Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. vs. Reyes

A deposition of a witness located in a foreign country may be taken by commission addressed to a person or officer designated therein, pursuant to Section 11(b) of Rule 24 of the Rules of Court, and its subsequent use at trial is admissible if the witness is "out of the Philippines" under Section 4(c)(2) of the same Rule.

American President Lines, Ltd. (APL) filed a collection case against Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. (Dasmariñas) in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. During trial, APL sought to present the testimony of two witnesses residing in Taipei, Taiwan. Because the Philippines has no consular office in Taiwan due to its "one-China policy," APL moved for the issuance of a commission or letters rogatory to the Asian Exchange Center, Inc. (AECI) and its Director, Joaquin R. Roces, to take the witnesses' depositions upon written interrogatories.

• Nature of the Action: APL sued Dasmariñas for a sum of money. Dasmariñas denied liability and filed counterclaims.
• The Deposition Request: During trial, APL moved to take depositions of two witnesses (Kenneth H. Lee and Yeong Fah Yeh) in Taipei, Taiwan, before the AECI and its Director, as the Philippines has no consulate there.
• Trial Court's Ruling: The RTC granted the motion, commissioning AECI to take the depositions upon written interrogatories, to be coursed through the Department of Foreign Affairs per Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 4.
• Petitioner's Objections: Dasmariñas opposed, arguing AECI was unauthorized, deposition-taking was a pre-trial device, and the procedure was unfair and infringed on Philippine judicial sovereignty due to Taiwan's unrecognized status.

• Unauthorized Entity: Petitioner argued that AECI is a private entity not authorized by the Rules of Court to take depositions in a foreign state.
• Timing of Deposition: Petitioner maintained that deposition-taking is a mode of pre-trial discovery and should not be availed of during trial.
• Unfair Procedure & Sovereignty: Petitioner contended that allowing a foreign plaintiff to present evidence via deposition while the defendant must present witnesses in open court is inherently unfair. It also argued that commissioning deposition-taking in Taiwan, a jurisdiction not recognized by the Philippines, infringes on judicial sovereignty.

• Compliance with Rules: Respondent APL countered that its motion complied with the Rules of Court, specifically the provisions on commissions for taking depositions in foreign countries.
• Necessity and Convenience: Respondent argued that the commission was necessary and convenient because the witnesses were in Taiwan, where the Philippines has no consular office.
• Opportunity to Cross-Examine: Respondent maintained that the use of written interrogatories would afford petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine via cross-interrogatories.

• Authority of the Commissionee: Whether the Asian Exchange Center, Inc. (AECI) is a proper entity to be commissioned to take depositions in a foreign country under the Rules of Court.
• Timing of Deposition-Taking: Whether depositions may be taken after the trial has commenced, or are restricted to the pre-trial stage.
• Admissibility and Fairness: Whether the use of a deposition taken abroad by commission, in lieu of oral testimony in open court, is admissible and does not violate the right to cross-examination or constitute an unfair procedural advantage.

• Authority of the Commissionee: The commission to AECI was proper. Under Section 11(b), Rule 24 of the Rules of Court, depositions in a foreign state may be taken "before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission." The AECI, acting by authority of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs pursuant to a court-issued commission, qualifies as such a person or officer.
• Timing of Deposition-Taking: Depositions are not confined to pre-trial. The Rules authorize their taking at any time after an action is instituted, whenever necessary or convenient. There is no prohibition against taking depositions after trial has begun.
• Admissibility and Fairness: The deposition is admissible. The witnesses were "out of the Philippines," a specific exception under Section 4(c)(2), Rule 24 allowing use of a deposition at trial. The procedure, conducted under the Rules and with the adverse party's right to serve cross-interrogatories, does not violate due process or create unfairness. The trial court's discretion to order depositions upon written interrogatories to ensure cross-examination opportunity was noted, albeit with a clarification that oral examination abroad would also permit cross-examination.

• Use of Depositions at Trial (Section 4, Rule 24) — A deposition may be used for any purpose if the witness is, inter alia, "out of the Philippines." This exception to the general rule requiring oral testimony in open court was directly applied.
• Depositions in Foreign Countries (Section 11, Rule 24) — When a witness is in a foreign country, their deposition may be taken "before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters rogatory." The Court clarified that a commission is the proper initial remedy, with letters rogatory typically available if a commission is returned unexecuted.
• Nature and Purpose of Depositions — Depositions are primarily a mode of discovery but are not exclusively pre-trial tools. They may be taken at any stage of an action, including during trial, to perpetuate testimony or for use under the exceptions in Rule 24.

• "What matters is that the deposition is taken before a Philippine official acting by authority of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and in virtue of a commission duly issued by the Philippine Court in which the action is pending, and in accordance, moreover, with the provisions of the Philippine Rules of Court pursuant to which opportunity for cross-examination of the deponent will be fully accorded to the adverse party."
• "Depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of any action, whenever necessary or convenient. There is no rule that limits deposition-taking only to the period of pre-trial or before it; no prohibition against the taking of depositions after pre-trial."

• East Asiatic Co. v. C.I.R., 40 SCRA 521 (1971) — Cited for the principle that depositions may be taken even during the execution stage of a case, supporting the view that deposition-taking is not limited to pre-trial.
• Lopez v. Maceren, 95 Phil. 754 (1954) — Impliedly referenced for the principle that the admissibility of a deposition at trial requires satisfactory proof of the existence of one of the statutory exceptions (e.g., witness out of the Philippines).

• Section 4, Rule 24, Rules of Court — Governs the use of depositions at trial, particularly subsection (c)(2) allowing use when the witness is "out of the Philippines."
• Section 11, Rule 24, Rules of Court — Provides for the taking of depositions in foreign countries before Philippine consular officials or a person appointed by commission.
• Section 12, Rule 24, Rules of Court — Governs the issuance of commissions or letters rogatory, stating they shall be issued when necessary or convenient.
• Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 4, April 6, 1987 — Directs lower courts to course requests for depositions abroad through the Department of Foreign Affairs.

• Justice Teodoro R. Padilla
• Justice Florenz D. Regalado
• Justice Ricardo J. Puno
• Justice Jose C. Nocon

N/A — The decision was unanimous.