Northwest Airlines v.

Cruz
Depositions | November 3, 1999 | Kapunan

SUMMARY: Cruz purchased a ticket from Northwest to Boston and back. There were lots of difficulties that took place
and Cruz also suffiered injuries due to them. She then filed a complaint against Northwest for breach of contract of
carriage. During trial, petitioner’s counsel filed a notice for oral deposition of Maria Garza, a witness for petitioner in
New York. Trial court granted this. Petitioner then filed a manifestation and motion to rule on its motion to suppress the
deposition and grant her the right to cross-examine which she reserved earlier in the case. Trial court denied this. CA
reversed. Petitioner Northwest now files the present petition. Court ruled that CA was correct in noting that private
respondent’s objections to the oral deposition had been made promptly and vehemently, as required by the
Rules, but these were wrongly disregarded as immaterial by the trial court.

DOCTRINE: Section 16 of Rule 24 (now Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of 1997) 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 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.

The provision explicitly vesting in the court the power to order that the deposition shall not be taken connotes the
authority to exercise discretion on the matter. However, the discretion conferred by law is not unlimited. It must be
exercised, not arbitrarily or oppressively, but in a reasonable manner and in consonance with the spirit of the law. The
courts should always see to it that the safeguards for the protection of the parties and deponents are firmly maintained.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Nature Petition for review on certiorari on decision of CA

Parties Petitioners: Fortune Corporation

Respondents: Court of Appeals, Inter-Merchants Corporation

 Private repsondent Camille Cruz, then a teenager girl travelling alone for the first time, purchased a ticket from
petitioner Northwest Airlines a round-trip ticker from Manila to Boston via Tokyo and back
o Manila to Boston in economy class
o Boston to Manila in business class
 Cruz re-scheduled her return flight and was rebooked with route from Boston to Chicago, Chicago to Tokyo and
Tokyo to Manila
o Cruz reconfirmed this schedule at least 72 hours prior to said flight
 However, barely a day before the scheduled date of departue, Northwest Airlines informed her that instead of
following the original itinerary, private respondent Cruz should instead board wthe flight from Boston to
Kennedy International Airport in NY.
o Respondent proceeded accordingly but was informed that she might not be able to take such flight
o Later found out that the flight she was to take to NY was cancelled
 In her rush to take another flight, respondent rripped and fell down on her way from petitioner’s counter in
Logan Airport in Boston suffering slight physical injuries and embarrassment.
 Upon reaching the La Guardia NY airport, she had to hurry to Kennedy Internetional Airport, where she again
tripped and fell sufferring more physical injuries, embarrassment and great inconvenience.
 She was then informed that she was issued the wrong ticket of Seoul instead of Tokyo.
o Although rectified, she was extremely stressed out
o Petitioner was laso downgraded from business to economy without notice or apology
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

RTC San Pablo City Private respondent Cruz filed a complaint against petitioner
Northwest Airlines for breach of contract of carriage when
petitioner changed the original itinerary thereby downgrading
private respondent from business to economy.

Petitioner NW Airlines filed its answer with compulsory

counterclaim
 Flight was cancelled due to maintenance problems and bad
weather and airline had dowe its best to rebook Cruz on the
next available flights
Trial progressed until it was petitioner’s turn to present its
witness on three scheduled dates.
 Two of the settings were cancelled when petitioner’s counsel
filed notice for oral deposition of one Mario Garza, witness
for petitioner in New York
 Private respondent filed an opposition and suggested written
interrogatories instead
Trial court denied opposition and allowed deposition to
proceed.
 Oral deposition took place in New York 2 days before the
issuance of the trial court’s order allowing such deposition
 Records show that although it was Consul Perez who swore in
the deponent, she designated one “Atty Gonzalez” as
Deposition Officer

At the hearing of the case, Northwest presented the

deposition record of its witness while private respondent
reserved her right to cross-examine and present rebuttal
evidence.
 Respondent also questioned the conduct of the oral
deposition as irregular and moved for suppression on the ff
grounds:
o Deposition has been improperly and irregularly taken
and returned (taken before allowed by the trial court,
no certification given by officer taking the deposition
that the same is a true record of the testimony given,
deposition was not securely sealed in an envelope
indorsed with the title of the action and marked)
o Such irregularities were discovered during the hearing

Trial court still admitted the evidence of petitioner.

Private respondent Cruz filed a manifestation and motion

that the court failed to rule on its motion to supprress
deposition and to grant her the right to cross-examine
petitioner’s deponent.
 Trial court denied.
Court of Appeals Private respodnent filed a petition for certiorari
 Petition granted

Supreme Court Petitioner Northwest filed this instant petition for review:
 Issue raised is the correctness of the procedure observed by
the tc in appreciating the admissibility of the transcript of the
deposition of Mr. Garza. –> such is only an error of judgment,
not jurisdiction
 TC did not gravely abuse its discretion by admitting into
evidence the oral deposition.
o Gen Rule: Sec. 1, Rule 132
o Exception: When witness is out of the Philippines such
as in this case
 Private respondent must be deemed to have waived her right
to cross-examine petitioner’s witness and her right to present
rebuttal evidence by failure to attend the deposition-taking
despite due notice

ISSUES & RATIO:

1. W/N petiitoner’s position is valid? NO

Section 16 of Rule 24 (now Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of 1997) 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 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.
 Provision explicity vests in court the power to order that the deposition shall not be taked connotes the
authority to exercise discretion on the matter.
 However, such discretion is not unlimited. It must be exercised in a reasonable manner and in consonance with
the spirit of the law.
 Courts should always see to it that the safeguards for the protection of the parties and deponents are firmly
maintained.

In this case, respondent court correctly observed that the deposition in this case was not used for
discovery purposes, as examinee was the employee of petitioner, but rather to accommodate the
former.
 General rules on examination of witnesses under Rule 132 requiring said examination to be done in court
following the order set should be observed.
Respondent court also correctly noted that private respondent’s objections to the oral deposition had
been made promptly and vehemently, as required by the Rules, but these were wrongly disregarded as
immaterial by the trial court.
 Court notes with approval respondent court’s ruling disallowing the depositions and upholding private
respondent’s right to cross-examine
 Deposition was not a mode of discovery but rather a direct testimony by respondent’s witness and there
apperars a strategy by respondent to exclude petitioner’s participation from the proceedings.
 Northwest could very conveniently send its counsel to NY. However, ends of justice would have been better
served if witness were instead brought to the Philippines.
  The objections raised by private respondent take on greater weight considering Sec. 11, Rule 24. 1 The
deposition document clearly indicates that while the consul swore in the witness and the stenographer, it was
another officer in the Philippine Consulate who undertook the entire proceedings after.
 The Rules indicate that objections to the oral deposition will be waived unless the objections are made with
reasonable promptness.
o Objections made here were prompt and vehement yet they were disregarded as not material such that
the deposition and exhibits related thereto were admitted.
There is clear language of the law and the same should not be modified in practice.
 Separate certification of the FSO from the transcript proper was also questioned as irregular by Cruz. In doing so,
she was being vigilant of her rights considering her absence. No other proof is needed when the same Is clear on
the face of the deposition material given.
Private respondent’s right to cross-examine and present rebuttal evidence, having been reserved
earlier, needed no reiteration.
 Such should be granted.

DISPOSITIVE: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby DENIES the petition for failure of the petitioner to
sufficiently show that respondent Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

1
“In a foreign state or country, depositions shall be taken (a) on notice before a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul or consular agent
of the Republic of the Philippines, or (b) before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters rogatory.