FACTS:

American President Lines, Ltd. (APL) filed a case against Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. (Dasmariñas) in the Regional Trial Court of Manila to recover a sum of money. Dasmariñas denied any liability and counterclaimed against APL. APL later filed a motion seeking to take the depositions of two witnesses in Taipei, Taiwan. Dasmariñas opposed the motion. The Trial Court eventually granted APL's motion, stating that the Asian Exchange Center, Inc. can take the deposition using written interrogatories. Dasmariñas filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Dasmariñas then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which issued a restraining order to prevent enforcement of the Trial Court's orders.

Dasmariñas filed a complaint against APL for the damages it suffered due to the loss of its shipment of garments. During the trial, APL asked for permission to take the deposition of its witnesses in Taipei, Taiwan, before a private entity called the AECI. The trial court granted the request despite Dasmariñas' objection. The Court of Appeals denied Dasmariñas' petition and upheld the trial court's decision. Dasmariñas then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied.

Dasmariñas appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the deposition taken was not in accordance with the usual judicial proceedings and that it was unfair for APL to present its evidence through deposition while Dasmariñas was required to present its witnesses in open court.

Dasmariñas claimed that depositions should be taken during pre-trial proceedings and that there was no urgent or compelling reason to deviate from the usual practice of examining witnesses in open court. Dasmariñas also alleged that allowing APL to present evidence through deposition was inherently unfair. Additionally, Dasmariñas argued that taking the deposition in Taipei, Taiwan, before a private entity not authorized by law to take depositions, was improper.

The Supreme Court explained that depositions are primarily for discovery purposes and are not meant to substitute for the actual testimony of a party or witness in open court. The usual requirement is that the deponent be presented for oral examination in open court. However, there are exceptions where depositions may be used without the deponent being called to the witness stand. These exceptions are provided in the Rules of Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not depositions can be used against a party without the deponent being called to testify.

2. Whether or not a commission or letters rogatory is necessary to take a deposition in a foreign country where the Philippines does not have any embassy or consular office.

3. Whether the commission for the taking of depositions is valid and proper

4. Whether the deposition-taking should be allowed in a foreign jurisdiction not recognized by the Philippines

5. Whether the deposition-taking is a mode of pretrial discovery that should only be availed before the action comes to trial

6. Whether the deposition-taking is inherently unfair and violates the right to due process

7. Whether the depositions of the witnesses should be taken through oral examination or written interrogatories.

8. Whether the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time.

RULING:

1. Depositions may be used against a party without the deponent being called to testify under certain conditions and for limited purposes. These exceptional situations are governed by Section 4, Rule 24 of the Rules of Court.

2. If the deposition is to be taken in a foreign country where the Philippines does not have any embassy or consular office, a commission or letters rogatory is necessary.

3. The commission for the taking of depositions is valid and proper. The court has the authority to issue a commission to officers designated by name or descriptive title.

4. The deposition-taking in a foreign jurisdiction not recognized by the Philippines is allowed as long as it is conducted before a Philippine official acting by authority of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and in accordance with the provisions of the Philippine Rules of Court.

5. Depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of the action and are not limited to the period of pretrial. There is no prohibition against the taking of depositions after pre-trial.

6. The deposition-taking may be a departure from the usual judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open court, but it is not rendered illegal or inadmissible. The law permits the use of depositions in certain situations, and the deposition can be used in lieu of the actual appearance and testimony of the deponent in open court.

7. The Court held that the depositions of the witnesses could be taken through either oral examination or written interrogatories. The Trial Court erred in imposing the limitation that the depositions be taken only through written interrogatories. The adverse party still had the right to cross-examine the deponents either by proceeding to Taipei and conducting the cross-examination orally or by serving cross-interrogatories.

8. The Court held that the motion for reconsideration was not filed out of time. The Trial Court's denial of the motion on such grounds was incorrect. The order sought to be reconsidered was an interlocutory order, and there is no provision of law fixing the time within which reconsideration of interlocutory orders should be sought.

PRINCIPLES:

• The opportunity for cross-examination must be accorded a party when testimonial evidence is actually presented against him during the trial or hearing.

• Depositions may be used without the deponent being called to testify under certain conditions and for limited purposes specified in Section 4, Rule 24 of the Rules of Court.

• The admissibility of a deposition when the deponent is dead, out of the Philippines, or otherwise unable to come to court to testify is consistent with the rule found in Section 47, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

• The deposition of any person may be taken wherever they may be, in the Philippines or abroad.

• Leave of court is not necessary where the deposition is to be taken before certain designated officials.

• The court may intervene in the deposition-taking process upon motion and for good cause shown, such as to prevent the deposition-taking or impose conditions.

• A commission or letters rogatory may be issued only when necessary or convenient, on application and notice, and on terms and directions that are just and appropriate.

• A commission can be issued by the court to authorize the taking of depositions and other acts by officers designated by name or descriptive title.

• Letters rogatory may be used to request the examination of witnesses by another court or tribunal.

• Depositions can be taken at any time after the institution of an action and are not limited to the period of pretrial.

• The deposition-taking in a foreign jurisdiction not recognized by the Philippines is allowed as long as it is conducted before a Philippine official with the authority of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs.

• The use of depositions is a valid procedure that falls within the exceptions to the usual judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open court.

• Depositions may be taken through oral examination or written interrogatories, provided that the applicable provisions of the Rules of Court are followed, and the existence of any exceptions for its admissibility is established.

• The adverse party has the right to cross-examine deponents in a deposition through either oral examination or cross-interrogatories.

• There is no fixed time within which a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order should be filed.