FACTS:

The petitioner, Fortune Corporation, filed a breach of contract claim against respondent, Inter-Merchants Corporation. During the proceedings, petitioner served written interrogatories to respondent, which were answered by respondent's board chairman, Juanito A. Teope. Petitioner also sought to take the oral deposition of Teope, but respondent opposed this, arguing that there was no sound reason for the deposition, and that it would cause annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression to Teope.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals disallowed the taking of the deposition, stating that Teope had already responded to the written interrogatories and was available to testify in court if required. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

The petitioner argues that the examination sought is not intended to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the proposed deponent, and therefore qualifies as "good cause" under Rule 24, Section 16 of the Rules of Court. They question whether a trial court has the discretion to forbid the taking of deposition upon oral examination in the absence of the requisite element of "good cause" as mandated by Section 16 of Rule 24. The court discusses the purpose of the discovery procedure, which is to ascertain all material and relevant facts in order to settle controversies authoritatively, definitely, and finally. The court emphasizes the duty of lawyers and judges to ensure that all facts are presented to the court and that no suppression, obscuration, misrepresentation, or distortion of the facts occurs during litigation.

The deposition-discovery procedure is designed to remedy the inadequacy and cumbersomeness of pre-trial functions in civil litigation. It allows parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial and prevent trials from being carried on in the dark. The scope of inquiry in depositions or interrogatories is as broad as when a person is called as a witness to testify orally at trial. The objective is to discover every bit of information that may be useful in the preparation for trial, such as the identity and location of persons with knowledge, relevant facts, and the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of documents or tangible things. The deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment.

The petitioner argues that the decision dismissing its petition on the ground that appeal and not certiorari is the proper remedy is erroneous. The petitioner asserts that taking a deposition is meant for discovery in preparation for or to be used as evidence upon the trial of an action, and therefore, the deposition should be taken and finished before the trial. They contend that it would be a grave abuse of discretion to require the petitioner to undergo trial before taking the deposition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the dismissal of petitioner's petition on the ground of appeal being the proper remedy is erroneous.

2. Whether the taking of the deposition should be done and completed before trial.

3. Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in ordering that the deposition be not taken in the absence of good cause.

4. Whether the reasons advanced by the trial court can be considered "good cause" under the law.

5. Whether the fact that the petitioner had previously availed of the mode of discovery, which is by written interrogatories, constitutes good cause to bar the examination before trial.

6. Whether a party who has resorted to a particular method of discovery will be barred in subsequently using other discovery devices.

7. Whether the court has the discretion to allow an oral examination even if interrogatories have been submitted.

8. Whether the availability of the proposed deponent to testify in court is a valid ground to prohibit the taking of his deposition.

9. Whether the court can deny the right to take a deposition on the ground that it cannot observe the behavior of the deponent.

10. Whether the allegation of the opposing party that the deposition is intended to annoy, harass, or oppress the proposed deponent is sufficient to justify the denial of the deposition.

RULING:

1. The dismissal of petitioner's petition on the ground of appeal being the proper remedy is erroneous.

2. The taking of the deposition should be done and completed before trial.

3. Yes, certiorari may be availed of to review the questioned order of the trial court based on the circumstances of the case.

4. No, the reasons advanced by the trial court cannot be considered "good cause" within the contemplation of the law.

5. The fact that the petitioner had previously availed of the mode of discovery, which is by written interrogatories, does not constitute good cause to bar the examination before trial. The scope of discovery is to be liberally construed and the methods of discovery provided in the Rules are intended to be cumulative, not mutually exclusive.

6. A party who has resorted to a particular method of discovery will not be barred from subsequently using other discovery devices, as long as the party is not attempting to circumvent a ruling of the court or harass the other party. The examining party is entitled to obtain all the relevant information desired, as long as no substantial prejudice is done to the party from whom discovery is sought.

7. The court has the discretion to permit an oral examination even if interrogatories have been submitted, as long as it is clearly established that the relevant subject matter will not involve questioning the witness on matters already covered by the interrogatories.

