G.R. No. 112710 . May 30, 2001.
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan (Second Division) and Lucio Tan, Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos (represented By Imelda R. Marcos, Imee M. Manotoc, Irene M. Araneta and Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.), Imelda R. Marcos, Carmen Khao Tan, Florencio T. Santos, Natividad P. Santos, Domingo Chua, Tan Hui Nee, Mariano Tan Eng Lian, Estate of Benito Tan Kee Hiong (represented by Tarciana C. Tan), Florencio N. Santos, Jr., Harry C. Tan, Tan Eng Chan, Chung Poe Kee, Mariano Khoo, Manuel Khoo, Miguel Khoo, Jaime Khoo, Elizabeth Khoo, Celso C. Ranola, William T. Wong, Ernesto B. Lim, Benjamin T. Albacita, Don Ferry, Willy Co, Federico Moreno, Panfilo O. Domingo, Estate/ Heirs of Gregorio Licaros, Cesar Zalamea, Shareholdings, Inc., Allied Banking Corp., Foremost Farms, Inc., Fortune Tobacco Corp. Maranaw Hotels & Resort Corp., Virginia Tobacco Redrying Plant, Northern Tobacco Redrying Plant, Asia Brewery, Inc., Sipalay Trading Corp., Himmel Industries, Grandspan Development Corp., Basic Holdings Corp., Progressive Farms, Inc., Manufacturing Services and Trade Corp., Allied Leasing & Finance Corporation, Jewel Holdings, Inc., Iris Holdings and Development Corp., Virgo Holdings and Development Corp., Polo Nominees Ltd., Limited Services, Ltd., Red Seal Ltd., Commons Seal Ltd., Splendid Nominees Ltd., Young Tai Ltd., Young Jin Ltd., Co Finance Nominees Ltd., Corporate Finances (D.C.T.) Ltd., Harris Secretaries, Allied Pacific Corp., B & Mckay Nominees Ltd., Zanith Establishment, Arinsi, S.A., Cotton Corp. (B.V.I.) Ltd., Bartondale Ltd., Hongkong, Oceanic Bank, San Francisco, The Sterling Carpet Man Ltd., The Sterling Carpet Sales Ltd., The Sterling Carpet Distributors Ltd., Mercury Drug Stores Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Mercury Energy Resources Ltd., respondents.

FACTS

On July 17, 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the PCGG, filed a complaint for “Reversion, Reconveyance, Restitution, Accounting and Damages” (Civil Case No. 0005) before the Sandiganbayan against 26 individuals, including Lucio C. Tan and Ferdinand E. Marcos. The complaint alleged that the Marcos spouses, in fraud of the Filipino people, accumulated wealth through a systematic plan, including an agreement with Lucio Tan whereby Marcos would own 60% of Shareholdings, Inc., a holding company for Tan’s corporations. It further alleged that Tan paid bribes to Marcos, used other defendants as dummies, unlawfully acquired control of Allied Banking Corporation with the assistance of Central Bank Governor Gregorio Licaros, and caused losses to the DBP through the unlawful sale of the Century Park Sheraton Hotel facilitated by defendants Don Ferry and Harry Tan. The Republic prayed for reconveyance, accounting, and damages. The complaint was later expanded, and a Second Amended Complaint was admitted on April 2, 1992, adding three individuals and forty-two corporations as defendants. In June 1993, the petitioner filed a “Motion for Leave To Take the Deposition of Rolando C. Gapud Upon Oral Examination in the Crown Colony of Hongkong.” Petitioner alleged that Gapud, former financial adviser to the Marcoses, was willing to testify on matters relevant to the case and had executed sworn statements in Hongkong in 1987 detailing the business activities of the Marcoses and identifying Lucio Tan and other associates. Petitioner argued his testimony was indispensable and, due to personal risks, should be taken only by deposition in Hongkong. The Sandiganbayan, in a Resolution dated August 23, 1993, denied the motion, holding that the taking of a deposition is not a matter of right but lies within the court’s sound discretion, and that the petitioner failed to show good cause as required by the rules, as the motion was filed prematurely before the issues were joined and the defendants had filed their answers to the Second Amended Complaint. The Sandiganbayan also noted that the motion did not specify the subjects of inquiry with particularity. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated October 22, 1993.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Take the Deposition of Rolando C. Gapud Upon Oral Examination in Hongkong.

RULING

No, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court ruled that the taking of a deposition pending action is not a matter of right but rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. The petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause as required by Section 1, Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. The motion was filed prematurely, as the issues were not yet joined; the corporate defendants and other newly impleaded defendants had not yet filed their answers to the Second Amended Complaint, and motions for a bill of particulars were still pending. The purpose of a deposition is to perpetuate testimony or obtain evidence for trial, not for discovery before the issues are defined. The Sandiganbayan correctly exercised its discretion in denying the motion, as allowing it would have been contrary to the orderly administration of justice and the rules on deposition. The petition for certiorari was dismissed.