Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
REPORTER’S NOTES:
I.1 Overview.
1. Any judge;
The reason for this rule is that such authority is essential in the
process of obtaining any information which may incriminate or prejudice
private or public persons. Persons authorized to take such oaths have the
sworn duty to ascertain whether such statement elicited during the course
of the deposition are done according to law and that the person giving
such information are competent individuals and no vitiation of consent or
any duress is attendant during the course of the interrogation.
1 Section 6. Objections to admissibility. — Subject to the provisions of section 29 of this Rule, objection
may be made at the trial or hearing, to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any
reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying
(6, R24);
2 Rule 23, Section 29 Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions. —, (b) As to disqualification of
officer. — Objection to taking a deposition because of disqualification of the officer before whom it is to
be taken is waived unless made before the taking of the deposition begins or as soon thereafter as the
disqualification becomes known or could be discovered with reasonable diligence.
Page 1 of 7
Furthermore, willful and deliberate false testimony or any
misrepresentations before such authorized person likewise may make the
liar liable to perjury3.
A judge is any person who is clothed with judicial power who may
hear and decide a case. The judge referred to in this section may be the
judge of the court where the case is pending. The judge, after an order
granting a request or motion to take a deposition may issue a subpoena to
compel a witness to come to court where such witness may be orally
examined4 (the counsel for the party who is requesting deposition usually
asks the questions to the deponent before the judge).
Subject to the rule5 that only witnesses residing within 100 kilometers
of the court may be under the compelling power of the subpoena, a party
requesting a deposition of a person who is beyond 100 kilometer may have
such request routed to the court which is within 100 kilometers from of the
residence of the deponent. In which case, the judge to whom the request
was routed may issue a subpoena for the sole purpose of compelling the
attendance of such person for the deposition6.
5 Section 10.Exceptions. — The provisions of sections 8 and 9 of this Rule shall not apply to a witness
who resides more than one hundred (100) kilometers from his residence to the place where he is to
testify by the ordinary course of travel, or to a detention prisoner if no permission of the court in which
his case is pending was obtained. (9a, R23)
7 SEC. 9. Notary Public and Notary. - A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC , 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
8 A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC , 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
Page 2 of 7
(a) appears in person before the notary public;
Page 3 of 7
deposition may be allowed to be taken with such persons as the
deposing officer.
REPORTER’S NOTES:
Page 4 of 7
II.a. Depositions on Notice
4. Philippine Foreign
3. OLA- transmits All
Service Post-comment on
documents to the foreign
acceptability and
service post nearest the
schedule and give
residence of the
deposing officer's name
deponent.
and designation to OLA.
9 Dasmarinas Garments vs. Reyes etc. et. Al. GR No. 108229, Aug 24, 1993.
10 Ibid.
11
Page 6 of 7
Case: Dulay vs Dulay 200312
Issue. Whether the admission of a deposition through the
notary public in New York despite the explicit order or
directive for letters rogatory was proper;
Held: Yes, the admission was proper. When the letters
rogatory cannot be effected, the resort to a deposition via a
notary public was a valid alternative:
It was not within the trial courts power, much less the
respondents to force the Clerk of Court of Boston to have the
deposition taken before it. After all, while a court had the authority to
entertain a discovery request, it is not required to provide judicial
assistance thereto. This reality was recognized by the trial court when
it ordered respondent to have the questioned depositions
authenticated by the Philippine consulate. The court ruled that
refusing the allowance of the depositions in issue would be going
directly against the purpose of taking the depositions in the first place,
that is, the disclosure of facts which are relevant to the proceedings in
court.