Security Bank v de Alcazar

The present controversy stemmed from a complaint for damages filed by private respondent against petitioner after the
latter had pre-terminated the contract of lease in violation thereof.

Apparently, on December 19, 1995, petitioner, represented by 2 of its vice presidents, entered into and executed a contract
of lease over respondent's property to put up a branch of petitioner.The term of lease was for 10 years beginning June 1,
1995 until May 31, 2005.However, on October 26, 1998, respondent received a letter from petitioner informing her of
petitioner's intention to pre-terminate said lease contract by December 31, 1998.In response, respondent reminded petitioner
that under their lease contract, petitioner had no right to pre-terminate.In spite of this, petitioner went ahead and vacated
the leased premises.On April 22, 1999, private respondent wrote a letter to petitioner demanding payment of arrearages
amounting to P486,680.00 and rentals for the ensuing months.Petitioner refused to pay.Thus, a case for damages was filed
with the regional trial court and in due course, respondent filed a Notice to Take Deposition by Oral Examination of
respondent and 3 other witnesses all residing in Los Angeles, California, USA.

ISSUE: Petitioner's lone argument that since respondent filed her suit in the Philippines, she and her witnesses should
appear before the trial court for direct and cross examination, deserves scant consideration.

Ruling:It is apparent then that the deposition of any person may be taken wherever he may be, in the Philippines or
abroad.If the party or witness is in the Philippines, his deposition shall be taken before any judge, municipal, or notary public
(Sec. 10, Rule 24, Rules of Court).If he is in a foreign state or country, the deposition shall be taken: (a) on notice before a
secretary or 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 (Sec. 11, Rule 24)
(Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. vs. Judge, et al, 225 SCRA 622.)

It is to be noted too that the order to take deposition is interlocutory in character and may not be questioned by
certiorari.Indeed, petitioner is not deprived of its right to cross-examine the deponents nor of presenting countervailing
testimony.