September 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 156417 September 07, 2011]
VICTOR CORPUS, PETITIONER V. MANUEL N. DUQUE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 197, IN LAS PIÑAS CITY, AND HON. PANFILO M. LACSON, RESPONDENTS.
"G.R. No. 156417 - VICTOR CORPUS, Petitioner v. MANUEL N. DUQUE, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 197, in Las Piñas City, and HON. PANFILO M. LACSON, Respondents.cralaw
A trial judge retains the authority to disallow the notice to take the deposition of a party even after an answer has been filed and served.
The petitioner, one of the defendants in a civil action brought against them by the respondent, challenges via petition for certiorari the order dated November 15, 2002 (denying his Motion Ad Omnibus [For Postponement and to Order Service of Subpoena]),[1] and the order also dated November 15, 2002 (denying in open court his motion for reconsideration),[2] both issued, by respondent Presiding Judge Manuel N. Duque of Branch 197 of the Regional Trial Court in Las Piñas City (RTC).cralaw
Antecedents
On September 3, 2001, respondent Panfilo M. Lacson (Lacson) brought a complaint for defamation and damages in the RTC in Las Piñas City,[3] docketed as Civil Case No. LP-01-0224, against the petitioner and other defendants, namely: Ramon Tulfo, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc., Isagani Yambot, Letty Jimenez-Magsanoc, Artemio T. Engracia, Jr., Louie C. Camino, Recah Trinidad, Christine Herrera and Carlito Pablo. Except the petitioner, all the defendants filed their respective answers on October 1, 2002. On his part, the petitioner submitted a Motion to Dismiss on October 2, 2002. After the RTC denied his Motion to Dismiss, he filed his answer on October 28, 2002.[4] Thence, the RTC set the pre-trial conference on November 15, 2002.cralaw [5]
Prior to the pre-trial conference, or on November 5, 2002, the petitioner served a Notice of Deposition dated October 29, 2002 on Lacson,[6] which reads:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section 15 of Rule 23 we take the deposition of the plaintiff Hon. Panfilo M. Lacson before a Notary Public (or other appropriate officer under Section 10) at the Macapagal Room in the 24th Floor of the Export Bank Plaza between the hours of 9:00 - 12:00 o'clock in the morning on November 29, 2002 and to continue at the same hours of 9:00 - 12:00 o'clock in the morning on December 2, 2002.cralaw
Also on the same date, the petitioner filed a Request for Subpoena dated October 29, 2002[7] in connection with the proposed taking of the deposition of Lacson.
On November 11, 2002, the petitioner presented to the RTC a Motion Ad Omnibus (For Postponement, and to Order Service of Subpoena),[8] seeking the re-setting of the pre-trial conference and praying for an order to require the sheriff to serve the subpoena upon Lacson in connection with the petitioner's Notice of Deposition and request for the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum.cralaw
On November 15, 2002, the RTC issued the first assailed order,[9] viz:
Acting upon the Motion Ad Om[n]ibus, filed by counsel for defendant Victor Corpus, for issuance of subpoena ad testificandum, to plaintiff Patifiio M. Lacson, for the taking of plaintiff s deposition on November 29, 2002 and December 2, 2002, the same is hereby DENIED for there are no special, unusual, or exceptional circumstances warranting the necessity of taking the deposition of plaintiff, considering that plaintiff is willing to testify and have signified their available trial dates (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al. - FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 112710. May 30, 2001]).cralaw
The counsel for defendant Victor Corpus did not cite some good reason or cause or necessity for taking the testimony immediately of the plaintiff. Defendant has not alleged that plaintiff is old, sick or infirm as to necessitate the taking of his deposition. No urgency has been cited and no ground given that would make it prejudicial for defendant Victor Corpus.cralaw
SO ORDERED.
