Facts Issue Ruling Important points

- Remedios sold a parcel of
land to Ehmer however,
the latter failed in its
obligation to fully pay the
amount of P35,000,000
- Remedies filed a her
complaint for rescission of
contract
- During the course of trial,
Remedios filed a Request
for Interrogatories and
submitted questions for
Ehmer to answer,
- Ehmer responded to said
interrogatories but refuses
to answer some of the
questions inquiring on his
ability to pay
- Whether or - NO. The trial court properly - Sec. 1, Rule 25: A party
not Remedios found nothing wrong with
may compel Ehmer’s refusal to answer the
Ehmer to questions which concerns his
answer all of ability to pay.
- The complaint filed by
interrogatories Remedios is that of rescission
of contract, the main issue of
which is to establish Ehmer’s
failure to fulfill his obligation
in paying the agreed purchase
price.
- Even if the unanswered
interrogatories may be
relevant to the cause of such
failure, the responses would
shed no light to the fact that
Ehmer has already breached
his obligation. The trial court
therefore did not gravely
abuse its discretion in refusing
to compel Ehmer to provide
answers to all of Remedios’
interrogatories.
desiring to elicit information
from an adverse party may file
and serve upon the latter written
interrogatories. In case of
refusal to answer any of the
questions set forth, remedy of
the aggrieved party is to apply
for an order compelling answer
pursuant to Sec. 1 of Rule 29.
- Sec. 1, Rule 29: Refusal to
answer. – The proponent may
thereafter apply to the proper
court of the place where the
deposition is being taken for an
order to compel an answer.
- In case a party refuses to
answer the interrogatories
submitted to him, he may file an
Order in the court to compel
said party to answer the
questions.
- If said order was denied, then
plaintiff can file a Petition for
Certiorari challenging the trial
court’s refusal to issue an order
compelling the adverse party to
answer the interrogatories.

Weingartner vs. Argañosa-Maniego

G.R. No. 241891

Facts of the Case:

Remedios sold a parcel of land to RTE for an agreed consideration of P35,000,000.00, payable through an
initial payment of P5,000,000.00 and twelve (12) monthly installments of P2,000,000.00. Ehmer paid
Remedios P2,000,000.00 and consequently caused the issuance of a certificate of title over the property,
which he later mortgaged in favor of Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company. However, Remedios
continued, Ehmer was only able to pay P8,700,000.00, or about twenty-five (25%) percent of the
purchase price.

Procedural History:

On May 18, 2016, Remedios Weingartner filed a complaint for rescission of contract and damages with
application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Rockville Transport
Enterprises (RTE) and its owner, Ehmer Ramirez (Ehmer), before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos,
Bulacan. The RTC, in its September 28, 2016 Order, granted Remedios's prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction, thus enjoining Ehmer from disposing the property during the pendency of the case upon the
posting, by the former, of a bond in the amount of P2,000,000.00. Instead of posting the required bond,
Remedios filed an omnibus motion to reduce the amount thereof to P100,000.00. She contended that the
amount required by the RTC was too high. In addition, she argued that Ehmer would not stand to suffer
any loss or damage by virtue of the issuance of the injunction.  Ehmer responded to the interrogatories,
essentially stating that he owns RTE, which is engaged in a car rental business, and, as such, he has been
self-employed for the past 20 years. Notably, however, he refused to answer questions noting that they
were irrelevant.

RTC ruled denying plaintiffs motion to Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents, denies
plaintiff's Omnibus Motion to Reduce Injunction Bond. Remedios filed motion for reconsideration which
was denied. Remedios elevated the case to the CA imputing grave abuse of discretion for not compelling
Ehmer to answer all interrogatories, recalling the writ of preliminary injunction despite the pendency of a
motion for reconsideration to reduce the amount thereof.

CA ruled partially in favor of Remedios granting the petition for certiorari and the orders of the RTC
nullified and ordered Ehmer to submit to the court and the petitioner a sworn statement admitting or
denying matters enumerated in the request for admission.

Statement of Issue(s):

Whether or not Remedios may compel Ehmer to answer all the interrogatories?

Holding:

No. Remedios claimed that the CA erred in ruling that she did not apply for an order to compel Ehmer to
answer all of her interrogatories. She pointed out that, in her motion for reconsideration of the trial court's
November 16, 2016 Order, she expressly prayed that Ehmer be compelled to fully answer the said
interrogatories. Section 1 of Rule 25 of the Rules of Court provides that a party desiring to elicit
information from an adverse party may file and serve upon the latter written interrogatories. In case of
refusal to answer any of the questions set forth therein, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to apply for
an order compelling an answer pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 29, which pertinently reads:

Section 1. Refusal to answer.— If a party or other deponent refuses to answer any question upon oral
examination, the examination may be completed on other matters or adjourned as the proponent of the
question may prefer. The proponent may thereafter apply to the proper court of the place where the
deposition is being taken, for an order to compel an answer. The same procedure may be availed of when
a party or a witness refuses to answer any interrogatory submitted under Rules 23 or 25. In this case, as
Remedios correctly pointed out, one of the reliefs prayed for in the motion for partial reconsideration she
filed before the trial court was that Ehmer be compelled to answer her interrogatories. the trial court
properly found nothing wrong with Ehmer's refusal to answer questions no. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 of
Remedios's request for interrogatories, all of which concerned the former's ability to pay. As may be
recalled, the complaint a quo was filed to rescind the contract through which Remedios sold to Ehmer a
parcel of land in consideration of P35,000,000.00. The latter failed to comply with his obligation, and, as
of the filing of the complaint, had only paid twenty-five (25%) percent of the purchase price. Hence,
Remedios instituted the instant case pursuant to Article 1191 of the Civil Code, which sanctions the
rescission of reciprocal obligations upon breach thereof by any of the parties.34 In determining the
propriety of rescission, the question posed is whether or not the defendant breached his or her obligation.
Therefore, all that Remedios must establish in this case is the fact that Ehmer failed to fully pay the
agreed purchase price. While the unanswered interrogatories may be relevant to the cause of such failure,
the responses thereto would shed no light on the fact that he breached his obligation, which could easily
be proved through other means. Accordingly, the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in
refusing to compel Ehmer to provide answers to all of Remedios's interrogatories.