Case Digest (G.R. No. 197122)
Facts:
In the consolidated petitions, Thomas Cleary, an American citizen and resident of Los Angeles, filed on January 10, 2002 a Complaint for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu against Miranila Land Development Corporation, Manuel S. Go, Ingrid Sala Santamaria, Astrid Sala Boza, and Kathryn Go-Perez. The suit arose from a Stock Purchase and Put Agreement by which Cleary paid US$191,250.00 for shares in Miranila, with paragraph 9.02 granting him the sole discretion to elect venue in California or in the Philippines. Respondents Santamaria, Boza, and Go-Perez each answered, raising compulsory counterclaims. During pre-trial, Cleary stipulated he would testify “either on the witness stand or by oral deposition” and invoked discovery under the Rules of Court. On January 22, 2009, he moved for Court authorization to take his own deposition in Los Angeles before the Philippine Consulate-General, seeking to use it as his direct testimony. SantamarCase Digest (G.R. No. 197122)
Facts:
- Background of the Dispute
- Thomas Cleary, an American citizen and resident of Los Angeles, filed on January 10, 2002 a Complaint for specific performance and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu against Miranila Land Development Corporation, Manuel S. Go, Ingrid Sala Santamaria, Astrid Sala Boza, and Kathryn Go-Perez.
- The suit arose from Cleary’s purchase of shares in Miranila Land Development Corporation for US$191,250.00 under a Stock Purchase and Put Agreement, which allowed venue election in California, U.S. District Court (Central District of California), or the courts of the corporation’s country of incorporation.
- Pre-trial Proceedings and Motion for Deposition
- Defendants Santamaria, Boza, and Go-Perez filed Answers with compulsory counterclaims; a pre-trial conference was set on July 4, 2007.
- In his pre-trial brief, Cleary reserved the right to testify “either on the witness stand or by oral deposition” and moved on January 22, 2009 for court authorization to take his own deposition in Los Angeles through the Philippine Consulate-General as his direct testimony.
- Santamaria and Boza opposed, arguing deposition is not a substitute for open-court testimony and would disadvantage Filipino parties. Go-Perez likewise opposed, urging adherence to Rule 132 (open-court testimony) and decrying cost and procedural unfairness.
- Trial Court and Court of Appeals Rulings
- On June 5, 2009, the RTC denied Cleary’s motion, holding that depositions cannot replace live testimony and that, as plaintiff without impairment, Cleary should appear in Cebu to testify.
- The RTC denied reconsideration. Cleary filed petitions with the Court of Appeals (CA). On August 10, 2010, the CA granted certiorari, reversed the RTC, and allowed the deposition. A May 11, 2011 CA resolution denied reconsideration.
- Petitioners then filed separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s rulings.
Issues:
- Whether the limitations on taking depositions under Rule 23, Section 16 (protective orders) of the Rules of Court apply to bar Cleary’s deposition abroad.
- Whether Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) of the Rules of Court—allowing use of depositions when a witness is “out of the Philippines”—permits a non-resident foreign plaintiff’s direct testimony by deposition abroad.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)