G.R. No. 153667 . August 11, 2005
AYALA LAND, INC., Petitioner, vs. HON. LUCENITO N. TAGLE, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC-Imus, Branch 20, ASB REALTY CORP., and E. M. RAMOS & SONS, INC., Respondents.

FACTS

ASB Realty Corporation (ASB) filed a complaint against Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI) and others for the nullification of a Contract to Sell involving a 372-hectare property in Dasmariñas, Cavite. ASB alleged it had a prior Letter-Agreement with E.M. Ramos and Sons, Inc. (EMRASON) for the property, but the Ramos children subsequently entered into a contract with ALI. During pre-trial, ASB moved to take the deposition of the then 87-year-old Emerito Ramos, Sr., President and Chairman of EMRASON, citing his advanced age. The trial court granted the motion, and his deposition was taken over several dates in 1994 and early 1995.
ALI filed a “Motion to Resolve Objections” challenging the deposition’s propriety and admissibility on various grounds, including leading questions and violations of the best-evidence rule. The trial court ruled on the objections, sustained some, overruled others, and upheld the deposition’s propriety, ordering the cross-examination to proceed. ALI’s subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied. ALI then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the deposition proceedings. The CA dismissed ALI’s petition. Emerito Ramos, Sr. later passed away in 1999, prompting ASB to move for the formal admission of his deposition as evidence, which the trial court granted.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting in evidence the deposition testimony of Emerito Ramos, Sr.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the proper application of the rules on depositions. Under Rule 23, Section 4(c) of the Rules of Court, a deposition may be used if the witness is unavailable due to age, sickness, or infirmity. At the time the deposition was taken, Ramos, Sr. was 87 years old, making the pre-trial deposition procedurally sound to preserve his testimony. His subsequent death confirmed this unavailability, satisfying the condition for the deposition’s use at trial.
The Court further held that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in ruling on ALI’s objections during the deposition process. Objections to the form of questions or the manner of presenting evidence are properly resolved by the trial court during the deposition or at trial, and do not render the entire proceeding void. The deponent testified based on personal knowledge as the corporation’s president who conducted the negotiations, which is admissible. A writ of certiorari only lies for a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The trial court’s orders were within its adjudicatory authority to control the proceedings and ensure evidence preservation, not a denial of due process. Therefore, the deposition was correctly admitted as evidence after the witness’s death.