HYATT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORP.

and YU HE
CHING
v.
LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP.
and PRINCETON DEVELOPMENT CORP.

FACTS:

Due to failure to transfer shares in a real property and to develop the same,
a complaint for specific performance was commenced by Respondent Ley
Construction against Petitioner Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing despite full
payment of the purchase price. Princeton Development Corp. was also
impleaded due to its purchase of the subject property was bought by it. Both
Hyatt and Ley sought to avail of taking depositions.

However, Petitioner contended that such taking of depositions will delay

the proceedings. The scheduled depositions were consequently called off
by the trial court and thereafter set the date for pre-trial. Ley refused to enter
into pre-trial and upon motion by Hyatt and Ching as well as Respondent
Princeton, the complaint was subsequently dismissed.

A petition for Certiorari was filed by Respondent Ley relating to the order
of the trial court declining to suspend the pre-trial. The Court of Appeals
ordered the taking of the deposition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a proper grant of taking a deposition.

HELD:

The trial court, before dismissing Ley’s complaint, gave two options which
are either to enter into a pre-trial or terminate the pre-trial conference and
apply for deposition later on. The trial court erred in forcing Ley to choose
only from these options and in dismissing its complaint upon its refusal to
choose either of the two.

The taking of deposition is permissible without any showing that prejudice

to any party might result provided it is taken in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules of Court. A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC directs trial courts
to issue orders requiring parties to avail of interrogatories to parties under
Rule 45 and request for admission of adverse party under Rule 26 or make
use of depositions under Rule 23.