[G.R. No. 137136.

November 3, 1999]

On December 17, 1992, PR proceeded early to the Ps counter

at Logan Airport in Boston but was referred to the TWA counter

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. CAMILLE T. CRUZ

and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

KAPUNAN, J.:

Facts:

where she was informed that she may not be able to take the TWA
flight because it was cancelled.

Due to the unexplained and belated cancellation of the TWA

flight, PR had to rush back from the International Gate to Ps counter
in Logan Airport in Boston where she was again told to proceed

PR Camille T. Cruz, then a teenage girl who would be travelling

immediately to the Delta Airlines terminal to catch the Delta Airlines

alone for the first time, purchased from P Northwest Airlines a round-

flight to La Guardia Airport in New York where shell take a service

trip ticket for a flight from Manila to Boston via Tokyo and back. The

car to Kennedy Airport in New York.

scheduled departure date from Manila to Boston was August 27,

1992 at 8:40 a.m. in economy class while the scheduled return flight

In her haste to catch the said flight, PR tripped and fell down

from Boston to Manila in business class was on December 22, 1992

on her way from petitioners counter to the Delta Airlines counter in

at 10:25 a.m.

Logan Airport in Boston thereby suffering slight physical injuries and

embarrassment.

On November 25, 1992, PR re-scheduled her return flight from

Boston to Manila to December 17, 1992 at 10:05 a.m. Accordingly, P

When PR reached La Guardia Airport in New York, she again

booked her on a Northwest flight with route as follows: Boston to

had to rush to the service car. In her haste and anxiety to catch her

Chicago; Chicago to Tokyo; and, Tokyo to Manila.

flight, PR again tripped and fell down thereby suffering more

physical injuries, embarrassment and great inconvenience.

P reconfirmed the flight from Boston, U.S.A. to Manila

scheduled on December 17, 1992 at least 72 hours prior to the said
scheduled flight.

Upon arrival, she was informed at Ps counter in Kennedy

International Airport that she was issued the wrong ticket to Seoul
instead of Tokyo. Although the error was rectified by P, PR was by

However, barely a day before the scheduled date of departure,

then extremely nervous, worried, stressed out, and exhausted.

P called PR and informed her that instead of following her original

itinerary, PR should instead board the TWA flight from Boston to

To make matters worse, P downgraded PR from business

Kennedy International Airport in New York and she was further

class to economy class on two legs of her flight without notice nor

instructed by P to proceed to the latters counter at the Logan Airport

apology. Neither did P offer to refund the excess fare PR paid for a

in Boston before boarding the TWA flight on the scheduled date of

business class seat.

departure.

Hence, on August 6, 1993, PR filed a complaint against

petitioner Northwest Airlines, Inc. for breach of contract of

1. The deposition has been improperly and irregularly taken and

returned in that:

carriage. PR claimed to have suffered actual, moral and exemplary

damages.

(a) The deposition was taken on July 24, 1995 despite the
fact that this Honorable Court only ruled on the matter on

P filed its answer with compulsory counterclaim alleging therein

July 26, 1995.

that the flight on which PR was originally booked was cancelled due
to maintenance problems and bad weather, and that the airline had
done its best to re-book private respondent on the next available
flights.

(b) There is no certification given by the officer taking the

deposition that the same is a true record of the testimony
given by the deponent in violation of Rule 24, Section 20 of
the Rules of Court.

Trial progressed until 1995 when it was Ps turn to present its

witness on three scheduled dates. Two of the settings were
cancelled when Ps counsel filed notice for oral deposition of one
Mario Garza, witness for P, in New York. PR filed her opposition and
suggested written interrogatories instead. In an Order dated July 26,

(c) The deposition was not securely sealed in an envelope

indorsed with the title of the action and marked Deposition
of (here insert the name of witness) in violation of Rule 24,
Section 20 of the Rules of Court.

1995, the trial court denied PRs opposition, thus allowing the

(d) The officer taking the deposition did not give any notice

deposition to proceed. The oral deposition took place in New York on

to the plaintiff of the filing of the deposition in violation of

July 24, 1995 or notably two days before the issuance of the trial

Rule 24, Section 21 of the Rules of Court.

courts order allowing the deposition to proceed.

(e) The person designated as deposition officer is not
The records show that although it was the Honorable Consul

among those persons authorized to take deposition in

Milagros R. Perez who swore in the deponent, she thereafter

foreign countries in violation of Rule 24, Section 11 of the

designated one Attorney Gonzalez as Deposition Officer.

Rules of Court.

On November 9, 1995, at the hearing of the instant case, P

(f) There is no showing on record that the deponent read

presented the deposition record of its witness while PR reserved her

and signed the deposition in violation of Rule 24, Section

right to cross-examine and present rebuttal evidence.

19 of the Rules of Court.

PR, likewise, questioned the conduct of the oral deposition as

2. These irregularities or defects were discovered by the plaintiff

irregular and moved for suppression of the same on the following

during the hearing on November 9, 1995 and plaintiff has acted with

grounds:

reasonable promptness after having ascertained the existence of the

aforesaid irregularities and defects.

