G.R. No. 152375 , December 16, 2011
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), JOSE L. AFRICA (substituted by his heirs), MANUEL H. NIETO, JR., FERDINAND E. MARCOS (substituted by his heirs), IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., JUAN PONCE ENRILE, and POTENCIANO ILUSORIO (substituted by his heirs), Respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner Republic, through the PCGG, filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 0009) on July 22, 1987, against the respondents for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages. The complaint alleged the respondents illegally manipulated the purchase of Cable and Wireless Limited’s major shareholdings in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), which were held by respondents Jose Africa and Manuel Nieto, Jr. for themselves and beneficially for respondents Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos.
An incidental case, Civil Case No. 0130, was filed by Victor Africa (son of respondent Jose L. Africa, but not a party to Civil Case No. 0009) against the PCGG concerning the voting of sequestered ETPI shares. During proceedings in Civil Case No. 0130 to resolve a PCGG “Urgent Petition” for authority to hold a stockholders’ meeting, the petitioner took the deposition of Maurice V. Bane in London on October 23-24, 1996. The notice stated the deposition was to prove ownership issues for the Urgent Petition and that the petitioner would use it “in evidence… in the main case of Civil Case No. 0009.” Only Victor Africa attended and cross-examined Bane.
Subsequently, during the trial of the main case (Civil Case No. 0009), the petitioner filed several motions to admit the Bane deposition as part of its evidence. The Sandiganbayan denied these motions. It denied the first motion because the deposition was taken in connection with Civil Case No. 0130, not Civil Case No. 0009, and the respondents in the main case were not notified or given opportunity to cross-examine. It denied a second motion for reconsideration. It also denied a third motion (a “Motion to Admit Supplemental Offer of Evidence”), which is the subject of this petition, ruling that the deposition was taken without leave of court after the pre-trial of Civil Case No. 0009 had been concluded, violating procedural rules, and that the respondents were not afforded the right to cross-examine.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s Motion to Admit Supplemental Offer of Evidence (Re: Deposition of Maurice V. Bane) for use in Civil Case No. 0009.

RULING

No, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the motion was based on valid legal grounds and was not a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment. The deposition was taken in connection with Civil Case No. 0130, an incidental case with different parties (the respondents in the main case were not parties to it). For a deposition taken in one case to be used in another, the parties must be the same and afforded the opportunity to cross-examine. Here, the respondents in Civil Case No. 0009 were not notified of the Bane deposition-taking and were thus deprived of their right to cross-examine him. Furthermore, the deposition was taken after the pre-trial in Civil Case No. 0009 had been concluded. Under the governing 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a deposition may be used at trial against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof. Since the respondents did not have notice, the deposition could not be used against them. The Sandiganbayan correctly applied the rules and protected the respondents’ substantive right to due process. Therefore, its resolution was affirmed and the petition was dismissed.