Immediately upon issuance of the order on November 15, 2002, the petitioner sought reconsideration, but respondent RTC Judge denied his motion for lack of merit through the "second assailed order.[10]
Hence, the petitioner has come directly to the Court through this special civil action for certiorari to challenge the two orders, insisting that exceptional and compelling circumstances existed that warranted his direct resort to the Court, and that respondent RTC Judge thereby committed grave abuse of discretion.cralaw
Issue
The petitioner contends that the RTC should have granted his Motion Ad Omnibus (For Postponement and to Order Service of Subpoena), considering that the proposed taking of the deposition of Lacson was no longer discretionary after an answer had been served in the case, rendering. prior leave of court for the purpose unnecessary. The petitioner argues that the burden was not upon him to establish a good reason or necessity for the immediate taking of Lacson's testimony through deposition, but was upon Lacson to show cause why he should not be deposed.cralaw
Lacson counters that the petitioner's direct recourse to the Court, without any exceptional or compelling reason, violates the principle of the hierarchy of courts; and that his willingness to testify in open court eliminated the necessity for taking his deposition, whose only objective was to annoy or embarrass him, or to waste his time.cralaw
The issue, simply stated, is whether or not respondent RTC Judge properly denied the proposed taking of Lacson's deposition by oral examination.cralaw
Ruling
We dismiss the petition for certiorari for being procedurally and substantively bereft of merit.cralaw
I
Petitioner disregarded hierarchy of courts
The policy of observing the hierarchy of courts has been erected in situations in which the Supreme Court and other courts (like the Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Sandiganbayan) have concurrent jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus only to bring upon litigants the recognition either that a direct access to the Supreme Court is limited and not open all the time, or that such access is restricted only to when all remedies available to the litigants from the appropriate executive departments or offices or from the trial courts have been exhausted or have become effectively unavailable.cralaw [11]
The concurrence of jurisdiction among the Supreme Court and other courts does not afford to litigants an absolute and unrestrained freedom of choice of the court from which to seek and obtain a desired remedy. The litigants must observe the hierarchy of courts in the manner now delineated in Section 4 of Rule 65, Rules of Court, whose version contemporaneous with and pertinent to the assailed orders states:
Section 4. When and where petition filed. - The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion.cralaw
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in the aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.cralaw
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days. (4a)[12]
The rationale for observing the hierarchy of courts is well expressed in People v. Cuaresma,[13] as follows
xxx This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court's docket. Indeed, the removal of the restriction on the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in this regard, supra - resulting from the deletion of the qualifying phrase, "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction" - was evidently intended precisely to relieve this Court, pro tanto of the burden of dealing with applications for the extraordinary writs which, but for the expansion of the Appellate Court's corresponding jurisdiction, would have had to be filed with it.cralaw (Emphasis supplied)
Consequently, only exceptional and compelling cases, such as those involving the national interest and those of serious implications, may justify a direct resort to the Supreme Court.
The petitioner's justification for bypassing the hierarchy of courts and coming to the Court directly is that the matters involved in Civil Case No. LP-01-0224 had been widely publicized and could result to a division among Filipinos.[14]
We consider such justification presumptuous. The case pending in the RTC was a simple civil action for defamation and damages, whose impact would certainly be limited to the parties. The alleged legal question the petitioner poses here would not bear any serious or far-reaching implications on the life of the people as a whole, would not compromise national security, and would not affect public interest. As such, he did not have a special or compelling justification for the relaxation of the policy.cralaw
II
RTC Judge was not guilty of grave abuse of discretion
Even assuming that the petitioner's petition may now be entertained, it must still fail for being devoid of substance.
