1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 25

2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Interrogatories to Parties

Rule 25 Q2: Place?

INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES Q3: Who was Q: Distinguish INTERROGATORIES TO
present when you paid? PARTIES (Rule 25) from DEPOSITION UPON
WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES (Rule 23).
Q: Going back to Rule 23, what are the modes of deposition Or A: The following are the distinctions:
taking?
A: The following: Q1: Mr. Frudo, you 1.) (Procedure) Under Rule 23
(1) Deposition upon oral examination; and have been in continuous on Depositions upon
(2) Deposition upon written interrogatories. possession of this piece written interrogatories, the
of land for 30 years, deposition is taken before a
would you kindly narrate deposition officer; whereas
Purpose of written interrogatories: the improvements that Under Rule 25 on Interrogatories
To elicit facts from any adverse party (answers may also be used you introduced in the to Parties, there is no
as admissions of the adverse party). property? deposition officer;
Q2: What year did
Written interrogatories and the answers thereto must both be you introduce them? 2.) (Procedure) Under Rule 23
filed and served. Hence, the answers may constitute as judicial Q3: Who are your on Depositions upon written
admissions (Sec. 4, R 129) witnesses? etc interrogatories, questions
are prepared beforehand.
Rule 25 should not be confused with Rule 23, Section 25 or Now, under Rule 25, you are obliged to answer They are submitted to the
Deposition Upon Written Interrogatories. me also in writing. Then you sign your answer and deposition officer who will
you swear to the truth of it. So I will ask you ask the deponent the
In written interrogatories under Rule 23, questions are already directing a question How will you prove this? Who questions and he will record
prepared beforehand and they are going to be submitted to a deposition are your witnesses? I will compel you to reveal the the answers.; whereas
officer who will propound the questions to the deponent and record the evidentiary facts. And that process is called written Under Rule 25 on Interrogatories
answers under oath. EXAMPLE is, if you want to take the deposition of interrogatories to parties. Di para na ring deposition? to Parties, the questioning is
somebody abroad through a deposition officer abroad. Of course, it direct. Plaintiff questions
would be very expensive to go there and conduct an oral examination. I can also ask the same questions through defendant, defendant
So, the best thing is to resort to deposition upon written interrogatories deposition taking under Rule 23. Why do I have to questions the plaintiff.
under Rule 23. resort to Rule 25? The trouble is under Rule 23, I There is no third person
need a deposition officer and I will have to course who will intervene; and
That is not the same as interrogatories to parties under this rule. everything to him. In Rule 25, there is no need of a
We are going to distinguish one from the other later. deposition officer. I will ask you a question and you 3.) (Deponent) Under Rule 23
will answer me. Both are done directly. So, less on Depositions upon written
Interrogatories mean written questions. EXAMPLE: I file a case expensive. interrogatories, the
against Frudo. Frudo filed an answer and of course, he has his deposition of any person
affirmative defenses which are statements of ultimate facts. alang But take note, under Rule 25, you can only ask may be taken, whether he is
details, no evidentiary facts. But I am interested to find out what are questions to your opponent. You cannot ask a party or not, may be
these evidentiary facts I will write a letter addressed to Frudo under questions to a stranger. Unlike in Rule 23, you can taken; whereas
Rule 25 and direct him to answer the following interrogatories: take the deposition of any person whether a party or Rule 25 on Interrogatories to
not. In Rule 25, the questioning is direct. Plaintiff Parties applies to parties
According to your answer, you questions the defendant, defendant questions the only. You can send
already paid, please answer the following plaintiff. So, these are the differences between interrogatories only to
questions: deposition upon written interrogatories and parties. You cannot ask
Q1: When did you pay? interrogatories to parties. question to a stranger.

19
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 25
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Interrogatories to Parties

interrogatories within one set of

4.) (Scope) Under deposition upon written fifteen (15) days after interrogatories to be
interrogatories (Sec. 25 R 23), there is direct, service thereof, unless answered by the same
cross, re-direct, re-cross examination but under the courts, on motion party. (4)
this rule there is only one set of interrogatories. and for good cause
shown, extends or Only one set of interrogatories by the same
5. (Period to answer) Under Rule 23, there is no fixed shortens the time. (2a) party is allowed. Leave of court is necessary for
time while under this rule the party concerned succeeding sets of interrogatories.
has 15 days to answer unless extended or The interrogatories
reduced by the court. shall be answered fully in It means, I send to you interrogatories and I
writing and shall be signed thought tapos na. Then I remembered kulang pa
and sworn to by the person pala iyon, so another set ahh hindi na pwede!
SEC. 1. Interrogatories to parties; making them. Dapat once lang unless the court allows me to send
service, thereof Under the same to you another set.
conditions specified in section 1 of Rule Answers cannot be
23, any party desiring to elicit material made by an agent or So, as a general rule, when you send questions
and relevant facts from any adverse attorney; answers not made to your opponent, you better compile. Lahat ng
parties shall file and serve upon the latter by the parties are nullities gusto mong itanong, itanong mo na because no
written interrogatories to be answered by (Herrera vol. 2 p. 44) party is given, as a rule, the privilege of securing
the party served or, if the party served is more than one set of interrogatories.
a public or private corporation or a A judgment by default
partnership or association, by any officer may be rendered against a SEC. 5. Scope and
thereof competent to testify in its behalf. party who fails to answer Use of Interrogatories -
written interrogatories. Interrogatories may
Q: Is leave of court necessary to apply Rule 25? Do I have to relate to any matters
apply for a court permission before I can send interrogatories to parties? SEC. 3. Objections to Interrogatories that can be inquired into
A: IT DEPENDS. The Rule says under the same conditions Objections to any interrogatories may be under section 2 of Rule
specified in Section 1 of Rule 23. So the manner of resorting to presented to the court within ten (10) days 23, and the answers may
interrogatories are done under the same conditions for taking of after service thereof, with notice as in case of be used for the same
depositions. a motion; and answers shall be deferred until purposes provided in
the objections are resolved, which shall be at section 4 of the same
1. Without leave of court if an answer has already been served: as early a time as is practicable. (3a) Rule (5a)

