![]() ![]() ![]() Said sections imply that the right of a party to take depositions as means of discovery is not absolute. This is provided for in Sections 16 and 18, It cannot be gainsaid that the respondent court has jurisdiction to direct, in its discretion, that a deposition shall not be taken, if there are valid reasons for so ruling. However, in a resolution dated May 20, 1992, this Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration and adjudication on the merits.Īs earlier stated, respondent Court of Appeals promulgated a decision on September 23, 1992, dismissing the petition and holding that: Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed an original action for certiorari before the Supreme Court which was docketed as G.R. To allow the deposition will deprive the Court of the opportunity to ask clarificatory questions, if any, on the proposed deponent who appears to be a vital witness. Teope set on April 7, 1992, appears unwarranted since the proposed deponent had earlier responded to the written interrogatories of the plaintiff and has signified his availability to testify in court. , the Court opines that the deposition of Juanito A. ![]() The trial court thereafter issued on Apan order 4 that the requested deposition shall not be taken for the following reasons: (e) the intended deponent is available to testify in open court if required during the trial on the merits. Teope has no intention of leaving the country and Private respondent filed an Urgent Motion Not To Take Deposition/Vehement Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination, 3 dated March 27, 1992, alleging inter alia that : (a) herein petitioner has previously availed of one mode of discovery, that is, the written interrogatories which practically covered all the claims, counterclaims and defenses in the case (b) there is absolutely no sound reason or justification advanced for the taking of the oral deposition (c) such taking would cause annoyance, embarrassment and oppression upon the prospective deponent, Juanito A. Teope, in accordance with Section 15, Rule 24. On March 26, 1992, however, petitioner served upon private respondent a Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination 2 dated March 26, 1992, notifying the latter that on April 7, 1992, at San Pablo City, herein petitioner would take the deposition of said Juanito A. The pre-trial conference was thereafter scheduled for January 9, February 12 and April 22, 1992. The interrogatories were answered by respondent corporation through its board chairman, Juanito A. After respondent corporation had filed its Answer, petitioner served the former with written interrogatories pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of Court. SP-3469, before the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch 30. Teope, Chairman of the Board of Directors of herein private respondent Inter-Merchants Corporation.Īn action for breach of contract was filed by petitioner Fortune Corporation against respondent Inter-Merchants Corporation, docketed as Civil Case No. This petition impugns and seeks the review on certiorari of the decision 1 of respondent Court of Appeals, dated September 23, 1992, which affirmed the order of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City disallowing the taking of the oral deposition of Juanito S. COURT OF APPEALS AND INTER-MERCHANTS CORPORATION, respondents.Įstella and Virtudazo Law Firm for private respondent.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |