Case Digest (G.R. No. 108229)
Facts:
- The case involves Dasmarinas Garments, Inc. (petitioner) and American President Lines, Ltd. (respondent).
- APL filed a suit against Dasmarinas in September 1987 in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, claiming US $53,228.45 plus 25% for attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
- Dasmarinas responded on December 1, 1987, denying liability and asserting compulsory counterclaims.
- The trial commenced on April 27, 1988, with APL presenting its first witness, concluding testimony by November 12, 1988.
- APL filed a motion on May 3, 1989, to take depositions of two witnesses in Taipei, Taiwan, which Dasmarinas opposed.
- The trial court granted APL's motion on March 15, 1991, allowing depositions through the Asian Exchange Center, Inc. (AECI) in Taiwan.
- Dasmarinas' motion for reconsideration was denied on July 5, 1991, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision on September 23, 1992, and denied Dasmarinas' motion for reconsideration on December 11, 1992.
- Dasmarinas subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review on certiorari, affirming the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court.
- The Court ruled that the taking ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court stated that depositions are a recognized discovery method to compel the disclosure of relevant facts.
- The Court clarified that depositions can be taken at any time after an action is initiated, not limited to pre-trial stages.
- The procedure followed by the trial court complied with the Rules of Court, allowing deposi...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 108229)
Facts:
The case involves Dasmarinas Garments, Inc. (petitioner) and American President Lines, Ltd. (respondent). The dispute began in September 1987 when APL filed a suit against Dasmarinas in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking to recover the amount of US $53,228.45, along with 25% of that sum for attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Dasmarinas filed its answer on December 1, 1987, denying any liability and asserting compulsory counterclaims against APL. The trial was scheduled for April 27, 1988, during which APL presented its first witness, completing the testimony by November 12, 1988. The case was then reset for May 3, 1989, for further witness testimonies. However, on that date, APL instead filed a motion to take depositions of two witnesses, H. Lee and Yeong Fang Yeh, in Taipei, Taiwan, requesting the issuance of a commission or letters rogatory to facilitate this process. Dasmarinas opposed the motion, arguing that it was defective and unnecessary, as the witnesses could be examined in court. The trial court ultimately granted APL's motion on March 15, 1991, allowing the depositions to be taken through the Asian Exchange Center, Inc. (AECI) in Taiwan. Dasmarinas filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on July 5, 1991, leading to Dasmarinas seeking a special civil action of certiorari in the Court of Appeals to nullify the trial court's orders. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision on Septe...