However, PRs motion was denied by the trial court. In its

The provision explicitly vesting in the court the power to order

Order, dated July 23, 1996, the trial court admitted Ps formal offer of

that the deposition shall not be taken connotes the authority to

evidence with supplement thereto and gave PR three days from

exercise discretion on the matter. However, the discretion

receipt within which to signify her intention to present rebuttal

conferred by law is not unlimited. It must be exercised, not

evidence.

arbitrarily or oppressively, but in a reasonable manner and in

consonance with the spirit of the law. The courts should always see

On August 2, 1996, PR filed a manifestation and motion stating

that the court failed to rule on its motion to suppress deposition and
to grant her the right to cross-examine Ps deponent. PR also

to it that the safeguards for the protection of the parties and

deponents are firmly maintained. As aptly stated by Chief Justice
Moran:

manifested her intention to present rebuttal evidence.

xxx. Any discovery involves a prying into another persons affairs prying that is

In its Order, dated September 5, 1996, the trial court denied

PRs manifestation and motion. Said court, likewise, denied PRs
motion for reconsideration of the above order.

quite justified if it is to be a legitimate aid to litigation, but not justified if it is not to be

such an aid. For this reason, courts are given ample powers to forbid discovery which
is intended not as an aid to litigation, but merely to annoy, embarrass or oppress either
the deponent or the adverse party, or both.

Hence, PR filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on

April 7, 1998.

Respondent court correctly observed that the deposition

in this case was not used for discovery purposes, as the

CA- set aside RTC judgment and ordered RTC to disallow the

examinee was the employee of P, but rather to accommodate the

deposition

former who was in Massachusetts, U.S.A. Such being the case, the
general rules on examination of witnesses under Rule 132 of the

P Northwest, thereafter, filed this instant petition for review

Issue/Held:

WoN the oral deposition should be admitted into evidence-YES

Rules of Court requiring said examination to be done in court

following the order set therein, should be observed.

We note with approval respondent courts ruling disallowing the

depositions and upholding PRs right to cross-examine:

Ratio:
xxx [The] deposition was not a mode of discovery but rather a direct
Section 16 of Rule 24 (now Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of 1997)

testimony by respondents witness and there appears a strategy by

provides that after notice is served for taking a deposition by oral examination, upon
motion seasonably made by any party or by the person to be examined and for good

respondent to exclude Ps participation from the proceedings.

cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may, among others, make an
order that the deposition shall not be taken. The rest of the same section allows the
taking of the deposition subject to certain conditions specified therein.

While a months notice would ordinarily be sufficient, the

circumstances in this case are different. Two days of trial were
cancelled and notice for oral deposition was given in lieu of the third

date. The locus of oral deposition is not easily within reach of

The Rules (Rule 24, Sec. 29) indicate that objections to the oral

ordinary citizens for it requires time to get a travel visa to the United

deposition will be waived unless the objections are made with

States, book a flight in July to the United States, and more

reasonable promptness. In this case, the objections have been

importantly substantial travel fare is needed to obtain a round trip

prompt and vehement, yet they were disregarded as not material

ticket by place (sic) from Manila to New York and back to Manila.

such that the deposition and the exhibits related thereto were
admitted.

As an international carrier, Northwest could very conveniently send

its counsel to New York. However, the ends of justice would have

In Fortune Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,[27] this Court set

been better served if the witness were instead brought to the

aside upon review by certiorari the order of the trial court allowing

Philippines. Written interrogatories was (sic) requested to balance

deposition because the order did not conform to the essential

this inconvenience which was nonetheless also objected to and

requirements of law and may reasonably cause material injury to the

denied for simply being time consuming.

adverse party:

The objections raised by P [PR], in the light of the above

considerations, take on a greater weight.

The rule is that certiorari will generally not lie to review a

discretionary action of any tribunal. Also, as a general proposition, a
writ of certiorari is available only to review final judgment or

Section 11 of Rule 24 provides: In a foreign state or country, depositions shall be

taken (a) on notice before a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul,

decrees. Pursuant to this rule, it has been held that certiorari will not

vice-consul or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines, or (b) before such

lie to review or correct discovery orders made prior to trial. This is

person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters rogatory.

because, like other discovery orders, orders made under

Section 16, Rule 24 are interlocutory and not appealable

The deposition document clearly indicates that while the consul

swore in the witness and the stenographer, it was another officer in

considering that they do not finally dispose of the proceeding or

of any independent offshoot of it.

the Philippine Consulate who undertook the entire proceedings

thereafter. Respondent Northwest argues on the presumption of

However, such rules are subject to the exception that

regularity of official functions and even obtained a certification to this

discretionary acts will be reviewed where the lower court or tribunal

effect plus an assertion that none of the participants in the Consulate

has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, where an

were in any way related to the respondent or their counsel. But

interlocutory order does not conform to essential requirements of law

presumptions should fail when the record itself bears out the

and may reasonably cause material injury throughout the subsequent

irregularity.

proceedings for which the remedy of appeal will be inadequate, or

where there is a clear or serious abuse of discretion.