Arellano v. CFI Sorsogon, No.

L-34897, 15 July 1975

FACTS:

On May 4, 1967, respondent Santiago Barreta filed with the respondent court against petitioner Raul Arellano, Emilio Bayona for
reconveyance and damages of a certain parcel of land located in Sorsogon.

Petitioner Arellano filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) on the complaint. Simultaneously, Arellano dispatched written interrogatories
to which respondent had received on May, 9, 1967.

The written interrogatories provide that should Barreta failed to file a responsive pleading to it within five (5) days upon receipt,
his complaint will be dismissed.
No action by the court was taken on the MTD until February 12, 1969, one and a half years later. The court then set the case for
hearing and order Baretta to file an opposition on the MTD filed by Arellano.

However, Baretta failed to submit an opposition despite the extension to file an opposition given to him by the court. Petitioner
then prays for the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Section 5, Rule 29 and Section 3, Rule 17", alleging that Barreta had
failed to serve answers to the interrogatories sent to him despite the periods previously given to him by the court.

However, upon Barettas asking for deferment, the court gives another ten (10) days to the respondent to file any responsive
pleading. Aggrieved, petitioner filed another instant dismissal in which the court finally granted.

Three months later, Baretta filed a Motion for reclusion of Raul Arellano as indispensable party defendant because his action
against him is dismissed due to the respondent failure to answer the written interrogatories and that it is not a ground for
dismissal of an action. Moreover, respondent is now ready to answer the queries of the petitioner. However, such motion was
denied.
On January 16, 1971, respondent with a new counsel filed a Motion to Set Aside Orders Dismissing Complaint against
Defendant Raul Arellano, which was set for hearing on February 4, 1971. Arellano opposed on the ground that the case had
already been dismissed.

As a result, the court denied Barettas motion. However, to avoid his case from being terminated, Baretta again filed this time a
Motion for Admission of Amended Complaint. Arellano moved to set aside this order, but after it was opposed by Barreta, the
trial court issued an order of denial which counsel for Arellano claims he has never received, so much so that, unaware of such
denial, under date of October 5, 1971, he filed a supplemental motion (to set aside).

After Baretta filed an opposition to Arellanos motion, the court ruled that since the dismissal of the case against defendant Raul
Arellano dated August 19, 1969 does not constitute res judicata, the filing of an amended complaint is admitted and petitioner is
hereby order to file a responsive pleading within fifteen (15) days from receipt. Arellano then filed a motion for reconsideration
but the court upheld its decision reiterating that the denial does not constitute res judicata considering that from the records of
the case, it appears that the written interrogatories sent to the plaintiff was done without leave of Court and in violation of Section
1, Rule 24 of the New Rules of Court.

The petitioner then was directed to file a responsive pleading within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. Aggrieved, petitioner
filed an instant petition for certiorari seeking to nullify and set aside the orders of the respondent court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the court order of dismissal dated August 19, 1969 was legally issued by the court. YES

RULING

With regards to the first issue, the court upheld that the order of dismissal in question on the strength of the basic principles
of discovery procedure, more specifically, for failure of Barreta to serve any answer to Arellano's interrogatories is valid.
"Leave of court is not necessary before written interrogatories may be served upon a party." (2 Moran 90, 1970 ed.)
In any event, if Section 1 of Rule 25 could be susceptible of the construction suggested by counsel for Barreta, it is to Us a
sufficient basis for the discovery procedure of written interrogatories in this case to have proceeded in motion after plaintiff
had been given a period to oppose and had failed to do so. Besides, the repeatedly unfulfilled promises of counsel to
produce the answers of his client render such objection academic.