G.R. No. 240773 , February 05, 2020
ANSELMO D. MALONZO, TERESITA MALONZO-LAO AND NATIVIDAD MALONZO-GASPAR, HEIRS OF THE DECEASED RONALDO T. PALOMO, NAMELY: TERESA VICTORIA R. PALOMO, CARLO MAGNO EUGENIO R. PALOMO, RAPHAEL PAOLO R. PALOMO AND LEO MARCO GREGORIO R. PALOMO, SPOUSES REYNALDO C. ABELARDO AND FLORINA T. PALOMO-ABELARDO, DANILO R. TANTOCO AND MANUEL R. TANTOCO REPRESENTED BY DANILO R. TANTOCO, AND TERESITA E. DEABANICO REPRESENTED BY ANSELMO D. MALONZO, JOSE E. CAYSIP, JHOANA C. LANDAYAN, DAVID R. CAYSIP AND EPHRAIM R. CAYSIP, PETITIONERS, VS. SUCERE FOODS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession and Damages (Civil Case No. 529-M-2014) against respondent Sucere Foods Corporation and the Register of Deeds of Guiguinto, Bulacan. They claimed ownership over various subdivided lots originating from the consolidation and subdivision of Lot Nos. 3069 and 3070, previously owned by spouses Jose P. Cruz and Felicidad Bejar. Petitioners alleged that despite the prior subdivision and sale of portions, including a portion sold to the Provincial Government of Bulacan, emancipation patents and titles were later issued to farmer-beneficiaries Florencio Cruz and Virginia Vda. de Dela Cruz through a petition for reconstitution based on allegedly spurious documents. These lands were subsequently sold and converted, ultimately leading to titles under respondent’s name, which included the portion previously sold to the provincial government.
During the pendency of the case, respondent filed notices to take the deposition upon oral examination of petitioner Anselmo D. Malonzo, Atty. Ramon C. Sampana (Registrar of Deeds), and Undersecretary Jose Z. Grageda (DAR). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially denied the notices for lack of prior leave of court. Upon reconsideration, the RTC acknowledged that under Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, leave is not required after an answer has been served. However, due to the filing of an Amended Complaint, the RTC deferred its ruling. After respondent filed another notice, the RTC denied it, ruling that the scope and reasons for the depositions were unclear, that it could be a fishing expedition, and that Sections 3 and 17 of Rule 23 would be best complied with if the deposition were taken before the court itself during trial.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, setting aside the RTC’s order and directing the RTC to allow the depositions. The CA held that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion, as the rules on deposition are clear and mandatory, and the RTC’s reasons for denial were not valid grounds under the Rules. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting respondent’s petition for certiorari and ordering the RTC to allow the taking of depositions upon oral examination of the named individuals.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s Decision and Resolution.
The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying respondent’s notice to take deposition. After service of an answer, a party may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any person by oral examination. The RTC’s grounds for denial were not among the limited grounds for objecting to a deposition under the Rules, such as the deposition being conducted in bad faith, unreasonably annoying, embarrassing, or oppressive, or seeking privileged matters.
The RTC’s concern that the deposition was a “fishing expedition” was misplaced, as the very purpose of discovery procedures, including depositions, is to ascertain facts before trial. Furthermore, the RTC’s opinion that Sections 3 (examination and cross-examination) and 17 (record, oath, objections) of Rule 23 are best complied with if the deposition is taken before the court would render the entire rules on discovery useless. The Rules explicitly allow depositions to be taken before a judge, notary public, or any person authorized to administer oaths if the parties so stipulate. The trial court cannot arrogate this duty exclusively to itself. The rules on deposition are designed to prevent surprises, narrow down issues, and facilitate the speedy disposition of cases.