G.R. No. 197122 & G.R. No. 197161, June 15, 2016
Ingrid Sala Santamaria, Astrid Sala Boza, and Kathryn Go-Perez, Petitioners, vs. Thomas Cleary, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Thomas Cleary, an American citizen residing in Los Angeles, filed a civil complaint for specific performance and damages against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu. The complaint arose from a Stock Purchase Agreement which contained a provision allowing Cleary to elect venue in either California or the Philippines; he chose the latter. During pre-trial, Cleary filed a Motion for Court Authorization to Take Deposition, seeking to have his own direct testimony taken via deposition before the Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles, to be used in lieu of live testimony in Cebu. He anchored his motion on Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) of the Rules of Court, which permits depositions of a witness who is “out of the Philippines.”
Petitioners opposed the motion, arguing that Cleary, as the plaintiff who voluntarily invoked Philippine jurisdiction, should testify in open court. They contended that allowing his deposition would deprive the court of observing his demeanor, impose undue burden and expense on them to participate in a foreign deposition, and would be improper as the deposition was not for discovery but for substituting his direct testimony. The RTC denied Cleary’s motion, ruling that depositions are not a substitute for actual testimony in open court, especially for a party not suffering any impairment.

ISSUE

Whether a foreign plaintiff who voluntarily files a suit in the Philippines is allowed to take his own deposition abroad for use as his direct testimony, on the sole ground that he is “out of the Philippines” under the Rules of Court.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied Cleary’s motion and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the privilege to take a deposition under Rule 23 is not absolute and must be balanced against the fundamental right of a party to confront witnesses face-to-face in open court, as enshrined in the Constitution and embodied in Rule 132. While Rule 23 allows depositions for discovery or for use as testimony when a witness is unavailable, the condition of being “out of the Philippines” is not a blanket justification.
The legal logic is clear: a party who deliberately chooses the Philippine forum must submit to its established procedures. By electing to sue in Cebu under the contract’s permissive venue clause, Cleary voluntarily submitted to Philippine jurisdiction and its rules of procedure, which prioritize open-court testimony. Granting his motion based solely on his foreign residence would give him an undue advantage, allowing him to enjoy the benefits of a Philippine suit while avoiding its fundamental obligations. It would also prejudice the defendants by forcing them to litigate abroad for his main testimony, contravening the principles of fairness and the orderly administration of justice. The Court emphasized that the trial court retains discretion to prevent deposition abuse, and here, no compelling reason was shown to depart from the standard of live testimony. The “out of the Philippines” condition presupposes unavailability for trial, not a self-created inconvenience by a plaintiff who selected the forum.