View full case

PFEGER R. DULAY v. RODRIGO S. DULAY

FACTS:

Rodrigo S. Dulay filed a complaint against his nephew, Pfeger R. Dulay, alleging that Pfeger had emptied their trust account with the Bank of Boston and used the funds for personal expenses. Pfeger denied the accusations and claimed that he used his own money. Rodrigo then filed a petition for letters rogatory to obtain depositions from witnesses residing abroad. Despite a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute from the defendants, the trial court allowed Rodrigo to complete his depositions. Rodrigo submitted his answers to interrogatories and cross-interrogatories taken before a notary public in the United States. The trial court directed the authentication of the documents and admitted them as evidence. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which was ultimately dismissed.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the answers to the written interrogatories taken before a notary public in the United States.

  2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint based on failure to prosecute.

RULING:

  1. The trial court did not err in admitting the answers to the written interrogatories taken before a notary public in the United States. The deposition taken before the Notary Public from New York, whose authority was duly certified by the Philippine Consul in New York, substantially complied with the Rules of Court.

  2. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint based on failure to prosecute. It is improper to dismiss the case considering that Rodrigo had already commenced presenting his evidence, and the trial court is mandated to hear the evidence on the counterclaims of the petitioners.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The deposition taken before a notary public in the United States, whose authority is duly certified by the Philippine Consul, substantially complies with the Rules of Court.

  • It is improper to dismiss a case based on failure to prosecute if the party has already commenced presenting evidence and the trial court is mandated to hear the evidence on the counterclaims.