Facts:

Cleary, an American citizen with office address in California, filed a Complaint[6] for
specific performance and damages against Miranila Land Development Corporation,
Manuel S. Go, Ingrid Sala Santamaria (Santamaria), Astrid Sala Boza
(Boza), and Kathyrn Go-Perez (Go-Perez) before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu.
The Complaint involved shares of stock of Miranila Land Development Corporation,
for which Cleary paid US$191,250.00.
in accordance with the Stock Purchase and Put Agreement he entered into with
Miranila... may be brought in (a) the courts of the State of California,... District Court
for the Central District of California, or (c) the courts of the country of Corporation's
incorporation
Cleary elected to file the case in Cebu.
he expressed his intent in availing 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 Los Angeles and be used as his direct testimony
Santamaria and Boza opposed... he deprived the court and the parties the...
opportunity to observe his demeanor and directly propound questions on him.
The trial court denied Cleary's Motion for Court Authorization to Take Deposition in
the Order... depositions are not meant to be a substitute for actual testimony in open
court.
must be presented
Cleary elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals granted Cleary's Petition for Certiorari and reversed the trial court's
ruling.
it is immaterial that Cleary is the... plaintiff himself.
Issues:
whether a foreigner plaintiff 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.
whether the limitations for the taking of deposition under Rule 23, Section 16 of the
Rules of Court apply in this case; and... whether the taking of deposition under Rule
23, Section 4(c)(2) of the Rules of Court applies to a non-resident foreigner plaintiff's
direct testimony.
Ruling:
Utmost freedom governs the taking of depositions to allow the widest scope in the
gathering of information by and for all parties in relation to their pending case.
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.
this provision "does not make any distinction or restriction as to who can avail of
deposition."
This Court 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."
These exceptional cases are enumerated in Rule 23, Section 4(c)
(2) that the witness resides at 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;
The difference between the taking of depositions and the use of depositions taken is
apparent in Rule 23, which provides separate sections to govern them.
The utmost freedom is allowed in taking depositions; restrictions are imposed upon
their use.
Rule 23, Section 16 of the Rules of Court is on orders 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
While Section 16 grants the courts power to issue protective orders, this grant
involves discretion on the part of the court,... A mere allegation, without proof, that
the deposition is being taken in bad faith is not a sufficient ground for such an order.
The allegation that the deponent knows nothing about the... matters involved does
not justify prohibiting the taking of a deposition, nor that whatever the witness knows
is protected by the "work product doctrine," nor that privileged information or trade
secrets will be sought in the course of the examination, nor that all the... transactions
were either conducted or confirmed in writing.
The trial court's Order was based on two (2) premises: first, that respondent should
submit himself to our court processes since he elected to seek... judicial relief with
our courts; and second, that respondent is not suffering from any impairment and it is
best that he appear before our courts considering he is the plaintiff himself.
In the Stock Purchase and Put Agreement, petitioners and respondent alike agreed
that respondent had the sole discretion to elect the venue for filing any action with
respect to it.
There is no question that respondent can file the case before our courts.
Respondent did avail himself of the processes and procedures under the Rules of
Court when he filed his Motion.
Moreover, 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.
he only sought a court order when the Department of Foreign Affairs required one so
that the deposition may... be taken before the Philippine Embassy or Consulate.
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.
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."
Petitioners argue that the deposition sought by respondent is not for discovery
purposes as he is the plaintiff himself.
Jurisprudence has discussed how "[u]nder the concept adopted by the new Rules,
the deposition serves the double function of a method of discovery—with use on trial
not necessarily contemplated—and a method of presenting testimony."
Under certain conditions and for certain limited purposes, it may be taken even after
trial has commenced and may be used... without the deponent being actually called
to the witness stand.
"[d]epositions may be taken at any time after the institution of any action, whenever
necessary or convenient.
depositions are 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." Depositions are allowed, provided they are taken in
accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court (that is, with leave of court if the
summons have been served, without leave of court if an answer has been...
submitted); and provided, further, that a circumstance for their admissibility exists.
In sum, Rule 23, Section 1 of the Rules of Court gives utmost freedom in the taking
of depositions.
It would have been even more costly, time-consuming, and disadvantageous to
petitioners had respondent filed the case in the United
States.
Further, it is of no moment that respondent was not suffering from any impairment.
Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) of the Rules of Court, which was invoked by respondent,
governs the use of depositions taken. This allows the use of a deposition taken when
a witness is "out of the
Philippines."
In any case, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court still allows for objections to admissibility
during trial.