Case Digest (G.R. No. 108229)
Facts:
Dasmarinas Garments, Inc. v. Hon. Ruben T. Reyes, Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 50, and American President Lines, Ltd., G.R. No. 108229, August 24, 1993, Supreme Court Second Division, Narvasa, C.J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff, American President Lines, Ltd. (APL), sued Dasmarinas Garments, Inc. (Dasmarinas) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila for US$53,228.45 plus twenty-five percent attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. Dasmarinas filed an answer on December 1, 1987 denying liability and asserting compulsory counterclaims. The case was set for trial; APL presented a first witness whose testimony concluded November 12, 1988, and the trial was reset to May 3, 1989 for two additional APL witnesses.
On May 3, 1989 APL moved for leave to take the depositions of Kenneth H. Lee and Yeong Fang Yeh in Taipei, Taiwan, first asking that a commission or letters rogatory be issued to a Philippine consular officer, and later amending to request that the commission be addressed to Director Joaquin Roces of the Asian Exchange Center, Inc. (AECI) because the Philippines had no consulate in Taiwan. Dasmarinas opposed, arguing (inter alia) that the motion was defective, that depositions are a pretrial discovery device and must be taken before trial, that witnesses could be examined in open court, and that the Rules of Court require oral testimony in open court.
APL supplied a November 20, 1989 letter from Director Roces stating AECI could take depositions only upon prior authority from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) in consonance with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 4 (April 6, 1987); APL also submitted information from a Taipei law firm about obtaining documents under ROC procedure. By Order of March 15, 1991 the RTC granted APL’s motion, authorized the AECI (through Director Roces) to take the depositions by written interrogatories, enjoined compliance with Sections 25–29 of Rule 24, and directed that the commission be coursed through the DFA pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 4.
Dasmarinas moved for reconsideration on June 25, 1991, contending that AECI lacked authority to take depositions, that taking depositions in an unrecognized foreign jurisdiction violated judicial sovereignty, and that written-interrogatory depositions were inadequate where witness credibility was at issue. The RTC denied reconsideration on July 5, 1991 as “filed out of time” and ordered APL to implement the March 15 order.
Dasmarinas filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals to annul the RTC orders; the Court of Appeals initially restrained enforcement to preserve the status quo. The Court of Appeals (Third Division) ultimately d...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding the RTC order authorizing the taking of depositions in Taipei before the Asian Exchange Center, Inc. by commission and thereby denying certiorari relief to petitioner?
- May depositions be taken during trial and before a private entity in a foreign jurisdiction not formally recognized by the Philippines, and may the RTC limit such depositions to written interrogatories while preserving the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)