A deposition is -
[t]he testimony of a witness taken upon oral question or written interrogatories, not in open court, but in pursuance of a commission to take testimony issued by a court, or under a general law or court rule on the subject, and reduced to writing and duly authenticated, and intended to be used in preparation and upon the trial of a civil or criminal prosecution. A pretrial discovery device by which one party (through his or her attorney) asks oral questions of the other party or of a witness for the other party. The person who is deposed is called the deponent. The deposition is conducted under oath outside of the court room, usually in one of the lawyer's offices. A transcript - word for word account - is made of the deposition. Testimony of [a] witness, taken in writing, under oath or affirmation, before some judicial officer in answer to questions or interrogatories xxx.cralaw [15]
Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the primary function of which is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of disclosing the real points of dispute between the parties and of affording an adequate factual basis during the preparation for trial.[16] It is allowed as a departure from the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open court where their demeanor could be observed by the trial judge, consistent with the principle of promoting just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding; and provided it is taken in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, i.e., with leave of court if summons have been served, and without such leave if an answer has been submitted; and provided further that a circumstance for its admissibility exists.cralaw [17]
Based on Section 2,[18] Rule 23, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the liberty of a party to make discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise "relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of law. Although the rules on discovery are liberally construed in order to ascertain the truth and to expedite the disposal of cases, the trial court may disallow a deposition if there is a valid reason for doing so.[19] There are concomitant limitations to discovery, even when permitted to be undertaken without leave of court. As indicated by Sec. 16 and Sec. 18, Rule 23, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,[20] limitations inevitably arise when the examination can be shown to be conducted in bad faith or in such a manner as to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the person subject to the inquiry. Further limitations come into existence when the inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches upon the recognized domains of privilege.cralaw
The Rules of Court expressly makes discovery by deposition subject to the regulation of the trial court pursuant to Section 16 ("Orders for the protection of parties and deponents") or Section 18 ("Motion to terminate or limit examination") of Rule 23. Only upon notice and for good cause shown may the court order that the deposition shall not be taken.[21] Good cause means a substantial reason — one that affords a legal excuse. Whether or -not substantial reasons exist is for the court to determine in the exercise of judicial discretion, for there is no hard and fast rule for determining the question as to what is meant by the term "for good cause shown.cralaw "
A deposition may be taken at any time after the institution of an action, whenever necessary or convenient,[22] and leave of court for the taking of a deposition need not be first obtained once an answer has been served,[23] like here. The only reason why leave of court is necessary before an answer has been served is that prior to the service of the answer, the issues are not yet joined and the disputed facts are not clear.[24] At that point in the proceedings, discovery by deposition may prove to be oppressive and open-ended unless the trial court intervenes, considering that the non-joinder of issues may possibly lay the field of inquiry wide open and unrestricted. Only upon service of an answer can the requisite of relevancy be fixed to some acceptable degree, thereby containing the potentiality of oppressiveness if the discovery were to be held without leave of court.cralaw
Truly, dispensing with the requirement for leave of court because an answer has been served does not entirely deprive the trial court of the discretion to allow or disallow discovery. In fact, the trial court never loses its regulatory control of the procedure of discovery by deposition as a means of protecting a party or the person to be examined from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. As pointed out, every taking of a deposition, whether with or without leave of court, remains subject to the safeguarding provisions of Section 16 or Section 18 of Rule 23. Of singular relevance in this resolution is Section 16, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, which undoubtedly places the proposed taking of the deposition within the power of the trial court to disallow or to prevent for a good cause shown, viz:
Section 16. Orders for the protection of parties and deponents. — After notice is served for taking a deposition by oral examination, upon motion seasonably made by any party or by the person to be examined and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may make an order that the deposition shall not be taken, or that it may be taken only at some designated place other than that stated in the notice, or that it may be taken only on written interrogatories, or that certain matters shall not be inquired into, or that the scope of the examination shall be held with no one present except the parties to the action and their officers or counsel, or that after being sealed the deposition shall be opened only by order of the court, or that secret processes, developments, or research need not be disclosed, or that the parties shall simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court; or the court may make any other order which justice requires to protect the party or witness from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.cralaw (16a, R24) [emphasis supplied]
In light of the foregoing, respondent RTC Judge's denial of the petitioner's motion for the taking of Lacson's deposition upon oral examination on November 29, 2002 and December 2, 2002 and for the issuance of the subpoena ad testificandum to compel the latter's attendance on said dates was far from arbitrary, whimsical or capricious. Respondent RTC Judge observed that the petitioner did not advance any "special, unusual, exceptional circumstances warranting the necessity of taking the deposition of plaintiff," and did not even allege that Lacson was "old, sick or infirm as to necessitate the taking of his deposition;" and pointed out that Lacson signified his willingness to testify on the specified trial dates.cralaw [25]
The assailed act of respondent RTC Judge did not constitute an abuse of discretion, least of all grave, considering that he did not thereby disallow the notice to take the deposition without sufficient reasons or grounds. For certiorari to lie, the petitioner must allege and show that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction, and that there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of amending or nullifying the proceeding.[26] Worthy of reiteration is that grave abuse of discretion as a ground for a petition for certiorari must either be demonstrated by the petitioner or be manifest from the act or order being assailed. Grave abuse of discretion, because it refers to or connotes the arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, or despotic exercise of judicial power, or the exercise of such power by reason of passion or personal hostility,[27] cannot be presumed.cralaw
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition for certiorari; and UPHOLD the assailed orders dated November 15, 2002 issued in Civil Case No. LP-01-0224 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 197, in Las Piñas City. The petitioner shall pay the costs of suit.cralaw
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 20.[2] Id., p. 21
[3] Id., pp. 22-48.
