Case Summary (G.R. No. 158857)
Petitioner’s Allegations
Petitioners maintain that the trust account at the Bank of Boston, opened on January 27, 1997 with USD 230,000 in Rodrigo’s name and naming Pfeger as trustee, represented Rodrigo’s funds. They contend that Pfeger subsequently emptied the account, diverted the proceeds into vehicles, loans, real estate, jewelry, and transfers to his father, Godofredo S. Dulay, Sr.
Respondent’s Defenses
Rodrigo asserts the deposit belonged to Pfeger as his own money. He further contends that the Bank of Boston statement of account and its supporting affidavit attached to the complaint were inadmissible. Pfeger likewise insisted that he expended his own funds.
Procedural History
- October 1996: Godofredo S. Dulay, Sr. and Pfeger immigrate to the U.S.; Godofredo returns to the Philippines.
- January 27, 1997: Trust account opened.
- May 30, 2002: Trial court denies petitioners’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and admits respondent’s interrogatory answers.
- CA-G.R. SP No. 66993: Court of Appeals dismisses petitioners’ certiorari complaint on May 28, 2003.
- November 11, 2005: Supreme Court decision denying the petition for review.
Trial Court Rulings
– Letters rogatory issued to secure depositions of Rodrigo and Bank of Boston representatives; U.S. courts declined assistance.
– Depositions ultimately taken before a New York notary public and authenticated by the Philippine Consul, in substantial compliance with Rule 23.
– Petitioners’ repeated motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute and to exclude the interrogatory answers were denied, the court favoring resolution on the merits over technical dismissal.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The appellate court found no grave abuse of discretion. Delays stemmed from the U.S. tribunal’s refusal to honor letters rogatory, not respondent’s inaction. It held that the depositions substantially complied with procedural requirements and that equitable considerations justified a relaxed procedural approach.
Supreme Court Issue
Whether the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in (a) refusing to dismiss the complaint for respondent’s alleged failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence, and (b) admitting foreign-taken depositions without strict adherence to letters rogatory.
Supreme Court Analysis
– Discovery by deposition is a procedural tool to clarify issues and is subject to trial court discretion; delays caused by foreign non-cooperation do not constitute respondent’s fault.
– Under Rule 23, depositions abroad may b
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 158857)
Facts
- Rodrigo S. Dulay, a naturalized American citizen, hosted his brother Godofredo Sr. and nephew Pfeger in Massachusetts after their immigration in October 1996.
- Godofredo Sr. soon returned to the Philippines, but Pfeger remained to care for Rodrigo.
- On January 27, 1997, Rodrigo opened a trust account at the Bank of Boston in the amount of USD 230,000, naming Pfeger as trustee based on affection and trust.
- Five months later, Pfeger left Rodrigo’s house purportedly to join his girlfriend in California but actually returned to the Philippines.
- In November 1997 Pfeger came back briefly to the U.S., then again returned to the Philippines where he allegedly spent lavishly.
- Rodrigo discovered that Pfeger had emptied the trust account, using the funds to purchase vehicles, make loans, open bank accounts for siblings, and buy property and jewelry; remaining funds were allegedly transferred to Godofredo Sr.
Trial Court Proceedings
- Rodrigo filed a complaint for recovery of deposit, prayed for writ of attachment and damages; petitioners denied that the funds belonged to Rodrigo, claiming they were Pfeger’s own.
- Rodrigo sought issuance of letters rogatory to take depositions of witnesses in the U.S.; petitioners requested leave to file cross-examination questions to respondent’s written interrogatories—granted by the trial court.
- Order dated December 1, 1999 directed issuance of letters rogatory to the Clerk of Court in Boston and to forward all questions and answers.
- Petitioners moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute; motion denied to allow completion of respondent’s depositions.
- Unable to take depositions before Boston Clerk, responden