9/25/14, 3:56 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

Page 1 of 6 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/40906
G.R. No. 133154
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. NO. 133154, December 09, 2005 ]
JOWEL SALES, PETITIONER, VS. CYRIL A. SABINO, RESPONDENT
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Assailed and sought to be set aside in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court are the following issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. SP No. 44078, to wit:
1. Decision
[1]
dated January 20, 1998, affirming an earlier order of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 152, National Capital Judicial Region,
which admitted the deposition of one Buaneres Corral as part of
respondent's evidence in an action for damages; and
2. Resolution
[2]
dated March 22, 1998, denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration.
Briefly, the facts may be stated as follows:
On February 20, 1995, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Pasig City, Metro Manila,
herein respondent Cyril A. Sabino filed an amended complaint
[3]
for damages against,
among others, herein petitioner Jowel Sales, driver of the vehicle involved in the
accident which ultimately caused the death of respondent's son, Elbert.
Before any responsive pleading could be filed, respondent, as plaintiff a quo, notified
the defendants that he will take the deposition of one Buaneres Corral before the Clerk
of Court, RTC- Pasig City.
On December 27, 1995 and resumed on January 3, 1996, the deposition on oral
examination of Buaneres Corral was taken before the Clerk of Court of Pasig, in the
presence and with the active participation of petitioner's counsel, Atty. Roldan
Villacorta, who even lengthily cross-examined the deponent. In the course of trial,
respondent had the deposition of Buaneres Corral marked as her Exhibits "DD"
[4]
and
"EE"
[5]
, with submarkings.
9/25/14, 3:56 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Page 2 of 6 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/40906
Upon conclusion of her evidentiary presentation, respondent made a Formal Offer of
Exhibits,
[6]
among which are Exhibits "DD" and "EE". Likewise offered in evidence as
Exhibit "BB"
[7]
is a certification from the Bureau of Immigration attesting to the May
28, 1996 departure for abroad of Buaneres Corral via Flight No. PR 658.
Petitioner opposed the admission of Exhs. "DD" and "EE" and even asked that they be
expunged from the records on the ground that the jurisdictional requirements for their
admission under Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, infra, were not complied
with. He also downplayed the evidentiary value of Exhibit "BB" for reasons he would
repeat in this petition.
In its order of February 3, 1997,
[8]
the trial court admitted, among other evidence,
respondent's Exhibits "DD", "EE" and "BB". With his motion for reconsideration
[9]
having been denied by the court in its subsequent order of March 25, 1997,
[10]
petitioner went on certiorari to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44078, imputing
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in admitting in evidence the
deposition in question (Exhibits "DD" and "EE").
As stated at the threshold hereof, the appellate court, in the herein assailed decision
dated January 20, 1998,
[11]
upheld the trial court and effectively denied due course to
and dismissed petitioner's recourse, explaining, inter alia, that petitioner's active
participation, through counsel, during the taking of subject deposition and adopting it
as his own exhibits, has thereby estopped him from assailing the admissibility thereof
as part of respondent's evidence. His motion for reconsideration having been denied
by the appellate court in its equally assailed resolution of March 22, 1998, petitioner is
now with us via the instant petition, raising the following issues of his own
formulation:
1. Whether or not the requirements of Section 4, Rule 24 (now Section
3) of the Revised Rules of Court were satisfied by the respondent
when it presented a certification attesting to the fact that deponent
has left the country but silent as to whether or not at the time his
deposition was offered in evidence is in the Philippines
2. Whether or not the petitioner in cross-examining the deponent during
the taking of his deposition waived any and all objections in
connection therewith.
[12]
The petition lacks merit.
Section 4, Rule 23
[13]
of the Rules of Court, upon which petitioner mounts
9/25/14, 3:56 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Page 3 of 6 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/40906
his challenge to the admission in evidence of the subject deposition,
pertinently reads:
SEC. 4. Use of depositions.- At the trial . . . any part or all of a deposition,
so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used against any
party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or
who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any of the following
provisions:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any
party for any purpose if the court finds: (1) that the witness is dead; or
(2) that the witness resides at a distance more than one hundred
(100) kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the
Philippines, unless it appears that his absence was procured by the
party offering the deposition; or (3) that the witness is unable to
attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or
imprisonment; or (4) that the party offering the deposition has
been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena;
or (5) upon application and notice, that such exception
circumstances exist and with due regard to the importance of
presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow
the deposition to be used. (Emphasis supplied).
It is petitioner's posture that none of the above conditions exists in this case to justify
the admission in evidence of respondent's Exhibits "DD" and "EE". Hence, it was error
for the appellate court to have upheld the admission thereof by the trial court.
