SANTAMARIA vs.

CLEARY
G.R. No. 197122. June 15, 2016.

PETITIONER/s: Ingrid Sala Santamaria AND Astrid Sala Boza

FACTS:
 Respondent Thomas Cleary (CLEARY), an American citizen with office address in
California, filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Miranila
Land Development Corporation (MLDC), Manuel S. Hp, Ingrid Santamari
(SANTAMARIA), Astrid Sala Boza (BOZA) and Kathyrn Go-Perez (GO-PEREZ)
before the RTC of Cebu.
 The complaint involved shares of stock of MLDC, for which Cleary paid $191,
250.00.
 Cleary sued in accordance with the Stock Purchase and Put Agreement he entered
into with the mentioned persons.
o The said agreement states that “Any suit, action or proceeding with respect to
the Agreement may be brought in (a) the courts of the State of California, (b)
the United States District Court for the Central District of California, or (c) the
courts of the country of Corporation’s incorporation…” at the sole discretion
of Cleary.
 Santamaria and others filed their respective Answers with Compulsory
Counterclaims.
 Notice of pre-trial was issued by the Court.
 In his pre-trial brief, Cleary stipulated that he would testify “in support of the
allegations of his complaint, either on the witness stand or by oral disposition”.
Moreover, he expressed his intent to avail himself “of the modes of discovery under
the rules.”
 Cleary moved for court authorization to take deposition. He prayed that his deposition
be taken before the Consulate-General of the Philippines in LA and be used as his
direct testimony.
 Santamaria and Boza opposed the Motion and argued that the right to take deposition
is not absolute.
o They claimed that by choosing the Philippine system to file his suit, and yet he
deprived the court and the parties the opportunity to observe his demeanor and
directly propound questions on him.
 Go-Perez filed a separate Opposition based on substantially the same grounds as
Santamaria and Boza in addition that oral deposition in the US would prejudice, vex
and oppress them.
 The trial court denied Cleary’s Motion for Court Authorization to Take Deposition
in the Order.
 o In deciding, it held that, as a rule, a deponent must be presented for oral
examination at trial as required under Rule 132, Section 1 of the Rules of
Court.
o It held that depositions are not meant to be a substitute for actual testimony in
open court.
 The trial court also denied reconsideration.
 On appeal, the CA granted Cleary’s Petition for Certiorari and reversed the trial
court’s ruling.
o It held that Rule 23, Section 1 of the Rules of Court allows the taking of
depositions, and that it is immaterial that Cleary is the plaintiff himself.
 The CA denied reconsideration.

ISSUE/s:
1. Whether the right of a party to take deposition of a witness is not absolute?
2. Whether plaintiff, a foreigner residing abroad, who chose to file a civil suit in the
Philippines is allowed to take deposition abroad for his direct testimony on the ground
that he is “out of the Philippines” pursuant to Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) of the Rules of
Court?
3. Whether the right to take deposition is subject to the restrictions found in Rule 23,
Section 16 of the Rules of Court on orders for the protection of parties and deponents?

HELD:
1. NO. As regards the taking of depositions, Rule 23, Section 1 is clear that the
testimony of any person may be taken by deposition upon oral examination or written
interrogatories at the instance of any party. It is immaterial that the plaintiff was a
non-resident foreign corporation and that all its witnesses were Americans residing in
the US.

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 [Upon ex-parte motion of a party{amended
under 2019 rules}] 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.

2. YES. On the use of depositions taken, Rule 23, Section 4 of the Rules of the Court
provides that “depositions may be used without the deponent being actually called to
the witness stand by the proponent under certain conditions and for certain limited
purposes”. These exceptional cases are enumerated in Rule 23, Section 4 (c) as
follows:
 xxx that the witness resides at distance more than 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; xxx

1. ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT ARE NOT FOUND IN THIS CASE. Rule 23,
Section 16 of the Rules of Court is on order for the protection of parties and
deponents from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. The provision includes a
full range of protective orders, from designating the place of deposition, limiting
those in attendance, to imposing that it be taken through written interrogatories. At the
extreme end of this spectrum would be a court order that completely denies the right
to take deposition. This is what the trial court issued in this case.

 While Section 16 grants the courts power to issue protective orders, this grant
involves discretion on the part of the court, which “must be exercised, not arbitrarily,
capriciously or oppressively, but in a reasonable manner and in consonance with the
spirit of the law, to the end that its purpose may be attained”
 A plain reading of this provision shows that there are two (2) requisites before a court
may issue a protective order:
o (1) there must be notice; and
o (2) the order must be for good cause shown.
 The trial court’s Order of denial was based on two premises:
o (1) that respondent should submit himself to our court processes since he
elected to seek judicial relief with our courts; and
o (2) that respondent is not suffering from any impairment and it is best that he
appear before our courts considering he is the plaintiff himself.
 That neither the presiding judge nor the parties will be able to personally examine and
observe the conduct of a deponent does not justify denial of the right to take
deposition. This objection is common to all depositions. Allowing this reason will
render nugatory the provisions in the Rules of Court that allow the taking of
depositions.
o The parties may also well agree to take depositions by written interrogatories.
 That respondent is “not suffering from any impairment, physical or otherwise” does
not address the ground raised by respondent in his motion. Respondent referred to
Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) of the Rules of Court, in that he was “out of the Philippines”.
This Section does not qualify as to the condition of the deponent who is outside the
Philippines.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DENIED for lack of merit.

DOCTRINE/s:

 As regards the taking of depositions, Rule 23, Section 1 is clear that the testimony of
any person may be taken by deposition upon oral examination or written
interrogatories at the instance of any party. San Luis v. Rojas, explained that this
provision „does not make any distinction or restriction as to who can avail of
deposition.”
 The Supreme Court (SC) has held that „depositions may be used without the deponent
being actually called to the witness stand by the proponent, under certain conditions
and for certain limited purposes.”
3. These exceptional cases are enumerated in Rule 23, Section 4 (c) as follows:
a. that the witness is dead; or
b. that the witness resides at distance more than 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;
c. that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age,
sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or
d. that the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the
attendance of the witness by subpoena; or
e. upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances
exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due
regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses
orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be used.
 Rule 23, Section 1 of the Rules of Court no longer requires leave of court for the
taking of deposition after an answer has been served.
o That neither the presiding judge nor the parties will be able to personally examine
and observe the conduct of a deponent does not justify denial of the right to take
deposition. This objection is common to all depositions. Allowing this reason will
render nugatory the provisions in the Rules of Court that allow the taking of
depositions.
 Rule 23, Section 1 of the Rules of Court gives utmost freedom in the taking of
depositions. Section 16 on protection orders, which include an order that deposition
not be taken, may only be issued after notice and for good cause