Martires vs. Heirs of Somera

Errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are deemed waived under Section 29(a), Rule 23 of the Rules of Court unless written objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice; moreover, the admission or rejection of depositions in the course of discovery procedure constitutes an error of law correctable by appeal, not by certiorari.

Avelina S. Somera instituted a complaint for accion reivindicatoria and accion publiciana against Roberto C. Martires before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, alleging unlawful transfer of her land located at 71 Narra Street, Project 3, Quezon City. As Avelina and her witnesses resided in the United States, she sought to take their depositions before the Philippine Consulate in New York City to preserve their testimony for use in the pending civil case.

• Avelina S. Somera alleged ownership of a parcel of land located at 71 Narra Street, Project 3, Quezon City, which she claimed was unlawfully transferred in the name of petitioner Roberto C. Martires.
• As Avelina and her witnesses Fracel Solar and Bertha Coliflores resided in the United States, she filed a Motion to Conduct Deposition Upon Oral Examination before the RTC, praying that the court issue an order directing the Department of Foreign Affairs to assist in taking her deposition and those of her witnesses in July 2007 at the Philippine Consular Office in New York City.
• The RTC granted the motion on July 5, 2007.
• On September 24, 2007, Avelina filed a Manifestation informing the RTC that the deposition-taking would take place on September 27 and 28, 2007.
• The depositions were actually taken on September 27 and 28, 2007 before the Vice-Consul of the Philippine Consulate in New York City.
• Petitioner received the September 24, 2007 Manifestation only on October 3, 2007, after the depositions had already been conducted.
• During the September 3, 2007 hearing on petitioner's motion regarding the deposition, Avelina's counsel manifested that the deposition would be taken on September 27, 2007, and petitioner's counsel acknowledged that petitioner was in the United States at that time and intended to attend the deposition.
• On February 3, 2011, Avelina filed a Motion for Marking Additional Documentary Evidence as the transcripts of the depositions had arrived. Petitioner opposed this motion on the ground that he was notified of the deposition-taking only after it had already taken place.
• The RTC granted the motion on June 6, 2011, and subsequently admitted the depositions as Exhibits "Q," "R," and "S" on October 19, 2011, ruling that there was substantial compliance with the notice requirement.
• Avelina Somera died on May 12, 2011, and was substituted by her heirs (respondents).

• Reasonable notice in writing of the date and time of the taking of deposition is a condition sine qua non for its admissibility under Section 15, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court.
• Petitioner received the Manifestation stating the deposition dates (September 27-28, 2007) only on October 3, 2007, after the depositions had already been taken, constituting a lack of reasonable prior notice.
• Due process requires definite written notice of the date and time of deposition.
• The deposition was not used for discovery purposes but merely to accommodate the convenience of the complainant and her witnesses.
• The appropriate time to object to the transcripts was in 2011 when they were sought to be introduced in evidence, as there was no proof then that depositions were actually conducted.
• Petitioner could not be expected to object to depositions which may or may not have been conducted in the first place.

• Petitioner's right to question the alleged improper notice has prescribed as more than three years elapsed since he received the notice on October 3, 2007.
• In their December 4, 2007 Manifestation, respondents expressly stated that the deposition had already taken place, and petitioner never commented, opposed, or objected.
• During hearings after the presentation of their witness, respondents' counsel repeatedly manifested that submission of formal offer of documentary evidence was being deferred while awaiting transmittal of transcripts by the DFA, and petitioner never objected.
• During the September 3, 2007 hearing, respondents' counsel already manifested that the taking of depositions would take place on September 27, 2007, and petitioner's only concern was that the deponents be photographed and fingerprinted.
• The date, time, and place of the taking of depositions were never put in issue by petitioner during the September 3, 2007 hearing.
• The deposition-taking in New York was not to accommodate respondents' convenience as petitioner himself was residing in New York.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the trial court's admission of deposition transcripts; whether petitioner's objections to the notice for taking depositions were waived due to delay.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the admission of the deposition transcripts violated Section 15, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court for lack of reasonable prior written notice of the date and time of the deposition-taking.