Discounting the probative value of the certification from the Bureau of Immigration
(Exh. "BB") that deponent Buaneres Corral departed for abroad on May 28, 1996,
petitioner argues that said certification merely proves the fact of Corral having left the
country on the date therein mentioned. It does not, however, establish that he has not
returned since then and is unavailable to be present in court to personally testify.
While depositions may be used as evidence in court proceedings, they are generally not
meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness.
Stated a bit differently, a deposition is not to be used when the deponent is at hand.
[14]
Indeed, any deposition offered during a trial to prove the facts therein set out, in
lieu of the actual oral testimony of the deponent in open court, may be opposed and
excluded on the ground of hearsay. However, depositions may be used without the
deponent being called to the witness stand by the proponent, provided the existence of
certain conditions is first satisfactorily established. Five (5) exceptions for the
9/25/14, 3:56 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Page 4 of 6 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/40906
admissibility of a deposition are listed in Section 4, Rule 23, supra, of the Rules of
Court. Among these is when the witness is out of the Philippines.
The trial court had determined that deponent Bueneres Corral was abroad when the
offer of his deposition was made. This factual finding of absence or unavailability of
witness to testify deserves respect, having been adequately substantiated. As it were,
the certification by the Bureau of Immigration Exh. "BB"- provides that evidentiary
support. Accordingly, the attribution of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial
court must be struck down. It has been said to be customary for courts to accept
statements of parties as to the unavailability of a witness as a predicate to the use of
depositions.
[15]
Had deponent Buaneres Corral indeed returned to the Philippines
subsequent to his departure via Flight No. PR 658, petitioner could have presented
evidence to show that such was the case. As it is, however, the petitioner does not
even assert the return as a fact, only offering it as a possibility since no contrary proof
had been adduced.
Given the foregoing perspective, the second issue of whether or not petitioner is
estopped from objecting to the use of Corral's deposition as part of respondent's
evidence is really no longer determinative of the outcome of this case, and need not
detain us long. Suffice it to state that, as a rule, the inadmissibility of testimony taken
by deposition is anchored on the ground that such testimony is hearsay, i.e., the party
against whom it is offered has no opportunity to cross-examine the deponent at the
time his testimony is offered. But as jurisprudence teaches, it matters not that
opportunity for cross-examination was afforded during the taking of the deposition; for
normally, the opportunity for cross-examination must be accorded a party at the time
the testimonial evidence is actually presented against him during the trial or hearing.
[16]
In fine, the act of cross-examining the deponent during the taking of the
deposition cannot, without more, be considered a waiver of the right to object to its
admissibility as evidence in the trial proper. In participating, therefore, in the taking of
the deposition, but objecting to its admissibility in court as evidence, petitioner did not
assume inconsistent positions. He is not, thus, estopped from challenging the
admissibility of the deposition just because he participated in the taking thereof.
Lest it be overlooked, Section 29, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, no less, lends support
to the conclusion just made. In gist, it provides that, while errors and irregularities in
depositions as to notice, qualifications of the officer conducting the deposition, and
manner of taking the deposition are deemed waived if not objected to before or during
the taking of the deposition, objections to the competency of a witness or the
competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony may be made for the first time at
the trial and need not be made at the time of the taking of the deposition, unless they
could be obviated at that point.
[17]
9/25/14, 3:56 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Page 5 of 6 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/40906
While perhaps a bit anti-climactic to state at this point, certiorari will not lie against an
order admitting or rejecting a deposition in evidence, the remedy being an appeal from
the final judgment.
[18]
For this singular reason alone, the appellate court could have
had already dismissed herein petitioner's invocation of its certiorari jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Artemon D. Luna (now ret.), with Associate Justices
Portia Alino-Hormachuelos and Roberto A. Barrios, concurring; Rollo, pp. 20-22.
[2]
Rollo, p.14.
[3]
Ibid, pp. 32-38.
[4]
Id, pp. 44-59; Annex "F", Petition.
[5]
Id., pp. 60-113; Annex "F-1", Petition.
[6]
Id., pp. 115-124; Annex "G", Petition.
[7]
Id., p. 125; Annex "I", Petition.
[8]
Id, p. 126.
[9]
Id., pp. 127-129.
[10]
Id., p. 190.
[11]
Vide Note #1, supra.
[12]
Rollo, p. 11.
9/25/14, 3:56 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Page 6 of 6 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/40906
[13]
Not Rule 24, as erroneously claimed by petitioner.
[14]
23 Am Jur 2d. Depositions and Discovery, Sec. 174.
[15]
23 Am Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery, Sec. 181.
[16]
Dasmarinas Garments, inc. vs. Reyes, 225 SCRA 622 [1993].
[17]
Section 29, Rule 23, The Revised Rules of Court.
[18]
Dearing v. Fredwilson & Co., Inc., 98 SCRA 758 [1980].

Source: Supreme Court E-Library
This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)