REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT),

Vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, BIENVENIDO R. TANTOCO, JR. and DOMINADOR R.SANTIAGO,

G.R. No. 90478 November 21, 1991

FACTS: The case was commenced on July 21, 1987 by the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG) in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. The complaint which initiated the action was
denominated one "for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages," and was avowedly
filed pursuant to Executive Order No. 14 of President Corazon C. Aquino. After having been served with
summons, Tantoco, Jr. and Santiago, instead of filing their answer, jointly filed a "Motion to Strike Out
Some Portions of the Complaint and For Bill of Particulars of Other Portions." The PCGG filed an opposition
thereto, and the movants, a reply to the opposition. Tantoco and Santiago then presented a "motion for
leave to file interrogatories under Rule 25 of the Rules of Court" of which the PCGG responded by filing a
motion.

On March 18, 1988, in compliance with the Order of January 29, 1988, the PCGG filed an Expanded
Complaint of which the Sandiganbayan denied with a Resolution. Tantoco and Santiago then filed an
Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim. On July 27, 1989 Tantoco and Santiago filed with the
Sandiganbayan a pleading denominated "Interrogatories to Plaintiff," and on August 2, 1989, an
"Amended Interrogatories to Plaintiff"' as well as a Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents.
The Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended Interrogatories and granted the motion for production and
inspection of documents respectively. PCGG filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of
August 25, 1989, it also filed an opposition to the Amended Interrogatories. Tantoco and Santiago filed a
reply and opposition. After hearing, the Sandiganbayan promulgated two (2) Resolutions. Hence, this
present petition.

ISSUES:1.WON PETITIONER CAN OBJECT TO THE INTERROGATORIES SERVED ON IT INACCORDANCE WITH

RULE 25 OF THE RULES OF COURT.

2.WON SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN ORDERING FOR THE PRODUCTION ANDINSPECTION OF SPECIFIED

DOCUMENTS AND THINGS ALLEGEDLY IN THEPOSSESSION OF PCGG.

HELD: 1. No. The State is, of course, immune from suit in the sense that it cannot, as a rule, be sued
without its consent. But it is axiomatic that in filing an action, it divests itself of its sovereign character and
sheds its immunity from suit, descending to the levelof an ordinary litigant. The PCGG cannot claim a
superior or preferred status to the State, even while assuming to represent or act for the State.

2. No. The Court gives short shrift to the argument that some documents sought to be produced and
inspected had already been presented in Court and marked preliminarily as PCGG's exhibits, the movants
having in fact viewed, scrutinized andeven offered objections thereto and made comments thereon.
Obviously, there is nothing secret or confidential about these documents. No serious objection can
therefore be presented to the desire of the private respondents to have copies of those documents in
order to study them some more or otherwise use them during the trial for any purpose allowed by

FORTUNE CORPORATION VS CA, GR NO. 108119

FACTS: An action for breach of contract was filed by petitioner Fortune Corporation against respondent
Inter-Merchants Corporation. After respondent corporation had filed its Answer, petitioner served the
former with written interrogatories pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of Court. The interrogatories were
answered by Respondent Corporation through its board chairman, Juanito A. Teope.