G.R. No. L-25884 July 25, 1980
W. W. DEARING, petitioner, vs. FRED WILSON & CO., INC. and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner W.W. Dearing, an American citizen, filed a complaint for monetary claims against his former employer, Fred Wilson & Co., Inc., before the Court of First Instance of Manila. Before trial, Dearing’s counsel gave notice to take his deposition upon written interrogatories in Los Angeles, California, USA, before the Philippine Vice-Consul. The respondent company objected, arguing it was improper for the plaintiff to establish his case solely by deposition. The deposition was taken directly on a typewriter, not stenographically, and was subsequently filed with the trial court.
The respondent filed motions to suppress the deposition, primarily on two grounds: first, that the officer taking the deposition failed to give the required notice of its filing, and second, that the procedure violated the Rules of Court as the testimony was recorded directly on a typewriter instead of stenographically. The trial court overruled these objections and admitted the deposition into evidence. The respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the trial court’s orders and suppressed the deposition. Dearing elevated the case to the Supreme Court via the instant petition.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in suppressing the deposition of petitioner Dearing on the grounds of procedural defects in its taking and filing.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and sustained the trial court’s admission of the deposition. The legal logic centers on substantial compliance with procedural rules and the absence of prejudice. On the first procedural defect, the Court held that while the officer taking the deposition did not give the formal notice of filing, the respondent company received actual notice from the trial court itself. This constitutes a harmless error and substantial compliance, as the adverse party was adequately informed. Precedent establishes that notice from the court fulfills the rule’s purpose.
Regarding the second defect, the Court ruled that taking the deposition directly on a typewriter, rather than stenographically, did not render it inadmissible. The respondent failed to allege any specific error or prejudice resulting from this method. The Court noted the practical advantages of typewritten depositions, as the deponent can immediately review the testimony. Furthermore, the Court found that Dearing did not deliberately procure his absence to avoid testifying in open court. As a dismissed foreign employee with no home in Manila, his departure shortly after filing the complaint was reasonable, especially given the respondent’s year-long delay in filing its answer. The respondent had the opportunity to be represented at the deposition but chose not to. Thus, the procedural objections lacked substantial merit, and the deposition was properly admitted.