Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 153667. August 11, 2005.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
522
523
524
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
_______________
525
_______________
526
_______________
527
On 29 October
17
1996, the Court of Appeals rendered its
decision denying due course and dismissing the petition of
ALI. The Court of Appeals held:
_______________
528
_______________
529
The first issue is not novel. The same has been in fact
passed upon twice by the Court of Appeals.
As defined, the term deposition is sometimes used in a
broad sense to describe any written statement verified by
oath. In its more technical and appropriate sense, the
meaning of the word is limited to written testimony of a
witness given in the course of a judicial proceeding in
advance of the trial or hearing upon oral examination. A
deposition is the testimony of a witness, put or taken in
writing, under oath or affirmation, before a commissioner,
examiner or other judicial officer, in answer to
interlocutory and cross-interlocutory,
32
and usually
subscribed by the witnesses.
_______________
31 Rollo, p. 713.
32 Mata v. Bayona, G.R. No. L-50720, 26 March 1984, 128 SCRA 388,
citing 16 Am Jur. 699.
33 People v. Webb, G.R. No. 132577, 17 August 1999, 312 SCRA 573,
585-586.
34 G.R. No. 155010, 16 August 2004, 436 SCRA 559, 573, reiterating
the earlier case of Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90478, 21
November 1991, 204 SCRA 212.
530
_______________
531
_______________
532
40
therein and to ensure its accuracy. In any event, the
admissibility of the deposition does not preclude the
determination of its probative value at the appropriate
time. The admissibility of evidence should not be equated
with weight of evidence. The admissibility of evidence
depends on its relevance and competence while the weight
of evidence pertains to evidence already
41
admitted and its
tendency to convince and persuade.
This Court has observed that the trial court has
painstakingly gone over every objection of ALI contained in
its Motion dated 30 January 1995 and ruled on every single
objection in the Order dated 05 May 1995 and these
objections were again taken up in the Order of the trial
court dated 07 September 1995. On this point, we find no
compelling reason to disturb the conclusions arrived at by
the trial court.
It has been repeatedly held that the deposition-discovery
rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment and
the liberty of a party to make discovery is well-nigh
unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise
relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry42
is made in
good faith and within the bounds of the law, as in the case
at bar.
The second and third issues raised by ALI are that it
was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent
consequently resulting in its denial of due process. The
records reveal that ALI was given more than enough
opportunity to cross-examine the deponent and its failure
to exercise such right is solely attributable to its own
inaction. At this in-
_______________
533
_______________
43 BLTB v. Bitanga, G.R. No. 137934, 10 August 2001, 362 SCRA 635;
Tubiano v. Razo, G.R. No. 132598, 13 July 2000, 335 SCRA 531; Orola v.
Alovera, G.R. No. 111074, 14 July 2000, 335 SCRA 609; Central
Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Macaraeg, G.R. No. 145800, 22
January 2003, 395 SCRA 720.
44 De la Paz v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-71537, 17
September 1987, 154 SCRA 65.
45 CA Rollo, p. 273.
534
o0o
535