G.R. No. 210789. December 03, 2018
ROBERTO C. MARTIRES, PETITIONER, V. HEIRS OF AVELINA SOMERA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Avelina Somera filed a complaint for accion reivindicatoria and accion publiciana against Roberto Martires over a parcel of land in Quezon City. During the proceedings, Avelina, who was abroad, filed a motion to take her deposition and that of her two witnesses in New York, USA, which the trial court granted. Avelina’s counsel filed a Manifestation on September 24, 2007, informing the court that the deposition would be taken on September 27-28, 2007. Martires received this Manifestation only on October 3, 2007, after the deposition had already been conducted. The deposition transcripts were later offered as evidence in 2011.
Martires opposed the admission of the depositions, arguing he was not given reasonable prior written notice of the date and time as required by the Rules of Court. The Regional Trial Court admitted the depositions, finding substantial compliance as the date was mentioned in a prior hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that Martires waived any objection due to unreasonable delay, as he raised the issue only in 2011, more than three years after learning of the deposition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the admission of the depositions despite the alleged lack of reasonable prior written notice to the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The legal logic is twofold. First, on procedural grounds, the Court held that Martires failed to promptly object to the notice of deposition as mandated by Section 29, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, which states that errors in the notice are waived unless a written objection is promptly served. Martires received the Manifestation on October 3, 2007, but filed his opposition only on March 3, 2011—an unreasonable delay of more than three years that constitutes a waiver of his right to object.
Second, on substantive grounds, the Court found that Martires was sufficiently informed of the deposition date. The September 24, 2007 Manifestation, though received late, was a written notice. More importantly, the date was mentioned during a September 3, 2007 hearing, which Martires’s counsel attended. This constituted substantial compliance with the notice requirement. The Court emphasized that the rules on deposition should be liberally construed to serve their purpose of ascertaining the truth and expediting proceedings, not to aid in delay. The deposition was properly admitted as evidence.