2. With leave of court If no answer has been served, although Q: Suppose you do not want to answer my Scope of the interrogatories
the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the defendant. That is questions because you believe my questions are
the same under the rule on deposition. The reason is that, at that time, improper, you want to object to my questions, what Q: What kind of questions can you ask under
the issues are not yet joined and the disputed facts are not yet clear. is your remedy? Rule 25 to your opponent?
A: You go to the court where the case is A: The same questions that you can ask in
SEC. 2. Answer to Interrogatories - The pending and object. Let the court decide whether you Rule 23 section 2:
interrogatories shall be answered fully in will have to answer or not. 1.) anything that is related to the
writing and shall be signed and sworn to claim or defense provided it is
by the person making them. The party SEC. 4. Number of relevant; and
upon whom the interrogatories have Interrogatories - No party 2.) it is not privileged.
been served shall file and serve a copy of may, without leave of
the answers on the party submitting the court, serve more than Use of the answers to interrogatories

20
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>
Q: Suppose there are already answers to the interrogatories given
by your opponent, how do you use those answers?
A: They have the same uses under Rule 23 Section 4 you can
use it for impeachment, or any other purpose like to prove an admission
already made by the adverse party.
Since answers to interrogatories may be used for the same
purposes as depositions, they may also be the basis of a summary
judgment under Rule 35.
SEC. 6. Effect of Failure to serve written
interrogatories Unless thereafter allowed
by the court for good cause shown and to
prevent a failure of justice, a party not
served with written interrogatories may
not be compelled by the adverse party to
give the testimony in open court, or to
give a deposition pending appeal (n)
This is entirely a new section. It has no counterpart in the old
rules. Now, this is a very controversial section. Actually, you will not
understand this until you study Evidence where you can compel the
adverse party to testify. This is actually related to Rule 132, Sec. 10 (e)
of the Rules of Evidence.
Unless a party has been served written interrogatories, he may
not be compelled by the adverse party:
1. to give testimony in open court; or
2. Give a deposition pending appeal.
The only exception is when the court allows it for good cause
shown and to prevent a failure of justice.
Note: The sanction adopted by the Rules is not one of compulsion
in the sense that the party is being compelled to avail of the discovery
mechanics, but one of negation by depriving him of evidentiary sources
which would otherwise have been accessible to him.
This is related to the rule on Evidence particularly Rule 132,
Section 10 [e]:
Rule 132, Sec. 10. Leading and
misleading questions. A question which
Rule 25
Interrogatories to Parties
suggests to the witness So, if I am the lawyer of a party, then binigla
the answer which the mo ako dahil there is really that element of surprise
examining party desires as it has happened several times before. The lawyer
is a leading question. It is caught by surprise when the opposing party says
is not allowed except: that it would present the adverse party to the
xxxxxx witness stand. The lawyer is then caught off-guard
xxxxxx as he has not talked to his client yet.
(e) of a witness
who is an adverse party Ngayon, may panlaban ka na. Pag-binigla ka,
or an officer, director, or you can counter it by arguing that written
managing agent of a interrogatories were not sent under Rule 25. Hence,
public or private you can object to the opposing counsels motion to
corporation or of a call your client to the witness stand.
partnership or
association which is an This practically compels the lawyers to avail of
adverse party. the modes of discovery because if you will not
xxxxxx compel him, chances are Filipino lawyers do not
make much use of the modes of discovery. So now,
Rule 132, Section 10 [e] is the provision in the if the opposing counsel suddenly sends
Rules which authorizes a party to call the adverse interrogatories to you, the he must be planning to
party to the witness stand. A party may call the call you in the witness stand later.
adverse party to the witness stand and interrogate
him by leading questions as an element of surprise.
I can call my opponent to the witness stand and he
cannot refuse.
I can conduct direct examination on the
adverse party and I am entitled under the Rules to
ask leading questions as if he is under cross-
examination because he is the adverse party. He is
not actually my witness. The purpose here is to
actually secure admissions from him while he is in
the witness stand because anything that he says
against me does not bind me even if I were the one
who called him to the witness stand. But anything he
might say that is against himself binds him.
Under Section 6, if I intend during the trial to
call him to the witness stand, I am obliged to send
him ahead written interrogatories. I have to follow
Rule 25. Now, if I do not send written interrogatories
to him, then I have no right to call him to the witness
stand. That is why Section 6 is a very radical
provision.
21