Case Digest (G.R. No. 197122)
Facts:
Ingrid Sala Santamaria and Astrid Sala Boza v. Thomas Cleary, G.R. No. 197122, and Kathryn Go‑Perez v. Thomas Cleary, G.R. No. 197161, June 15, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Thomas Cleary, an American citizen and resident of Los Angeles, filed a civil Complaint on January 10, 2002 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu (Civil Case No. CEB‑27296) against Miranila Land Development Corporation, Manuel S. Go, and petitioners Ingrid Sala Santamaria, Astrid Sala Boza, and Kathryn Go‑Perez for specific performance and damages arising from a Stock Purchase and Put Agreement. Cleary alleged payment of US$191,250.00 and relied on paragraph 9.02 of the Agreement, which granted him the sole discretion to elect the forum for any suit (including California or the courts of the corporation’s incorporation); he elected to file in Cebu.
After answers and compulsory counterclaims were filed and the case proceeded to pretrial (notice dated July 4, 2007), Cleary in his pretrial brief stipulated he would testify “either on the witness stand or by oral deposition” and invoked discovery rules. On January 22, 2009 he moved for court authorization to take his deposition before the Philippine Consulate‑General in Los Angeles and to use that deposition as his direct testimony. Petitioners Santamaria and Boza opposed on grounds that deposition is not an absolute right and that, having chosen the Philippine forum, Cleary should submit to open‑court testimony; Go‑Perez likewise opposed, stressing that a plaintiff’s self‑deposition is not for discovery and would prejudice defendants by imposing travel and expense.
The RTC of Cebu (Branch 12, Presiding Judge Estela Alma A. Singco) issued an Order dated June 5, 2009 denying Cleary’s Motion, reasoning that depositions are not substitutes for in‑court testimony and that, since Cleary (the plaintiff) suffered no impairment, he should appear and testify under Rule 132, Section 1. The RTC denied reconsideration.
Cleary filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals (Eighteenth Division, Cebu City) in an August 10, 2010 Decision (pened by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon) granted Cleary’s petition, finding Rule 23 permits depositions and it was immaterial that the deponent was the plaintiff, and it reversed the RTC Order; its May 11, 2011 Resolution denied reconsideration. Petitioners then sought review by the Supreme Court by Rule 45 petitions.
The Supreme Court was asked to resolve (1) whether the protective‑order limitations of Rule 23, Sect...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the protective limits under Rule 23, Section 16 of the Rules of Court justified the RTC’s denial of Cleary’s motion to take deposition abroad.
- Whether Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) of the Rules of Court permits the taking and use of a non‑resident foreign plaintiff’s deposition abroad as...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)