[4] Id., pp. 49-62.
[5] Id., pp. 69-70.
[6] Original Records, pp. 242-244.
[7] Id, p. 245-247.
[8] Rollo, pp. 63-68.
[9] Supra, Note 1.
[10] Supra, Note 2 (the order is contained in the TSN of November 15,2002, p. 20).
[11] See Mangahas v. Paredes, G.R. No. 157866, February 14, 2007, 535 SCRA 709; Rubenito v. Lagata, G.R. No. 140959, December 21, 2004, 447 SCRA 417, 423; Manalo v. Gloria, G.R. No.106692, September 1, 1994, 236 SCRA 130, 138; Philnabank Employees Association v, Estanislao, G.R. No. 104209, November 16, 1993, 227 SCRA 804, 811; Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 9928-90, January 27, 1993, 217 SCRA 633.
In Guazon v. De Villa, G.R. No. 80508, January 30, 3990, 181 SCRA 623, 638, Justice Hugo Gutierrez, Jr. emphasized the need to first seek reliefs from the appropriate executive departments or offices or from the trial courts thusly: "Well meaning-citizens with only second hand knowledge of the events cannot keep on indiscriminately tossing problems of the executive, the military, and the police to the Supreme Court as if we are the repository of all remedies for all evils. The rules of constitutional litigation have been evolved for an orderly procedure in the vindication of rights. They should be followed.cralaw "
[12] A.M. No. 07-7-I2-SC, effective December 27, 2007, has amended the second and third paragraphs of Section 4 to now read:
xxx
If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the court's appellate jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.cralaw
[13] G.R. No. 67787, April 18, 1989, 172 SCRA 415, 423-424.
[14] Rollo, pp. 12-13.
[15] Webb v. People, G.R. No. 132577, August 17, 1999, 312 SCRA 573, 585; citing Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition [1990], p. 440.
[16] Pajarillaga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163515, October 31, 2008, 570 SCRA 347, 352, citi Dulay v. Dulay, G.R. No. 58857, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 674, 681.
[17] Id., p. 353; citing Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation v. Ley Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 147143, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 286, 301.
[18] Section 2. Scope of examination. — Unless otherwise ordered by the court as provided by section 16 or 18 of this Rule, the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject of the pending action, whether relating to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.cralaw (2, R24)
[19] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 112710, May 30, 2001, 358 SCRA 284, 298.
[20] Supra.
[21] Sec. 16, Rule 23, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Fortune Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108119, January 19, 1994,229 SCRA 355, 371.
[22] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra, Note 19.
[23] Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court states:
Section 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken. — By leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is the subject of the action, or without such leave after an answer has been-served, the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of any party, by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories. The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of a subpoena as provided in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken only in accordance with these Rules. The deposition of a person confined in prison may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes.cralaw (1a; R24)
[24] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra, Note 19.
[25] Supra, Note 1.
[26] Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court.
[27] Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 154239-41, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 533; People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144332, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 610; Microsoft Corporation v. Best Deal Computer Center Corporation, G.R. No. 148029, September 24, 2002, 389 SCRA 6S5, 619-620.cralaw
