Case Digest (G.R. No. 108119)
Facts:
Fortune Corporation v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Inter-Merchants Corporation, G.R. No. 108119 (also arising from an earlier original certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 101526 and reviewed by the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 27952), January 19, 1994, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Fortune Corporation sued Inter‑Merchants Corporation for breach of contract in Civil Case No. SP‑3469 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City, Branch 30. After Inter‑Merchants filed its Answer, Fortune served written interrogatories under Rule 25, which were answered by Inter‑Merchants through its board chairman, Juanito A. Teope. Pre‑trial dates were set repeatedly (January 9, February 12 and April 22, 1992).
On March 26, 1992 Fortune served a Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination (Rule 24, Sec. 15) setting Teope’s deposition for April 7, 1992. On March 27, Inter‑Merchants moved urgently to prohibit the deposition, alleging among other things that (a) Teope had already answered interrogatories covering the issues; (b) there was no justification for an oral deposition; (c) the deposition would annoy, embarrass and oppress Teope; (d) Teope would not be leaving the country and was available to testify at trial.
The RTC issued an order on April 3, 1992 forbidding the deposition because Teope had answered the interrogatories, had signified availability to testify at trial, and because taking the deposition would deprive the court of opportunity to ask clarificatory questions of a vital witness. Reconsideration was denied. Fortune filed an original certiorari action in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 101526), which the Court on May 20, 1992 referred to the Court of Appeals for consideration.
The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated September 23, 1992 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 27952), dismissed Fortune’s petition and upheld the RTC order, reasoning that the trial court had discretion under Sections 16 and 18, Rule 24 to forbid a deposition for valid reasons (citing Caguiat v. Torres and other authorities), and indicating the three factual reasons given by the RTC a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is certiorari (Rule 65) a proper remedy to review the RTC’s interlocutory order forbidding the taking of a deposition?
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering that the deposition of Juanito A. Teope shall not be taken?
- Do the RTC’s stated reasons—(a) prior answers to written interrogatories, (b) the proposed deponent’s availability to testify in court, and (c) that a deposition would deprive the court of observing the witness’s demeanor—constitute "good cause" under Section 16, Rule 24 to forbid the deposition?
- Is a mere allegation, without proof, that a deposition is intended to annoy, embarrass or oppress the deponent ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)