G.R. No. L-27263. March 17, 1975.
AURELIO DE LOS REYES and ROGELIO DE LOS REYES, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, WONG CHU KING and LA CAMPANA FABRICA DE TABACOS, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Aurelio and Rogelio de los Reyes filed two civil complaints against respondents Wong Chu King and La Campana Fabrica de Tabacos, Inc. After issues were joined, and before the trial court set a hearing date, petitioners served notice to take the deposition upon oral examination of respondent Wong Chu King pursuant to Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. They caused the issuance of a subpoena for his appearance. Respondents’ counsel requested a postponement via telegram, which petitioners refused. On the scheduled date, Wong Chu King did not appear. Petitioners filed a motion to cite him for contempt and for a default judgment.
Respondents filed an ex-parte urgent motion to be relieved from attending the deposition and requested safeguards for document handling. The trial court, in its Order of August 23, 1966, denied the motions for contempt and default. While acknowledging petitioners’ right to take a deposition, the court directed petitioners to instead submit written interrogatories within ten days. The court stated it would then determine the date for the deposition. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing this directive improperly subjected their right to the court’s leave, but it was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Order directing petitioners to submit written interrogatories before the court would set the date for taking the deposition, after petitioners had properly noticed a deposition upon oral examination.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction or abuse its discretion. The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that the choice between taking a deposition via oral examination or written interrogatories rests exclusively with the party exercising the right. While the right to take depositions exists, it is not absolute or unfettered.
The legal logic is grounded on the court’s inherent power to prevent abuse and harassment in the discovery process. Sections 16 and 18 of Rule 24 of the Rules of Court provide the court with specific authority to issue protective orders, including an order that a deposition be taken only upon written interrogatories. This grants the trial judge a measure of control and discretion over the mode of discovery to ensure it is used as a legitimate aid to litigation and not for oppression. The Court cited precedent (Frank & Company, Inc. vs. Clemente; Jacinto vs. Amparo) affirming that a trial court possesses discretionary power in connection with the taking of depositions to safeguard against potential abuse. Therefore, the directive to submit written interrogatories was a valid exercise of the court’s discretionary control to regulate the discovery process, not an improper imposition of a requirement for leave of court. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s order was sustained.