G.R. No. L-25481 October 31, 1969
GERONIMO CAGUIAT, RUFINA CAGUIAT, FELICIDAD CAGUIAT, FABIAN CAGUIAT, and APOLONIA CAGUIAT, petitioners-appellants, vs. THE HONORABLE GUILLERMO E. TORRES and FRANCISCO CAGUIAT, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners are plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 8050 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, with respondent Francisco Caguiat as the defendant. After the defendant filed his answer and the plaintiffs filed their reply, the petitioners served a notice to take the deposition of respondent Caguiat. Respondent Caguiat filed an urgent motion to prevent or restrict the deposition, which the petitioners opposed. The respondent Judge deferred resolution until after pre-trial. After pre-trial failed to result in an amicable settlement, petitioners served a second notice for deposition. Respondent Caguiat again filed an urgent motion to prevent it. The respondent Judge granted the motion and ordered petitioners to refrain from taking the deposition. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for certiorari to annul the trial court’s order. The Court of Appeals found that respondent Caguiat had already disclosed practically his entire defense and named his witnesses during the pre-trial, expressed willingness to enter into a stipulation of facts (which petitioners did not want), and that personal animosities between the parties might endanger the peaceful conduct of an oral deposition. It also noted that the parties had filed a joint motion for hearing on the merits before the contested orders were issued.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court’s order preventing the taking of respondent Caguiat’s deposition by way of discovery.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The right to take depositions for discovery is not absolute, and the trial court has discretion to prevent it for valid reasons under Sections 16 and 18 of Rule 24 of the Rules of Court, such as to prevent annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. The findings of the Court of Appeals that respondent Caguiat had already disclosed his evidence during pre-trial, that he offered to stipulate facts, and that personal animosities might disrupt the deposition, are binding and substantiated. Under these circumstances, there was no further need for the deposition as there was nothing left to discover, and petitioners failed to show any concrete reason for it or that the trial court gravely abused its discretion. The appeal was without merit.