03 Caguiat v.

Torres
No. L-25481 (1969)
J. Barredo / Tita K
Topic: Rule 23 – Deposition Pending Action
Summary:
Petitioners were the plaintiffs in a civil case, while Respondent was the defendant. Petitioners served respondent a
notice to take his disposition upon oral examination. Respondent filed an urgent motion to prevent the taking of
deposition, which was granted by respondent judge. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which was
denied. WON the order of the judge preventing the taking of deposition was correct, the SC ruled in the affirmative. It
held that there was indeed no need for the deposition, for there was nothing anymore to discover. Respondent had
practically disclosed all his evidence during the pre-trial, and the petitioners rejected respondents offer to enter into a
stipulation of facts.
Doctrines:
The right to take depositions is not absolute and may be curtailed by the Courts when they appear to be intended to
annoy, embarrass or oppress the other party.
“Petition for Certiorari”
Parties:
Petitioners Geronimo Caguiat, Rupina Caguiat, Felicidad Caguiat, Fabian Caguiat, and
(appellants) Apolonia Caguiat
Respondent The Honorable Guillermo E. Torres and Francisco Caguiat (Francisco)
(appellees)
FACTS:
CFI
1. Petitioners are plaintiffs in a civil case in CFI Rizal presided by respondent judge while Respondent Francisco
Caguiat is the defendant therein.
2. In the said case, after respondent Francisco had filed his answer with counterclaim, and the petitioners their reply,
petitioners served Francisco a notice to take his deposition. (FIRST NOTICE)
3. Respondent filed an Urgent Motion to prevent the taking of his deposition or to restrict its scope which the
Respondent Judge Torres granted. Judge ordered that the taking of deposition be held in abeyance until after the
pre-trial in view of a possible amicable settlement.
4. The parties, however, failed to amicably settle.
5. Petitioners again served respondent Francisco a second notice for the taking of his deposition upon oral
examination. (SECOND NOTICE)
6. Francisco filed an urgent motion to prevent the taking of deposition. Respondent judge granted the urgent
motion.
7. Petitioners’ MR was also denied.

CA

8. Petitioner appealed saying that the avowed purpose of securing the deposition of respondent Francisco is to get him
to lay his cards on the table and to simplify the proceedings.
a. Respondent Caguiat averred that he had already revealed practically his entire defense even to the extent of naming
his witnesses, thus, there was no need for the taking of deposition.
9. CA ruled in favor of respondent Caguiat, affirming the order of the judge which prevented the taking of deposition.
CA reasoned that fact that the assailed orders were issued only after the pre-trial supports Francisco’s affirmation
that he had revealed his defense during the trial, and that the respondent Judge had satisfied himself that after such
revelation there was no more need to take the former's deposition upon oral examination.
ISSUE:
WON the order of the judge (and the CA decision) preventing the taking of deposition was valid. (YES)

HELD: YES – the Order of the judge preventing the taking of deposition was valid.

 Trial court has jurisdiction to direct, in its discretion, that a deposition shall not be taken, if there are valid
reasons for so ruling.
 The right of a party to take depositions as means of discovery is not exactly absolute as implied in sections 16
and 18 of Rule 24, which are precisely designed to protect parties and their witnesses, whenever the move to
take their depositions under the guise of discovery is actually intended to only annoy, embarrass or oppress
them.
 In such instances, these provisions expressly authorize the court to either prevent the taking of a deposition or
stop one that is already being taken.
o In this case, Francisco had indeed practically disclosed all his evidence during the pre-trial.
o Francisco also expressed willingness to enter into a stipulation of facts, but petitioners rejected said
offer.
o Moreover, according to Court of Appeals, the parties herein filed a joint motion for hearing on the
merits even before the orders in question were issued.
o Under these circumstances, it was concluded that there was indeed no need for the deposition desired
by petitioners.
o It could have served no useful purpose, for there was nothing anymore to discover.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Treble costs against appellants in this instance.