CASE MATRIX

CASE FACTS ISSUE RULING ANALYSIS/

CONCLUSION
GO VS. Prosecution's Whether NO.
PEOPLE OF complaining witness, Li or not the The RTC The procedure for
THE Luen Ping, a frail old deposition properly nullified taking depositions
PHILIPPINES businessman from of Li Luen the MeTC's in criminal cases
Laos, Cambodia, Ping orders granting recognizes the
traveled from his should be the motion to prosecution's right
country back to the taken take the to preserve
Philippines to attend the deposition of Li testimonial
hearing. Trial dates Luen Ping before evidence and
were subsequently the Philippine prove its case
postponed due to his consular official despite the
unavailability. The in Laos, unavailability of its
private prosecutor filed Cambodia. witness. It cannot,
with the MeTC a Motion Certainly, to take however, give
to Take his Oral the deposition of license to
Deposition, alleging that the prosecution prosecutorial
he was being treated for witness indifference or
lung infection in Laos, elsewhere and unseemly
Cambodia and that he not before the involvement in a
could no longer travel. very same court prosecution
The MeTC granted the where the case witness' absence
motion after the is pending would from trial. To rule
prosecution complied not only deprive otherwise would
with the directive to a detained effectively deprive
submit a Medical accused of his the accused of his
Certificate. Petitioners’ right to attend fundamental right
reconsideration was the proceedings to be confronted
denied. Thus, but also deprive with the witnesses
petitioners filed a the trial judge of against him.
petition for certiorari the opportunity
before the RTC. RTC to observe the
granted the petition and prosecution
declared the MeTC witness'
Orders null and void. deportment and
Prosecution elevated properly assess
the case to the CA. CA his credibility,
affirmed the decision of which is
the MeTC. Thus, this especially
Petition for Review on intolerable when
Certiorari under Rule the witness'
45. testimony is
crucial to the
prosecution's
case against the
 accused.

CHIQUITO Thousands of banana Whether NO. Chiquita

BRANDS plantation workers from or not the Although the corporation
INC. V. over 14 countries trial court Regional Trial cannot be faulted
OMELIO instituted class suits for was Court, directed for failing to make
damages in the United correct in the a formal offer of
States against 11 not implementation evidence
foreign corporations allowing of the Writ of because they
have been exposed to the Execution were denied the
dibromochloropropane deposition against Chiquita opportunity to
(DBCP) in the 1970s up of Corporation it do so.
to the 1990s while Chiquita’s nevertheless Respondent court
working in plantations counsel? allowed Chiquita should have
that utilized it. As a to take the given petitioners
result, these workers deposition of the chance to
suffered serious and their United offer the
permanent injuries to States counsel, deposition of Mr.
their reproductive Mr. Stubbs, to Stubbs in
systems. A compromise prove evidence before
agreement was reached compliance with acting on the
upon. In the Philippines, the Compromise pending incidents
a number of workers of Agreement. At of the case. 
the same corporation the same time,
similarly filed an action and to ensure
using the same the orderly flow
arguments. of proceedings,
petitioners
Chiquita corporation waited for the
took the deposition of its adverse party to
US counsel with the rest its case
approval of the trial before making a
court to prove that it has formal offer of
complied with the evidence.
compromise agreement  
but the regional trial However, the
court concluded that presiding Judge
Chiquita did not formally at that time
offer its evidence inhibited himself
disregarding the from further
deposition and ordering hearing the case
the implementation of before the
the writ of execution. Regional Trial
Court, could act
on the pending
incidents. The
case was then
transferred to
Davao City due
 to the hostile
environment in
Panabo City.
Succeeding
events further
delayed the
proceedings.

CASE DIGEST

Harry L. Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go vs. People of the Philippines
(GR No. 185527; July 18, 2012)
Facts:
Petitioners Harry Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go were charged before
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila for Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised
Penal Code. The prosecution's complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a frail old
businessman from Laos, Cambodia, traveled from his home country back to the
Philippines in order to attend the hearing held on September 9, 2004. However, trial
dates were subsequently postponed due to his unavailability. On October 13, 2005, the
private prosecutor filed with the MeTC a Motion to Take Oral Deposition of Li Luen Ping,
alleging that he was being treated for lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital in
Laos, Cambodia and that, upon doctor's advice, he could not make the long travel to the
Philippines by reason of ill health. Notwithstanding petitioners' opposition, the MeTC
granted the motion after the prosecution complied with the directive to submit a Medical
Certificate of Li Luen Ping. Petitioners sought its reconsideration which the MeTC
denied, prompting petitioners to file a Petition for Certiorari before the RTC. On
September 12, 2006, the RTC granted the petition and declared the MeTC Orders null
and void. The RTC held that Section 17, Rule 23 on the taking of depositions of
witnesses in civil cases cannot apply suppletorily to the case since there is a specific
provision in the Rules of Court with respect to the taking of depositions of prosecution
witnesses in criminal cases, which is primarily intended to safeguard the constitutional
rights of the accused to meet the witness against him face to face. Upon denial by the
RTC of their motion for reconsideration through an Order dated March 5, 2006, the
prosecution elevated the case to the CA. On February 19, 2008, the CA promulgated
the assailed Decision which held that no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed upon
the MeTC for allowing the deposition-taking of the complaining witness Li Luen Ping
because no rule of procedure expressly disallows the taking of depositions in criminal
cases and that, in any case, petitioners would still have every opportunity to cross-
examine the complaining witness and make timely objections during the taking of the
oral deposition either through counsel or through the consular officer who would be
taking the deposition of the witness. 

Procedural History:
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court, petitioners seek to nullify and set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals, which reversed the order issued by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, and
upheld the grant of the prosecution's motion to take the testimony of a witness by oral
depositions in Laos, Cambodia.

