Unlocking Discovery: Compelling Answers to Written Interrogatories in Philippine Civil Procedure

The Supreme Court's decision in Ong v. Mazo (G.R. No. 145542, June 4, 2004) clarifies a vital point for litigants: the "fishing expedition" objection is no longer a valid reason to block written interrogatories. The case also resolves a procedural question about the filing period for petitions for certiorari. This article explains both rulings and their practical impact on civil cases in the Philippines.

The Facts of the Case

The case began as a damages suit arising from a vehicular accident. Respondents Elvira Lanuevo and Charito Tomilloso sued petitioner Elena Ong and the bus driver. After Ong filed her answer, she served written interrogatories on the respondents. When they failed to answer, Ong filed a motion asking the trial court to compel them to respond.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guiuan, Eastern Samar denied the motion. The judge reasoned that the interrogatories constituted a "fishing expedition" and that the matters would be better addressed during a pre-trial conference. Ong sought reconsideration, but the court denied it.

Ong then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition as belatedly filed, computing the period from the denial of the motion for reconsideration and finding it two days late. Ong elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Issue: Timeliness of the Certiorari Petition

The first issue was whether Ong's petition for certiorari was filed on time. Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Circular No. 39-98, a petition must be filed within 60 days from notice of the assailed order. If a motion for reconsideration is filed, the period is interrupted, and the remaining days are counted from notice of the denial.

The Supreme Court, however, applied a later amendment to Rule 65 under A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000. This amendment provided a fresh 60-day period counted from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Citing prior rulings in Systems Factors Corporation v. NLRC and Unity Fishing Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, the Court applied this amended rule retroactively. Since Ong filed her petition on August 4, 2000, within 60 days from her receipt of the denial on July 18, 2000, the petition was seasonably filed.

The Issue: Are Interrogatories a "Fishing Expedition"?

On the merits, the Court addressed whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the interrogatories. The Court reiterated the policy encouraging the use of discovery devices under Rules 24 to 29 of the Rules of Court. Quoting Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the Court emphasized that civil trials should not be "carried on in the dark."

The Court noted that after an answer is served, leave of court is not even necessary to avail of discovery modes. The "time-honored cry of 'fishing expedition'" can no longer prevent a party from inquiring into the facts underlying the opposing party's case. The trial court's refusal to compel answers was therefore patently erroneous and correctible by certiorari.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals and the orders of the RTC. It directed the trial court to require the respondents to answer Ong's written interrogatories and to proceed with dispatch in resolving the case.

Practical Takeaways

• "Fishing expedition" is not a valid objection. Courts should compel answers to written interrogatories that seek facts relevant to the opposing party's case.
• Discovery needs no court approval after answer. Once the answer is served, a party may serve written interrogatories without seeking leave of court.
• Interlocutory orders are generally not subject to certiorari. The proper remedy is an ordinary appeal from the final judgment, unless the order is patently erroneous and appeal would not afford adequate relief.
• Watch the filing period for certiorari. Under the amended Rule 65, the 60-day period runs from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, not from the original order.
• Amendments to procedural rules may apply retroactively. Courts may apply new rules to pending cases to promote substantial justice.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.