Santiago Land Development Company v.

CA
Depositions | July 9, 1996 | Torres

SUMMARY: Respondent Komatsu Industries filed an action seeking to prevent the foreclosure of its properties. During
the case, Santiago Land Development purchased the subject proeprty and filed a motion for intervention. SLDC then
served written interrogatories on respondent Komatsu Industries’ counsel. Komatsu was not able to answer the
interrogatories. SLDC filed to dismiss the action which respondent Komatsu opposed alleging that there was no valid
service of the written interrogatories since they were made upon counsel. Trial corut issued an order denying the
motion to dismiss. CA denied the petition. Thus, SLDC files the present case. SC ruled that the failure to answer the
written interrogatories warrants the dismissal upon the discretion of the court. In this case, Court ruled that certiorari
was not the appropriate remedy to question the order of the lower courts.

DOCTRINE: Section 5, Rule 29 of the Rules of Court warrants the dismissal of the complaint when the plaintiff fails or
refuses to answer the written interrogatories. If plaintiff fails or refuses to answer the interrogatories, it may be a good
basis for the dismissal of his complaint for non-suit unless he can justify such failure or refusal. It should be noted that it
is discretionary on the court to order the dismissal of the action.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Nature Petition for review on certiorari on decision of CA

Parties Petitioners: Santiago Land Development Company

Respondent: CA, Komatsu Industries

 Komatsu Industries (Phil.) failed to pay its indebtedness of P27,000,000

 Philippine National Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings of the 18,000 sq. meter mortgaged property at
Pasong Tamo duly registered in name of Komatsu.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

RTC Makati Respondent Komatsu Industries filed an action seeking to

prevent the forelosure of the subject property.
 TC issued a TRO but property was extrajudicially foreclosed by
the PNB
 Amended petition for declaration of nullity of the extrajudicial
foreclosure sale

During pendency of case, petitioner Santiago Land Development

Corp (SLDC) purchased the property for P90,000,000 and deed
of absolute sale was executed.
 SLDC filed a motion for intervention. TC allowed.

SLDC served written interrogatories on respondent

Koamtsu Industries counsel.
 Interrogatories were not answered by respondent
 Thus, SLDC filed a motion to dismiss the action with prejudice
under Sec.5, Rule 29 of the ROC
Respondent Komatsu opposed this motion
 Claims that there was no valid service of the written
 interrogatories since service was made on respondent’s
counsel and not directly upon any of the officer’s who were
competent to testify in its behalf pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 25
Trial court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss.

Court of Appeals SLDC filed with SC but was referred to the CA.

CA ruled there was valid service and failure of respondent to answer

the interrogatories would warrant the dismissal of the case.
 Certiorari does not lie since there was no grave abuse of
discretion
CA dismissed petition.

Supreme Court SLDC files present petition.

 Civil action should have been dismissed with prejudice
because private respondent deliberately and knowingly
refused to answer the written interrogatories.
 Thus, trial court acted with GAD in disregarding the usual
course of judicial proceedings under Sec. 5, Rule 29 1.

ISSUES & RATIO:

1) W/N the complaint should be dismissed for failure to answer the written interrogatories? YES
 Sec. 5, Rule 29 warrants the dismissal of the complaint when the plaintiff fails or refuses to answer the written
interrogatories. If plaintiff fails or refuses to answer, it may be a good basis for the dismissal of his complaint for
non-suit unless he can justify such failure /refusal.
o It is discretionary on the court to order the dismissal of the action.
 Although there was an error in denying the motion to dismiss, such cannot be considered as GAD and
correctable by certiorari.
o Certiorari is not available to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judge’s findings and
conclusions and that certiorari will not be issued to cure errors in proceedings or to correct erroneous
conclusions of law and fact.
o Denial of motion to dismiss or quash, being interlocutory, cannot be questioned by certiorari.
 Considering the premises, a petition for review by certiorari in the case at bar does not lie.
o Absent any arbitrary or despotic exercise of judicial power as to amount to abuse of discretion on the
part of the respondent court, the instant petition cannot prosper.

DISPOSITIVE: ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit with costs against petitioner. SO
ORDERED.

1
“If a party or an officer or managing agent of a party wilfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take his deposition, after being served with
a proper notice, or fails to serve answers to interrogatories submitted under Rule 25, after proper service of such interrogatories, the court on motion
and notice, may strike out all or any part of any pleading of that party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by
default against that party, and in its discretion, order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the other, including attorney’s fees.”