Mode of Discovery – Interrogatories to Parties

PHIC v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, G.R. No. 193158, November 11, 2015
Page 447

Facts:

On May 14, 2009, PHIC filed a Complaint with its Legal Sector - Prosecution Department against
OLLH for the administrative offense of filing multiple claims, which is penalized under Section 145, Rule
XXVIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 7875. Allegedly, OLLH filed two
claims of the same amount of PhilHealth benefits involving the same patient for the same diagnosis
and covering the same period of confinement.

The case was assigned to a Senior Arbiter De Leon. Summons was duly served and on June 23,
2009, OLLH filed a verified answer. After which, the parties were directed to file their respective
Position Papers. PHIC complied with the order. On its part, OLLH moved to defer the submission of its
position paper pending the answer of the PHIC President and CEO to the written interrogatories as well
as the inspection and copying of the original transmittal letter and all other claims. According to OLLH,
these modes of discovery were availed of because its representatives were denied and/or not given
access to documents and were not allowed to talk to PHIC personnel with regard to the charge.

The PHIC Arbitration Department denied OLLH’s motion. Resolving that said case is summary
in nature based upon the rules that govern administrative proceedings. Relevantly, said pleadings,
was designed for no other conceivable end or purpose but to delay the proceedings.” The arbiter finds
that said pleadings is unsubstantiated and self-serving. Motion for Reconsideration was also denied.

OLLH argument is predicated on the Supreme Court ruling in Koh v. IAC, 144 SCRA 259 [1986],
that "the recourse to discovery procedure is not mandatory. If the parties do not choose to resort to
such procedures, the pre-trial conference should be set."

The arbiter resolved that the above-cited decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by OLLH
pertains to a civil case filed in the regular court of justice and is not applicable in an administrative
case. It was likewise stressed that in the case of Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, it was
ruled by the Supreme Court that "where an administrative body is expressly granted the power of
adjudication, it is deemed also vested with the implied power to prescribe the rules to be observed in
the conduct of its proceedings.” Lastly, it was stressed that all the issues and queries raised by OLLH
in its motion may be addressed in the hearing to be held AFTER submission of its position paper.

Aggrieved, OLLH elevated the issue to the CA via petition for certiorari. CA reversed the
Resolution and Order and ruled that grave abuse of discretion was committed when OLLH' s resort to
modes of discovery was denied.

Now PHIC filed a petition before the Supreme Court contending that they did not commit grave
abuse of discretion contending that the material points which OLLH seeks to establish in its resort to
modes of discovery were already presented in the pleadings and documents it submitted for
consideration of the Arbiter. Specifically, the subject information and documents sought to be examined
are the same information and documents which OLLH itself prepared, produced, and submitted to the
PHIC.

Issue:

Whether or not CA is correct in annulling the PHIC Resolution and order denying OLLH’s resort
to modes of discovery.

Ruling:

No, the CA is not correct in annulling the PHIC Resolution and Order.
 In Cagayan Valley Drug v. CIR, 568 Phil. 572, 582(2008), it was held that, “Through written
interrogatories, a party may elicit from the adverse party or parties any facts or matter that are not
privileged and are material and relevant to the subject of the pending action.”

Under the Rules of Court, Rule 25, Sec. l in relation to Rule 23, Sec. l, “Like other modes of
discovery authorized by the Rules, the purpose of written interrogatories is to assist the parties in
clarifying the issues and in ascertaining the facts involved in a case.”

In Sofdbonk v. Gotewoy Electronks Cow, et ol., 576 Phil. 250, 262 (2008), it was held that, “It
must be shown, therefore, that the documents sought to be produced, inspected and/or
copied/photographed are material or contain evidence relevant to an issue involved in the action.”

In this case, the questions contained in the written interrogatories filed and received on July 28,
2009 sought to elicit facts could already be seen from the allegations as well as attachments of the
Complaint and the Verified Answer. It is either immaterial or irrelevant to the issue of whether OLLH
is guilty of filing multiple claims or, even if material or relevant, are self-explanatory and need no further
elaboration from PHIC. Thus, the interrogatories were frivolous and need not be answered.