RULE23

1.Republicv.Sandiganbayan(1991)
FACTS:
AcomplaintwasinitiatedbythePCGGinbehalfoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesdenominatedasonefor
reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages pursuant to EO No. 14 against respondents
DominadorSantiagoandBienvenidoTantocoJr.togetherwithFerdinandMarcos,ImeldaMarcosandothers.
Afterbeingservedsummons,respondents,insteadoffilingananswer,filedamotiontostrikeoutportionsof
thecomplaintandforbillofparticulars.PCGGopposedsuchmotion.TheSandiganbayanthengavePCGG
45daystoexpanditscomplainttomakemorespecificcertainallegations.
TantocoandSantiagothensoughtananswertothequestion:"WhoweretheCommissionersofthePCGG
(asidefromits Chairman,Hon.RamonDiaz)whoapprovedorauthorizedtheinclusionofBienvenidoR.
Tantoco,Jr.andDominadorR.Santiagoasdefendantsinthecase?"ThePCGGrespondedbyfilingamotionto
strikeoutsaidmotionandinterrogatoriesasbeingimpertinent,"queer,""weird,"or"procedurallybizarreasthe
purposethereoflacksmeritasitisimproper,impertinentandirrelevant.
Eventually,theSandiganbayanDENIEDthemotionstostrikeout,forbillofparticularsandforleavetofile
interrogatories. The Sandiganbayan declared inter alia the complaint to be "sufficiently definite and clear
enough," there are adequate allegations which clearly portray the supposed involvement and/or alleged
participationofdefendantsmovantsinthetransactionsdescribedindetailinsaidComplaint,"and"theother
matterssoughtforparticularizationareevidentiaryinnaturewhichshouldbeventilatedinthepretrialortrial
proper.
RespondentsthenfiledananswerwithCompulsoryCounterclaiminwhichPCGGfiledareplywith
motiontodismissthecompulsorycounterclaim.ThecasewassetforpretrialwherePCGGandotherparties
submittedtheirpretrialbriefs.
TantocoandSantiagofiledwithSandiganbayanapleadingdenominatedas InterrogatoriestoPlaintiff
andanotherasAmendedInterrogatories1aswellasMotionforProductionandInspectionofDocuments.
Theamendedinterrogatories mainlyinquiredonwhatpropertiesdidPCGGhadtherighttorecoverandthe
specificactsoftherespondentsintheallegationsthattheywereinconcertwiththeMarcosesandthatthey
allegedlyconcealedtheassetsoftheMarcoses.Ontheotherhandthemotionofproductionandinspectionof
documentsprayedforexaminationandcopyingof:
1. official records and other evidence" on the basis of which the verification of the Amended
Complaintassertedthattheallegationsthereofare"trueandcorrect;"
2. thedocumentslistedinPCGG'sPreTrialBriefasthose"intendedtobepresentedand..markedas
exhibitsfortheplaintiff;"and
3. "theminutesofthemeetingofthePCGGwhichchroniclesthediscussionandthedecision(ofthe
Chairmanandmembers)tofilethecomplaint"inthecaseatbar.
TheSandiganbayanadmittedtheamendedinterrogatoriesandGRANTEDthemotionforproductionand
inspectionofdocuments.PCGGfiledanMR.SandiganbayandeniedtheMRhencethepresentpetition.
PCGGarguments:
Interrogatorieswerenotspecificanddidnotnameparticularindividualstowhomtheyarepropounded,
beingonlyaddressedtoPCGG.
InterrogatoriesdealwithfactualmatterswhichtheSandiganbayanhadalreadydeclaredtobepartofthe
PCGGsproofupontrial.
InterrogatorieswouldmakethePCGGofficerswitnesses.
1

ThedocumentssoughttobeproducedwerealreadymarkedpreliminarilyasPCGGsexhibitsand
respondentshavealreadyviewedandscrutinizedsuch.
Somedocumentswereeitherconfidentialorprivilegedornonexistent

