GR L 7424; (August, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7424; August 31, 1954
LOURDES CAMUS DE LOPEZ, on her behalf and as guardian ad litem of the minors, SALVADOR C. LOPEZ, JR., and LUIS CARLOS LOPEZ, petitioners, vs. HON. CIRILO G. MACEREN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, MARIA N. VDA. DE LOPEZ, ENRIQUE LOPEZ, SALVADOR LOPEZ, JR., LEOPOLDO LOPEZ, RODOLFO LOPEZ and the guardian ad litem for the minor FLORDELIZ LOPEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lourdes Camus de Lopez, on her behalf and as guardian ad litem of her minor children, is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 1035 of the Court of First Instance of Davao. The case seeks delivery of property from the estate of the deceased Salvador Lopez, Sr., alleging she is his widow, having married him in 1938 without knowledge of his prior subsisting marriage to respondent Maria N. Vda. de Lopez. Two children were born from this union. After the defendants filed their answer in the civil case, petitioner, through counsel, filed a notice to take her deposition and that of a witness in Manila. Upon an urgent motion by the defendants, respondent Judge Cirilo C. Maceren issued an order prohibiting the taking of the deposition. Petitioner then instituted the present case to annul that order.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing an order prohibiting the taking of petitioner’s deposition after an answer had been served in the civil case.
RULING
Yes, the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion. Under Section 1 of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, a party may take depositions without leave of court after an answer has been served. While Section 16 of the same Rule grants the court discretion to order that a deposition shall not be taken to protect a party or witness from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, such discretion must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily. The order was not based on any of the protective grounds enumerated in Section 16. The main reason given—that the court could not observe the deponents’ behavior—is insufficient as it would nullify the right to take depositions altogether. Furthermore, petitioner was permitted to sue as a pauper and could ill afford travel expenses to Davao for trial, so the order effectively deprived her of her right to prove her claim and of due process. The order is annulled and set aside.