G.R. No. 163515 ; October 31, 2008
ISIDRO T. PAJARILLAGA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THOMAS T. KALANGEG, Respondents.

FACTS

On November 24, 1995, private respondent Thomas T. Kalangeg filed a complaint for a sum of money with damages against petitioner Isidro T. Pajarillaga with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bontoc, Mt. Province. After the parties failed to settle, trial ensued. Private respondent presented his first witness on March 10, 1997. At subsequent hearings on August 8 and September 2, 1997, petitioner and his counsel were absent despite notice. The trial court declared petitioner to have waived his right of cross-examination and allowed private respondent to formally offer his evidence, which was admitted on October 8, 1997. The court then scheduled petitioner’s presentation of evidence for October 28-30, 1997. Petitioner moved to reset the hearing to November 17, which was granted and later reset to December 15, 1997. On December 10, 1997, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Deposition of the Defendant Upon Written Interrogatories, citing that he resides in Manila (over 400 km from Bontoc) and is suffering from an illness prohibiting strenuous activities. Private respondent opposed. On December 15, petitioner and counsel again did not appear. The trial court reset the case to January 12, 1998. In an Order dated January 29, 1998, the trial court denied petitioner’s motion, noting the case had been pending since 1995 with delays often at petitioner’s instance, and granted him one final chance to present evidence on February 18, 1998. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, which affirmed the trial court’s orders. The appellate court found no grave abuse of discretion, noting the motion was filed too late after private respondent had rested his case, the medical certificate only advised avoiding strenuous activity without stating travel was dangerous, and allegations of threats to petitioner’s life were belatedly raised only in the motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the taking of petitioner’s deposition by written interrogatories is proper under the circumstances obtaining in this case.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution. While depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of an action and are not restricted to pre-trial, the trial court may disallow a deposition for valid reasons. In this case, petitioner’s timing was suspect given his several postponements and absences without invoking his claimed grounds earlier. He did not sufficiently show an “exceptional” or “unusual” case to warrant granting leave. Regarding distance, petitioner could have requested a change of venue earlier, as he had attended pre-trial and a prior hearing. Regarding illness, the medical certificate merely advised avoiding strenuous activity and did not state that travel from Manila to Mt. Province would endanger his health. The alleged threats to his life were an afterthought, raised only in his motion for reconsideration. The protracted delay at petitioner’s instance, coupled with belated and unsubstantiated allegations, constituted more than sufficient reasons for the trial court to deny the motion.