Philippines has no
deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by
"secretary or embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent,"
subpoena; or (5) upon application and notice, that such exceptional
then obviously it may be taken only "before such person or officer as may be appointed by
circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with
commission or under letters rogatory. Section 12, Rule 24 provides as follows:
due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally
in open court, to allow the deposition to be used;
Sec. 12. Commission or letters rogatory. — A commission or letters rogatory
shall be issued only when necessary or convenient, on application and
(d) If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, the adverse
notice, and on such terms and with such directions as are just and
party may require him to introduce all of it which is relevant to the part
appropriate. Officers may be designated in notices or commissions either by
introduced, and any party may introduce any other parts.
name or descriptive title and letters rogatory may be addressed "To the
Appropriate Judicial Authority in (here name the country)."
The principle conceding admissibility to a deposition when the deponent is dead, out of the
Philippines, or otherwise unable to come to court to testify, is consistent with another rule of
A commission may be defined as "(a)n instrument issued by a court of justice, or other
evidence, found in Section 47, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
competent tribunal, to authorize a person to take depositions, or do any other act by authority
of such court or tribunal" (Feria, J., Civil Procedure, 1969 ed., p. 415, citing Cyclopedic Law
Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. — The testimony or Dictionary, p. 200). Letters rogatory, on the other hand, may be defined as "(a)n instrument
deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case sent in the name and by the authority of a judge or court to another, requesting the latter to
or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and cause to be examined, upon interrogatories filed in a cause pending before the former, a
subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had witness who is within the jurisdiction of the judge or court to whom such letters are
the opportunity to cross-examine him. addressed" (Feria, J., op. cit., citing Cyclopedic Law Dictionary, p. 653). Section 12, Rule 24
just quoted states that a commission is addressed to "officers . . . designated . . . either by
It is apparent then that the deposition of any person may be taken wherever he may be, in the name or descriptive title," while letters rogatory are addressed to some "appropriate judicial
Philippines or abroad. If the party or witness is in the Philippines, his deposition "shall be authority in the foreign state." Noteworthy in this connection is the indication in the Rules that
taken before any judge, municipal or notary public" (Sec. 10, Rule 24, Rules of Court). If in a letters rogatory may be applied for and issued only after a commission has been "returned
foreign state or country, the deposition "shall be taken: (a) on notice before a secretary or unexecuted" as is apparent from Form 21 of the "Judicial Standard Forms" appended to the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of Rules of Court, which requires the inclusion in a "petition for letters rogatory" of the following
the Philippines, or (b) before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or paragraph, viz.:
under letters rogatory" (Sec. 11, Rule 24).
 xxx xxx xxx taking of depositions after pre-trial. Indeed, the law authorizes the taking of depositions of
witnesses before or after an appeal is taken from the judgment of a Regional Trial Court "to
3. A commission issued by this Court on the ______ day of ______, 19__, to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of further proceedings in the said court" (Rule
take the testimony of (here name the witness or witnesses) in (here name the 134, Rules of Court), and even during the process of execution of a final and executory
foreign country in which the testimony is to be taken), before judgment (East Asiatic Co. v. C.I.R., 40 SCRA 521, 544).
_________________ (name of officer), was returned unexecuted  by
__________________ on the ground that ____________, all of which more Dasmariñas further claims that the taking of deposition under the circumstances is a
fully appears from the certificate of said __________ to said commission and "departure from the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open
made a part hereof by attaching it hereto (or state other facts to show court where the demeanor could be observed by the trial judge;" that it is "inherently unfair" to
commission is inadequate or cannot be executed) (emphasis supplied). allow APL, "a foreign entity suing in the Philippines, to present its evidence by mere
deposition of its witnesses away from the 'penetrating scrutiny' of the trial Judge while
In the case at bar, the Regional Trial Court has issued a commission to the "Asian Exchange petitioner is obligated to bring and present its witnesses in open court subject to the prying
Center, Inc. thru Director Joaquin R. Roces" "to take the testimonies of . . . Kenneth H. Lee eyes and probing questions of the Judge."
