Rule 29
REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY
Rule 29 forms part of the study of the modes of discovery. The policy on
modes of discovery is that it is allowed and encouraged to determine, at
earlier time, essential issues and to promote settlement or expeditious trial.
Lawyers should avail of the modes of discovery because they are very helpful
in determining the issues and will even provoke a settlement if you believe na
wala kang laban.
And there were circulars issued by the SC on this matter. Example Circular
No. 13-87 (July 13, 1987) where the SC said that lawyers and parties should be
encouraged to avail the modes of discovery procedures provided for in the
rules. This is a neglected area in judicial process. Its use will expedite the
determination of cases.
HELD: “It appears to the Court that among far too many lawyers
(and not a few judges), there is, if not a regrettable unfamiliarity and
even outright ignorance about the nature, purposes and operation of
the modes of discovery, at least a strong yet unreasoned and
unreasonable disinclination to resort to them— which is a great pity
for the intelligent and adequate use of the deposition-discovery
mechanism, coupled with pre-trial procedure, could, as the
experience of other jurisdictions convincingly demonstrates,
effectively shorten the period of litigation and speed up
adjudication.”
Lakas Atenista 32
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 29 – Refusal to Comply
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> with
Modes of Discovery
Lakas Atenista 34
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 29 – Refusal to Comply
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> with
Modes of Discovery
expenses and attorney's fees are not to be imposed upon the Republic of
the Philippines.
Lakas Atenista 36
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 29 – Refusal to Comply
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> with
Modes of Discovery
So, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment of default against the
defendant (or dismissal of the case) citing Section 5 – where if one
refuses to cooperate, the case will be dismissed or a judgment of
default can be rendered against the party.
But the judge ruled that the case shall continue. The party now
went to the SC contending that the judge committed a grave abuse of
his discretion in refusing to apply the sanctions allowed by law.
NOTE: The ruling in this case was reiterated in the 1996 case of
SANTIAGO LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. vs. CA, July 9, 1996 (258
SCRA 535) and the 1998 case of DELA TORRE vs. PEPSI-COLA
PRODUCTS, October 30, 1998 (298 SCRA 363)
Lakas Atenista 38
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 29 – Refusal to Comply
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> with
Modes of Discovery
“Under the present Rules the fact that a party has resorted to a
particular method of discovery will not bar subsequent use of other
discovery devices, as long as the party is not attempting to
circumvent a ruling of the court, or to harass or oppress the other
party.”
There was a time when I did this. I used a variety or combination of the
different modes. I was interested in knowing some evidence from the other
party. So, interrogatories, then sagot. I asked them on how they were going to
prove it and whether they going to present witnesses and documents. Yes
daw. So, I used production and inspection na naman. So may order na naman.
If they have witnesses to be presented, then deposition na naman. In other
words, we can avail all of this.
The consequences under Sec. 5 will apply if a party refuses to answer the
whole set of written interrogatories, and not just a particular question. Where
the party upon whom the written interrogatories is served, refuses to answer
a particular question in the set of written interrogatories and despite an order
compelling him to answer the particular question, still refuses to obey the
court, Sec. 3© of Rule 29 will apply (Cepeda v. China Banking Corporation GR
No. 172175, October 9, 2006).
(a) The court may issue an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof;
(b) The court may issue an order staying further proceedings until the order
is obeyed; or
(c) The court may issue an order rendering a judgment by default against
the disobedient party.
The matter of how, and when, the above sanctions should be applied is one
that primarily rests on the sound discretion of the court where the case is
pending, having always in mind the paramount and overriding interest of
justice. For while the modes of discovery are intended to attain the resolution
of litigations with great expediency, they are not contemplated, however, to
be ultimate causes of injustice. It behooves trial courts to examine well the
circumstances of each case and to make their considered determination
thereafter (Zepeda vs. China Banking Corporation)
Lakas Atenista 39
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 29 – Refusal to Comply
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> with
Modes of Discovery
Lakas Atenista 40
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law