8. The availability of the proposed deponent to testify in court does not constitute "good cause" to justify the court's order to prohibit the taking of his deposition. The right to take statements and the right to use them in court are separate, and while restrictions may be imposed on the use of depositions, the taking of depositions should be allowed to have maximum opportunity for knowledge of all the facts before trial.

9. The court cannot deny the right to take a deposition based solely on the reason that it cannot observe the behavior of the deponent. There are no limitations placed on the taking of depositions other than relevancy and privilege, and the use of oral testimony should be encouraged whenever practicable.

10. The allegation that the deposition is intended to annoy, harass, or oppress the proposed deponent is not sufficient to justify the denial of the deposition. Inconvenience to the party whose deposition is to be taken is not a valid objection, and a mere inconvenience does not qualify as being annoyed, embarrassed, or oppressed.

PRINCIPLES:

• The purpose of Rule 24 of the Rules of Court is to authorize the taking of a deposition in a pending action, either for discovery or to be used as evidence upon the trial of such action.

• The writ of certiorari lies if the following requisites concur: (a) directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions; (b) such tribunal, board or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and (c) no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is available.

• Section 16 of Rule 24 grants the court the power to order that the deposition shall not be taken, and this grant of discretion must be exercised reasonably and in consonance with the spirit of the law.

• The objective of Section 16 of Rule 24 is to provide safeguards for the protection of the parties and deponents due to the unrestricted right to discovery.

• The court may order that the deposition shall not be taken if the purpose is to annoy or waste the time of the other parties, if the deponent lacks sufficient means to reach the designated place of deposition, or if the matters to be inquired into are oppressive, embarrassing, or absolutely private to the deponent.

• The court may order that certain matters shall not be inquired into or that the scope of the examination shall be limited, in order to protect the adverse party or the deponent.

• Certiorari generally does not lie to review a discretionary action of any tribunal, but may be availed of when the lower court or tribunal has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, where an interlocutory order does not conform to essential requirements of law and may reasonably cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy of appeal will be inadequate, or where there is a clear or serious abuse of discretion.

• Limitations to discovery arise when the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such a manner as to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the person subject to the inquiry, or when the inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches upon the recognized domains of privilege.

• Section 16 of Rule 24 states that the court may order that the deposition shall not be taken only upon notice and for good cause shown. Good cause means a substantial reason that affords a legal excuse. The burden is on the party seeking relief to show some plainly adequate reasons for the order. A particular and specific demonstration of facts is required to establish good cause for the issuance of a protective order.

• The scope of discovery should be liberally construed to provide the litigants with information essential to the expeditious and proper litigation of each of the facts in dispute.

• The methods of discovery provided in the Rules are intended to be cumulative, not mutually exclusive.

• A party who has resorted to a particular method of discovery will not be barred from subsequently using other discovery devices, as long as the party is not attempting to circumvent a ruling of the court or harass the other party.

• Written interrogatories are not well suited for a general examination and are more effective when the facts sought are few, formal, and isolated.

• Oral examinations are more effective in eliciting specific, detailed, and thorough disclosure from a reluctant party and are necessary for a thorough inquiry into vital and highly controversial phases of the case.

• Interrogatories are less expensive and simpler compared to depositions, but depositions provide flexibility and potency in dealing with evasion or searching interrogation.

• Availability of a witness to testify in court does not justify the prohibition of taking his deposition, as the right to take statements and the right to use them in court are distinct.

• Oral testimony is preferred over the use of written statements as evidence in court, and limitations on the use of depositions as evidence are based on the preference for oral testimony.

• The limitations on the taking of depositions under the new Rules of Court are only relevancy and privilege, while the use at trial is subject to limitations looking toward the use of oral testimony whenever practicable.

• The court cannot deny the right to take a deposition solely because it cannot observe the behavior of the deponent.

• Allegations that the deposition is intended to annoy, harass, or oppress the proposed deponent must be supported by proof and inconvenience to the party whose deposition is to be taken does not justify the denial of the deposition.