GR 142541; (December, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142541 . December 15, 2005. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ARNULFO and EVELYN FUENTEBELLA, Respondents.
FACTS
Spouses Fuentebella filed a complaint for damages against Cathay Pacific Airways. The parties agreed to present witnesses via deposition due to their residence in Metro Manila, over 100 kilometers from the trial court in Camarines Sur. The deposition of Congressman Alberto Lopez, a rebuttal witness for the spouses, was initially set for August 19, 1997, but was reset to August 21, 1997, due to a typhoon. On August 20, 1997, at around 4:00 p.m., the law firm representing Cathay Pacific received a facsimile notice of the August 21 deposition schedule. The deposition proceeded as scheduled. Cathay Pacific’s counsel, Atty. Belaro, claimed he only saw the notice at 7:00 p.m. on August 21, after the deposition, though his secretary had received it the previous day.
The trial court admitted the deposition and later deemed the case submitted for decision. Cathay Pacific filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing it was denied its right to cross-examine because the fax transmission did not constitute valid notice under the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.
ISSUE
Whether the service of notice for the taking of a deposition via facsimile transmission is valid and sufficient to bind the party receiving it.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the purpose and reality of notice. The Court defined notice as “information or announcement,” with the core purpose being to inform the other party of the intended proceedings. The sufficiency of the written mode of notice becomes irrelevant when it is established that the counsel and party actually had knowledge of the scheduled hearing.
Here, the parties had previously agreed to reset the deposition to August 21. Crucially, Cathay Pacific admitted through its counsel of record that its law firm received the fax transmission on August 20, 1997, a day before the deposition. The fact that Atty. Belaro personally saw it only after the proceeding due to an internal delay within his office does not invalidate the notice. The negligence of a counsel’s secretary in promptly relaying the notice is imputable to the counsel himself. Therefore, Cathay Pacific was duly notified, and its failure to attend the deposition constituted a waiver of its right to cross-examine. The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the case.