1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls.

check for errors>

Rule 25 INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES Q: Going back to Rule 23, what are the modes of deposition taking? A: The following: !" #eposition upon oral e$amination% and 2" #eposition upon written interrogatories&

Rule 25 Interrogatories to Parties

Rule 2' should not be confused with Rule 23, (ection 2' ) *ung tinatawag na #eposition +pon ,ritten -nterrogatories& -n written interrogatories under Rule 23, .uestions are alread* prepared beforehand and the* are going to be submitted to a deposition officer who will propound the .uestions to the deponent and record the answers under oath& EXAMPLE is, if *ou want to take the deposition of somebod* abroad through a deposition officer abroad& /f course, it would be 0er* e$pensi0e to go there and conduct an oral e$amination& (o, the best thing is to resort to deposition upon written interrogatories under Rule 23& That is not the same as interrogatories to parties under this rule& ,e are going to distinguish one from the other later& -nterrogatories mean written .uestions& EXAMPLE: - file a case against 1rudo& 1rudo filed an answer and of course, he has his affirmati0e defenses which are statements of ultimate facts& alang details, no e0identiar* facts& 2ut - am interested to find out what are these e0identiar* facts - will write a letter addressed to 1rudo under Rule 2' and direct him to answer the following interrogatories: Accord !" to your a!s#er$ you already pa d$ please a!s#er the follo# !" %uest o!s& '(& )he! d d you pay* '2& Place* '+& )ho #as prese!t #he! you pa d* Or '(& ,r. -rudo$ you ha.e /ee! ! co!t !uous possess o! of th s p ece of la!d for +0 years$ #ould you k !dly !arrate the 1pro.e1e!ts that you !troduced ! the property* '2& )hat year d d you !troduce the1* '+& )ho are your # t!esses* etc2 3ow, under Rule 2', *ou are obliged to answer me also in writing& Then *ou sign *our answer and *ou swear to the truth of it& (o - will ask *ou directing a .uestion ) How will you prove this? Who are your witnesses? - will compel *ou to re0eal the e0identiar* facts& And that process is called written interrogatories to parties& #i para na ring deposition? - can also ask the same .uestions through deposition taking under Rule 23& ,h* do - ha0e to resort to Rule 2'? The trouble is under Rule 23, kukuha pa ako ng deposition officer and - will ha0e to course e0er*thing to him& -n Rule 2', walang deposition officer& #iretsahan na ito& - will ask *ou a .uestion and *ou will answer me& (o, less e$pensi0e& 2ut take note, under Rule 2', *ou can onl* ask .uestions to *our opponent& 4ou cannot ask .uestions to a stranger& +nlike in Rule 23, *ou can take the deposition of an* person whether a part*

3akas Ate! sta

Ate!eo de 4a.ao 5! .ers ty 6olle"e of 3a#

19

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 25 Interrogatories to Parties

or not& -n Rule 2', the .uestioning is direct& 5laintiff .uestions the defendant, defendant .uestions the plaintiff& (o, these are the differences between deposition upon written interrogatories and interrogatories to parties& Q: #istinguish IN E!!O"A O!IE# O PA! IE# Rule 2'" from $EPO#I ION %PON W!I IN E!!O"A O!IE# Rule 23"& A: The following are the distinctions: EN