and Yeong Fah Yeh, by deposition (upon written interrogatories) . . . ." It appears that said
Center may, "upon request and authority of the Ministry (now Department) of Foreign Affairs, Of course the deposition-taking in the case at bar is a "departure from the accepted and usual
Republic of the Philippines" issue a "Certificate of Authentications" attesting to the identity judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open court where their demeanor could be
and authority of Notaries Public and other public officers of the Republic of China, Taiwan observed by the trial judge;" but the procedure is not on that account rendered illegal nor is
(eg., the Section Chief, Department of Consular Affairs of the latter's Ministry of Foreign the deposition thereby taken, inadmissible. It precisely falls within one of the exceptions
Affairs) (Annex B of Annex N of the petition for review on certiorari) — a prima facie  showing where the law permits such a situation, i.e., the use of deposition in lieu of the actual
not rebutted by petitioner. appearance and testimony of the deponent in open court and without being "subject to the
prying eyes and probing questions of the Judge." This is allowed provided the deposition is
It further appears that the commission is to be coursed through the Department of Foreign taken in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rules of Court and the existence of
Affairs conformably with Circular No. 4 issued by Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee on April 6, any of the exceptions for its admissibility — e.g., "that the witness if out of the province and at
1987, pursuant to the suggestion of the Department of Foreign Affairs — directing "ALL a greater distance than fifty (50) kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the
JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, Philippines, unless it appears that his absence was procured by the party offering the
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL deposition; or . . . that the witness is unable to attend to testify because of age, sickness,
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS" "to course all requests for the taking of deposition of witnesses infirmity, or imprisonment, etc." (Sec. 4 Rule 24, supra, emphasis supplied) — is first
residing abroad through the Department of Foreign Affairs" to enable it and "the Philippine satisfactorily established (See Lopez v. Maceren, 95 Phil. 754).
Foreign Service establishments to act on the matter in a judicious and expeditious manner;"
this, "in the interest of justice," and to avoid delay in the deposition-taking. The Regional Trial Court saw fit to permit the taking of the depositions of the witnesses in
question only by written interrogatories, removing the proponent's option to take them by oral
Petitioner would however prevent the carrying out of the commission on various grounds. examination, i.e., by going to Taipei and actually questioning the witnesses verbally with the
questions and answers and observations of the parties being recorded stenographically. The
imposition of such a limitation, and the determination of the cause thereof, are to be sure
The first is that the deposition-taking will take place in "a foreign jurisdiction not recognized by
within the Court's discretion. The ostensible reason given by the Trial Court for the condition
the Philippines in view of its 'one-China policy.'" This is inconsequential. What matters is that
— that the deposition be taken "only upon written interrogatories" — is "so as to give
the deposition is taken before a Philippine official acting by authority of the Philippine
defendant (Dasmariñas) the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses by serving cross-
Department of Foreign Affairs and in virtue of a commission duly issued by the Philippine
interrogatories." The statement implies that opportunity to cross-examine will not be accorded
Court in which the action is pending, and in accordance, moreover, with the provisions of the
the defendant if the depositions were to be taken upon oral examination, which, of course, is
Philippine Rules of Court pursuant to which opportunity for cross-examination of the deponent
not true. For even if the depositions were to be taken on oral examination in Taipei, the
will be fully accorded to the adverse party.
adverse party is still accorded full right to cross-examine the deponents by the law, either by
proceeding to Taipei and there conducting the cross-examination orally, or opting to conduct
Dasmariñas also contends that the "taking of deposition is a mode of pretrial discovery to be said cross-examination merely by serving cross-interrogatories.
availed of before the action comes to trial." Not so. Depositions may be taken at any time
after the institution of any action, whenever necessary or convenient. There is no rule that
One other word. In its Order of July 5, 1991 — denying Dasmariñas motion for
limits deposition-taking only to the period of pre-trial or before it; no prohibition against the
reconsideration of the earlier order dated March 15, 1991 (allowing the taking of deposition by
commission) — one of the reasons adduced by the Regional Trial Court for the denial was
that the motion had been "filed out of time." Evidently, the Trial Court reached this conclusion
because, as the record discloses, the motion for reconsideration was filed by Dasmariñas on
June 25, 1991, twenty-five (25) days after notice (on May 20, 1991) of the Order of March 15,
1991 sought to be reconsidered. Denial of the motion on such a ground is incorrect. In the
first place, it appears that there was a motion for extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration, ending on June 25, 1991 which was however not acted on or granted by the
Court. More importantly, the order sought to be reconsidered is an interlocutory  order, in
respect of which there is no provision of law fixing the time within which reconsideration
thereof should be sought.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition for review
on certiorari. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.