• Procedural: The Court held that certiorari is not the proper remedy to question the admission in evidence of depositions. The admission or rejection of interrogatories in the course of discovery procedure constitutes an error of law, not an abuse of discretion, because the procedure for taking depositions is outlined in the rules leaving no discretion to the court to adopt any other procedure not substantially equivalent thereto. Consequently, appeal, and not certiorari, is the proper remedy for the correction of any error as to the admission of depositions into evidence. Furthermore, under Section 29(a), Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, all errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice. Petitioner received the notice on October 3, 2007, but filed his opposition only on March 3, 2011, constituting an unreasonable delay of more than three years that effectively waived his objections.
• Substantive: The Court ruled that the trial court did not commit any error in allowing the taking of depositions and admitting them in evidence. The depositions were admissible under Section 4(c)(2), Rule 23 of the Rules of Court because the witnesses resided outside the Philippines. Regarding the notice requirement, the Court found that petitioner was sufficiently informed of the deposition schedule through the September 24, 2007 Manifestation and the manifestation made during the September 3, 2007 hearing where petitioner's counsel acknowledged the date and even stated that petitioner intended to attend. The purpose of notice is merely to inform the other party about the intended proceedings, and petitioner was not caught off guard as he was aware of the proceedings and was himself in the United States at the time.

• Depositions as Mode of Discovery — Depositions are chiefly a mode of discovery intended to compel disclosure of facts resting in the knowledge of a party or other person relevant to a suit, enabling parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of issues and facts before trial. They are not generally meant to be a substitute for actual testimony in open court unless they fall under the exceptions in Section 4, Rule 23.
• Waiver of Errors in Notice — Under Section 29(a), Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, all errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice. Delay in objecting for more than three years constitutes unreasonable delay that precludes a party from questioning the notice.
• Liberal Construction of Discovery Rules — Deposition discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment and should not be unduly restricted 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, to ascertain the truth and expedite the disposal of litigation.
• Admissibility vs. Weight of Evidence — The admissibility of evidence should not be equated with its weight. Relevance and competence determine admissibility, while weight pertains to the evidence's tendency to convince and persuade after admission. The admissibility of a deposition does not preclude the determination of its probative value at the appropriate time, and any party may rebut evidence contained in a deposition at trial.
• Rules as Tools of Justice — Rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice rather than frustrate it. Strict and rigid application of rules must be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of enhancing fair trials and expediting justice, and substantive rights must prevail over technicalities.

• "Depositions are chiefly a mode of discovery. They are intended as a means to compel disclosure of facts resting in the knowledge of a party or other person which are relevant in some suit or proceeding in court."
• "All errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice."
• "The rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice, rather than frustrate it. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair trials and expedite justice."
• "Substantive rights of the other party must prevail over technicalities."

• Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. v. Judge Reyes — Cited for the principle that depositions are chiefly a mode of discovery and are not generally meant to be a substitute for actual testimony in open court, and that the opportunity for cross-examination must normally be accorded at the time testimonial evidence is actually presented during trial.
• Republic v. Sandiganbayan — Cited for the rule that deposition discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment to ascertain the truth and expedite the disposal of litigation.
• Cathay Pacific Airways v. Spouses Fuentebella — Cited for the etymological definition of notice as "information or announcement" derived from the Latin notitia (knowledge), notus (known), and noscere (to know).
• W.W. Dearing v. Fred Wilson & Co., Inc. — Cited for the principle that the admission or rejection of interrogatories in the course of discovery procedure is an error of law, not an abuse of discretion, because the procedure is outlined in the rules leaving no discretion to the court to adopt other procedures.
• Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Ley Construction and Development Corp. — Cited for the principle that discovery rules should not be unduly restricted if matters inquired into are relevant and not privileged, and inquiry is made in good faith.
• Ginete v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that rules of procedure are tools to facilitate justice, and strict application must be eschewed when it subverts the primary objective of fair trials and expediting justice.
• Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. v. Angara — Cited for the principle that substantive rights must prevail over technicalities.
• Ayala Land Inc. v. Judge Tagle — Cited for the distinction between admissibility and weight of evidence.

• Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court — Provides that testimony of any person may be taken by deposition upon oral examination at the instance of any party to enable parties to obtain fullest possible knowledge of issues and facts before trial.
• Section 4(c)(2), Rule 23 of the Rules of Court — Allows depositions to be used without the deponent being called to the witness stand if the witness resides at a distance of more than 100 kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless absence was procured by the party offering the deposition.
• Section 15, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court — Requires reasonable notice in writing of the time and place for taking depositions to every other party.
• Section 29(a), Rule 23 of the Rules of Court — States that all errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice.
• Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court — Provides that examination of witnesses shall be done in open court and under oath, establishing the general rule that depositions are not substitutes for actual testimony.