ISSUES:
W/NitwasproperfortheSandiganbayantoadmittheAmendedInterrogatoriesandtograntthemotionfor
productionandinspectionofdocuments.
RULING+RATIO:
YES,thegrantingoftheamendedinterrogatoriesandmotionforproductionandinspectionofdocuments
wasproper.Evidentiarymattersmaybeinquiredintoandlearnedbythepartiesbeforethetrial.Indeed,itisthe
purposeandpolicyofthelawthatthepartiesbeforethetrialifnotindeedevenbeforethepretrialshould
discoverorinformthemselvesofallthefactsrelevanttotheaction,notonlythoseknowntothemindividually,
butalsothoseknowntoadversaries;inotherwords,thedesideratumisthatciviltrialsshouldnotbecarriedon
inthedark;andtheRulesofCourtmakethisidealpossiblethroughthedepositiondiscoverymechanismset
forthinRules24to29.
Thevariousmodesorinstrumentsofdiscoveryaremeanttoserve(1)asadevice,alongwiththepretrial
hearingunderRule20,tonarrowandclarifythebasicissuesbetweentheparties,and(2)asadevicefor
ascertainingthefactsrelativetothoseissues.Theinquiryextendstoallfactswhicharerelevant,whetherthey
beultimateorevidentiary,exceptingonlythosematterswhichareprivileged.
DepositionsunderRules23and24,interrogatoriesunderRule25andrequestsforadmissionsunderRule
26maybeavailedofwithoutleaveofcourtafterananswertothecomplainthasbeenserved.Itisonlywhenan
answerhasnotyetbeenfiled(afterjurisdictionoverthedefendantorpropertyhasbeenobtained)thatprior
leaveofcourtisneededtoavailofthesemodesofdiscovery.Therewasnoneedfortheprivaterespondentsto
seekpriorleaveofcourttoservetheir"AmendedInterrogatoriestoPlaintiff"aftertheyhadfiledtheiranswerto
thePCGG'scomplaint,justastherewasnoneedfortheSandiganbayantoactthereon.
ONPCGGSCONENTIONS(seeabove):
1.Section1,Rule25whichstatesthatifthepartyservedwithinterrogatoriesisajuridicalentitysuchas"a
publicorprivatecorporationorapartnershiporassociation,"thesameshallbe"answered..byany
officerthereofcompetenttotestifyinitsbehalf."Thattheinterrogatoriesareaddressedonlytothe
PCGG,withoutnaminganyspecificcommissionerorofficerthereof,isutterlyofnoconsequence,and
maynotbeinvokedasareasontorefusetoanswer.Theinterrogatorieswerespecificsuchthatthey
weremadetoindividualparagraphsofthePCGGsexpandedcomplaintandinquiredaboutdetailsof
theultimatefactstherein.
2.ThattheinterrogatoriesdealwithfactualmatterswhichwillbepartofthePCGG'sproofupontrial,is
notgroundforsuppressingthembecausetheprecisepurposeofdiscoveryistoensuremutual
knowledgeofallrelevantfactsonthepartofallpartiesevenbeforetrial.
3.AlsounmeritoriousistheobjectionthattheinterrogatorieswouldmakePCGGCommissionersand
officerswitnesses,incontraventionofExecutiveOrderNo.14andrelatedissuances.Inthefirstplace,
thereisnothingatallwronginaparty'smakinghisadversaryhiswitness.
4. PCGGspostulationthatnoneofitsmembersmaybe"requiredtotestifyorproduceevidenceinany
judicialproceedingconcerningmatterswithinitsofficialcognizance,"hasnoapplicationtoajudicial
proceedingithasitselfinitiated.Asjustsuggested,theactofbringingsuitmustentailawaiverofthe
exemptionfromgivingevidence;bybringingsuititbringsitselfwithintheoperationandscopeofall
therulesgoverningcivilactions,includingtherightsanddutiesundertherulesofdiscovery.
5.Thecourtalsofoundthattherewasnothingsecretorconfidentialaboutthedocumentssoughttobe
produced.Thecourtalsofoundthattherewasgoodcauseshownfortheproductionandinspectionofthe

documentsbecausetheywerethebasisofthematerialallegationsofPCGGandthatsucharetobeused
asevidencebyPCGG.
PetitionoftheRepublicDENIEDhencetheamendedinterrogatoriesandthemotionforproductionand
inspectionofdocumentswereadmittedandgranted.