Issue:
Whether or not the deposition of Li Luen Ping should be taken

Held:
NO. But for purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more particularly
of a prosecution witness who would foreseeably be unavailable for trial, the testimonial
examination should be made before the court, or at least before the judge, where the
case is pending as required by the clear mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Since the conditional examination of a
prosecution witness must take place at no other place than the court where the case is
pending, the RTC properly nullified the MeTC's orders granting the motion to take the
deposition of Li Luen Ping before the Philippine consular official in Laos, Cambodia.
Certainly, to take the deposition of the prosecution witness elsewhere and not before
the very same court where the case is pending would not only deprive a detained
accused of his right to attend the proceedings but also deprive the trial judge of the
opportunity to observe the prosecution witness' deportment and properly assess his
credibility, which is especially intolerable when the witness' testimony is crucial to the
prosecution's case against the accused. It is true that Section 3, Rule 1 of the Rules of
Court provides that the rules of civil procedure apply to all actions, civil or criminal, and
special proceedings. In effect, it says that the rules of civil procedure have suppletory
application to criminal cases. However, it is likewise true that criminal proceedings are
primarily governed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

CHIQUITA BRANDS INC vs. GEORGE E. OMELIO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 189102
June 07, 2017
 

FACTS:
Thousands of banana plantation workers from over 14 countries instituted class suits for
damages in the United States against 11 foreign corporations alleging that they have
been exposed to dibromochloropropane (DBCP) in the 1970s up to the 1990s while
working in plantations that utilized it. As a result, these workers suffered serious and
permanent injuries to their reproductive systems. The US courts dismissed the class
suits and asked the claimants to file in their respective home countries. 

 A compromise agreement was reached upon between the corporations and the banana
plantation workers saying that it will pay the banana plantation workers through an
escrow account. Meanwhile, in the Philippines, a number of workers from the same 11
corporations similarly filed an action against the latter (including petitioner Chiquita)
using the same arguments.
Chiquita corporation took the deposition of its US counsel with the approval of the trial
court through Judge Grageda to prove that it has complied with the compromise
agreement. However, the claimants picketed outside the courtroom accusing Judge
Grageda of corruption and intentionally delaying the case and the implementation of the
writ of execution. He was forced to inhibit. Chiquita also requested for a change of
venue from Panabo to Davao. The new judge of the regional trial court handling the
case (Judge Omelio) concluded that Chiquita did not formally offer its evidence
disregarding the deposition and ordering the implementation of the writ of execution for
the compromise agreement

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Thousands of banana plantation workers from over 14 countries instituted class suits
for damages in the United States against 11 foreign corporations have been exposed to
dibromochloropropane (DBCP). DISMISSED
2. Filipino claimants filed a complaint for damages against the same foreign
corporations (including Chiquita) before the Regional Trial Court in Panabo City, Davao
del Norte, Philippines.
3. Compromise agreement reached between foreign corporations and banana
plantation workers.
4. Chiquita filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for damages alleging the issue has
already been settled through a compromise agreement. GRANTED.
5. Claimants moved for execution of the compromise agreement.
6. Chiquita opposed the execution on the ground of payment through the compromise
agreement.
7. RTC granted the execution.
8. Chiquita filed a motion, praying to suspend the execution of judgment and to recall
the Writ of Execution. The other corporations moved that they be allowed to photocopy,
certify, and authenticate the release documents in the United States before a court-
appointed commissioner or before Judge Grageda.
9. The Regional Trial Court granted the motions of the other corporations and
suspended the execution of the writ.
10. Judge Grageda received evidence at the Philippine Consulate Office in San
Francisco, California, United States. Judge Grageda declared the photocopies of the
release documents as "authentic and true copies of the original[s]."
11. the claimants moved to inhibit Judge Grageda. However, the motion was denied.
12.the Regional Trial Court, Panabo City considered the documents obtained from the
proceedings abroad "as part of the case record." The claimants moved for
reconsideration, but their motion was denied.
13. the Regional Trial Court, Panabo City rendered an Omnibus Order directing the
implementation of the Writ of Execution against Chiquita
14.Chiquita moved for reconsideration of the Omnibus Order. It manifested its intention
to file its formal offer of evidence once the court declared that the claimants "had waived
their right to present evidence.
15. Chiquita took the deposition of its counsel in the United States, Mr. Samuel E.
Stubbs, (Mr. Stubbs) at the Makati Shangri-la Hotel, Philippines with leave of court from
Judge Grageda. 
16. Judge Grageda inhibited himself and the case was reraffled in Davao city to Judge
Omelio.
17. Judge Omelio moved for the implementation of the writ of execution.
18. Chiquita asked Judge Omelio to inhibit himself. DENIED. 

ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court was correct in not allowing the deposition of Chiquita’s
counsel? [NO]
 
HELD:
Although the Regional Trial Court, directed the implementation of the Writ of Execution
against Chiquita it nevertheless allowed Chiquita to take the deposition of their United
States counsel, Mr. Stubbs, to prove compliance with the Compromise Agreement. At
the same time, and to ensure the orderly flow of proceedings, Chiquita waited for the
adverse party to rest its case before making a formal offer of evidence.

However, the presiding Judge at that time inhibited himself from further hearing the
case before the Regional Trial Court could act on the pending incidents. The case was
then transferred to Davao City due to the hostile environment in Panabo City.
Succeeding events further delayed the proceedings.
 
Chiquita corporation cannot be faulted for failing to make a formal offer of evidence
because they were denied the opportunity to do so. Respondent court should have
given petitioners the chance to offer the deposition of Mr. Stubbs in evidence
before acting on the pending incidents of the case.