Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Interrogatories written questions that are sent to the opposing party to answer.
Take note that this is one of the Modes of Discoveries, which is a device
used to obtain information about relevant matters on the case from the
adverse party in preparation for trial.
HOW?
Under the same conditions specified in Section 1 of Rule 23, any party desiring to
elicit material and relevant facts from any adverse parties
a. File and serve upon the adverse parties written interrogatories to be
answered by the party served; or
b. The party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or
association, by any officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf.
REVIEW: What does Section 1 Rule 23 Provide?
1.
By leave of Court after jurisdiction have been obtained
over the defendant. (No answer yet has been filed)
2.
After an answer has been served, without leave of
Court.
To Judicial Entity
1. Shall be answered by officers competent to testify.
CASE: Republic vs Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212, 227 (1991)
Where written interrogatories addressed only to the Presidential
Commission of Good Governance, without naming specific commissioner
or officer to whom they are propounded, this section which states that if
the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or
association is applied by analogy to the PCGG and the interrogatories
shall be answered by any officer of the PCGG competent to testify in its
behalf.
What if the Written Interrogatory is denied by the Court?
Remedy:
procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed, unless
written interrogatories are first served upon the latter.
EEFECT:
1. Unless allowed by the court a party nor served with written interrogatories
may not be:
a. 1. Compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court
b. To give a deposition pending appeal
PURPOSE OF THE RULE:
1. To prevent fishing expeditions and needless delay. It is presumed that a party
who does not serve written interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand
will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case if it later opts to call
the adverse party to the witness stand as its witness (Spouses Afulugencia vs
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, GR No 185145, Feb. 5, 2014).
2. To maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial.
3. To enable the court to limit the inquiry to what is relevant, and thus prevent
the calling party from straying or harassing the adverse party when it takes
the latter to stand.