G.R. No. 158857 - Dulay vs. Dulay

Respondent Rodrigo S. Dulay, a naturalized U.S. citizen, opened a trust account with the Bank of Boston on January 27, 1997, depositing USD 230,000 and naming his nephew Pfeger R. Dulay as trustee.
Rodrigo alleged that Pfeger emptied the account, used the funds to purchase vehicles, loaned money to siblings, opened bank accounts for them, bought a house and jewelry for his wife, and transferred the balance to his father Godofredo S. Dulay, Sr.

Rodrigo filed a complaint in RTC Branch 48, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, for recovery of the bank deposit with prayer for a writ of attachment and damages. Petitioners denied the allegations and challenged the admissibility of the bank’s Statement of Account and supporting affidavit.
Rodrigo sought letters rogatory to secure depositions of witnesses in Massachusetts; petitioners were granted cross-interrogatories. The Massachusetts court refused to act on the rogatory, causing delays.
Petitioners moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute; the trial court denied dismissal and directed completion of depositions. Depositions were ultimately taken before a notary public in New York and later authenticated by the Philippine consul.
Petitioners moved to exclude the interrogatory answers and again to dismiss; the trial court admitted the documents, archived the case pending receipt of U.S. documents, and refused dismissal.

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in admitting foreign depositions and failing to dismiss the case.
The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that the depositions substantially complied with the Rules of Court, that delays were incidental to U.S. non-cooperation, and that equitable circumstances justified a “merit over technicality” approach.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied.

Petitioners urged that the CA erred in not ordering dismissal for respondent’s failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence.
They also asserted that the foreign depositions violated Sections 11, 12, and 14 of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court and were thus inadmissible.

Whether the trial court and CA should have dismissed the complaint for respondent’s allegedly unreasonable delays in securing and submitting foreign depositions.

Whether depositions taken before a New York notary public and authenticated by the Philippine consul complied with Rule 23, Sections 11, 12, and 14, and were therefore properly admitted in evidence.