!&" +nder Rule 23 on #epositions upon written interrogatories, the deposition is taken before a deposition officer% whereas +nder Rule 2' on -nterrogatories to 5arties, there is no deposition officer% 2&" +nder Rule 23 on #epositions upon written interrogatories, .uestions are prepared beforehand& The* are submitted to the deposition officer who will ask the deponent the .uestions and he will record the answers&% whereas +nder Rule 2' on -nterrogatories to 5arties, the .uestioning is direct& 5laintiff .uestions defendant, defendant .uestions the plaintiff& There is no third person who will inter0ene% and 3&" +nder Rule 23 on #epositions upon written interrogatories, the deposition of an* person ma* be taken, whether he is a part* or not, ma* be taken% whereas Rule 2' on -nterrogatories to 5arties applies to parties onl*& 4ou can send interrogatories onl* to parties& 4ou cannot ask .uestion to a stranger& SE6. (. Interrogatories to parties& servi'e( thereo) 7 5!der the sa1e co!d t o!s spec f ed ! sect o! ( of Rule 2+$ a!y party des r !" to el c t 1ater al a!d rele.a!t facts fro1 a!y ad.erse part es shall f le a!d ser.e upo! the latter #r tte! !terro"ator es ha.e /ee! ser.ed shall f le a!d ser.e a copy of the a!s#ers o! the party su/1 tt !" the !terro"ator es # th ! f ftee! 8(59 days after ser. ce thereof u!less the court$ o! 1ot o! a!d for "ood cause sho#!$ e:te!ds or shorte!s the t 1e. 8(a9 Q: -s lea0e of court necessar* to appl* Rule 2'? #o - ha0e to appl* for a court permission before can send interrogatories to parties? A: -T #6563#(& The Rule sa*s *under the sa+e 'onditions spe'i)ied in #e'tion , o) !ule -./0 (o the manner of resorting to interrogatories are done under the same conditions for taking of depositions& (o if an answer has alread* been ser0ed, lea0e of court is not necessar*& -f no answer has been ser0ed, although the court has alread* ac.uired 7urisdiction o0er the defendant, lea0e of court is necessar*& That is the same under the rule on deposition& SE6. 2. Answer to Interrogatories - The !terro"ator es shall /e a!s#ered fully ! #r t !" a!d shall /e s "!ed a!d s#or! to /y the perso! 1ak !" the1. The party upo! #ho1 the !terro"ator es ha.e /ee! ser.ed shall f le a!d ser.e a copy of the a!s#ers o! the party su/1 tt !" the !terro"ator es # th ! f ftee! 8(59 days after ser. ce thereof$ u!less the courts$ o! 1ot o! a!d for "ood cause sho#!$ e:te!ds or shorte!s the t 1e. 82a9 As - ha0e mentioned, *ou are mandated b* law to answer full* in writing m* .uestions and signed and sworn b* *ou& As a general rule, *ou are gi0en !' da*s to answer m* interrogatories&

3akas Ate! sta

Ate!eo de 4a.ao 5! .ers ty 6olle"e of 3a#

20

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 25 Interrogatories to Parties

SE6. +. O12e'tions to Interrogatories 7 O/;ect o!s to a!y !terro"ator es 1ay /e prese!ted to the court # th ! te! 8(09 days after ser. ce thereof$ # th !ot ce as ! case of a 1ot o!< a!d a!s#ers shall /e deferred u!t l the o/;ect o!s are resol.ed$ #h ch shall /e at as early a t 1e as s pract ca/le. 8+a9 Q: (uppose *ou do not want to answer m* .uestions because *ou belie0e m* .uestions are improper, *ou want to ob7ect to m* .uestions, what is *our remed*? A: 4ou go to the court where the case is pending and ob7ect& 8et the court decide whether *ou will ha0e to answer or not& SE6. =. Nu+1er o) Interrogatories > No party 1ay$ # thout lea.e of court$ ser.e 1ore tha! o!e set of !terro"ator es to /e a!s#ered /y the sa1e party. 8=9 -t means, - send to *ou interrogatories and - thought tapos na& Then - remembered kulang pa pala i*on, so another set ) ahh hindi na pwede9 #apat once lang unless the court allows me to send to *ou another set& (o, as a general rule, when *ou send .uestions to *our opponent, *ou better compile& 8ahat ng gusto mong itanong, itanong mo na because no part* is gi0en, as a rule, the pri0ilege of securing more than one set of interrogatories& SE6. 5. #'ope and %se o) Interrogatories > I!terro"ator es 1ay relate to a!y 1atters that ca! /e !%u red !to u!der sect o! 2 of Rule 2+$ a!d the a!s#ers 1ay /e used for the sa1e purposes pro. ded ! sect o! = of the sa1e Rule 85a9 Q: ,hat kind of .uestions can *ou ask under Rule 2' to *our opponent? A: The same .uestions that *ou can ask in Rule 23 section 2: !&" an*thing that is related to the claim or defense pro0ided it is rele0ant% and 2&" it is not pri0ileged& Q: (uppose there are alread* answers to the interrogatories gi0en b* *our opponent, how do *ou use those answers? A: The* ha0e the same uses under Rule 23 (ection : ) *ou can use it for impeachment, or an* other purpose like to pro0e an admission alread* made b* the ad0erse part*& SE6. ?. E))e't o) 3ailure to serve written interrogatories 7 5!less thereafter allo#ed /y the court for "ood cause sho#! a!d to pre.e!t a fa lure of ;ust ce$ a party !ot ser.ed # th #r tte! !terro"ator es 1ay !ot /e co1pelled /y the ad.erse party to " .e the test 1o!y ! ope! court$ or to " .e a depos t o! pe!d !" appeal 8!9 This is entirel* a new .uestion& -t has no counterpart in the old rules& 3ow, this is a 0er* contro0ersial section& Actuall*, *ou will not understand this until *ou stud* 60idence where *ou can compel the ad0erse part* to testif*& This is actuall* related to Rule !32, (ec& !; e" of the Rules of 60idence& 4 he )ollowing dis'ussions are ta5en )ro+ the !e+edial Law !eview rans'ription ,667869: This is related to the rule on 60idence particularl* Rule !32, (ection !; <e=:

3akas Ate! sta

Ate!eo de 4a.ao 5! .ers ty 6olle"e of 3a#

21

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 25 Interrogatories to Parties

Rule (+2$ Sec. (0. Leading and +isleading ;uestions. 7 A %uest o! #h ch su""ests to the # t!ess the a!s#er #h ch the e:a1 ! !" party des res s a lead !" %uest o!. It s !ot allo#ed e:cept& :::::: :::::: 8e9 of a # t!ess #ho s a! ad.erse party or a! off cer$ d rector$ or 1a!a" !" a"e!t of a pu/l c or pr .ate corporat o! or of a part!ersh p or assoc at o! #h ch s a! ad.erse party. :::::: Rule !32, (ection !; <e= is the pro0ision in the Rules which authori>es a part* to call the ad0erse part* to the witness stand& A part* ma* call the ad0erse part* to the witness stand and interrogate him b* leading .uestions ) as an element of surprise& - can call m* opponent to the witness stand and he cannot refuse& - can conduct direct e$amination on the ad0erse part* and - am entitled under the Rules to ask leading .uestions as if he in under cross?e$amination because he is the ad0erse part*& @e is not actuall* m* witness& The purpose here is to actuall* secure admissions from him while he is in the witness stand because an*thing that he sa*s against me does not bind me e0en if - were the one who called him to the witness stand& 2ut an*thing he might sa* that is against himself binds him& +nder (ection A, if - intend during the trial to call him to the witness stand, - am obliged to send him ahead written interrogatories& - ha0e to follow Rule 2'& 3ow, if - do not send written interrogatories to him, then - ha0e no right to call him to the witness stand& That is wh* (ection A is a 0er* radical pro0ision& (o, if - am the law*er of a part*, then binigla mo ako dahil there is reall* that element of surprise as it has happened se0eral times before& The law*er is caught b* surprise when the opposing part* sa*s that it would present the ad0erse part* to the witness stand& The law*er is then caught off?guard as he has not talked to his client *et& 3ga*on, ma* panlaban ka na& 5ag?binigla ka, *ou can counter it b* arguing that written interrogatories were not sent under Rule 2'& @ence, *ou can ob7ect to the opposing counselBs motion to call *our client to the witness stand& This practicall* compels the law*ers to a0ail of the modes of disco0er* because if *ou will not compel him, chances are 1ilipino law*ers do not make much use of the modes of disco0er*& (o now, if the opposing counsel suddenl* sends interrogatories to *ou, the he must be planning to call *ou in the witness stand later&

3akas Ate! sta

Ate!eo de 4a.ao 5! .ers ty 6olle"e of 3a#

22