[01] SPS AFULGENCIA v METROBANK Ultimately, such unnecessary processes can only constitute a waste of the court's
GR No. 185145 | February 2014 | Rule 25 – Interrogation to Parties| Wayne Novera
Petitioner: SPOUSES VICENTE AFULUGENCIA and LETICIA AFULUGENCIA
Respondents: METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. and EMMANUEL L. ORTEGA,
Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, Province of Bulacan
Recit-Ready Facts: Petitioners, spouses Vicente and Leticia Afulugencia, filed a
Complaint for nullification of mortgage, foreclosure, auction sale, certificate of sale and
other documents, with damages, against respondents Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co.
(Metrobank) and Emmanuel L. Ortega (Ortega) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
After the filing of the parties' pleadings and with the conclusion of pre-trial, petitioners
filed a Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum to require
Metrobank's officers to appear and testify as the petitioners' initial witnesses during the
August 31, 2006 hearing for the presentation of their evidence-in-chief, and to bring the
documents relative to their loan with Metrobank.
ISSUE: W/N PETITIONERS MUST FIRST SERVE WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES TO
RESPONDENT BANK'S OFFICERS BEFORE THEY CAN BE SUBPOENAED? YES
Doctrine:
IN CIVIL CASES, CALLING THE ADVERSE PARTY TO THE WITNESS STAND IS
NOT ALLOWED, UNLESS WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES ARE FIRST SERVED
UPON THE LATTER
This is embodied in Section 1 and 6, Rule 25 of the Rules, which provide —
Section 1. Interrogatories to parties; service thereof —
Under the same conditions specified in Section 1 of Rule 23, any party desiring to
elicit material and relevant facts from any adverse parties shall FIle and serve upon
the latter written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party
served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association, by any
officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf.
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
FACTS:
compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a
deposition pending appeal.
Thus, the rule not only protects the adverse party from unwarranted surprises or
harassment; it likewise prevents the calling party from conducting a fishing expedition or
bungling its own case. Using its own judgment and discretion, the court can hold its own
in resolving a dispute, and need not bear witness to the parties perpetrating unfair court
practices such as fishing for evidence, badgering, or altogether ruining their own cases.
precious time, if not pointless entertainment.
Application to the case:
In the present case, petitioners seek to call Metrobank's officers to the witness stand as
their initial and main witnesses, and to present documents in Metrobank's possession as
part of their principal documentary evidence. This is improper. Petitioners may not be
allowed, at the incipient phase of the presentation of their evidence-in-chief at that, to
present Metrobank's officers — who are considered adverse parties as well, based on
the principle that corporations act only through their officers and duly authorized agents
— as their main witnesses; nor may they be allowed to gain access to Metrobank's
documentary evidence for the purpose of making it their own. This is tantamount to
building their whole case from the evidence of their opponent. The burden of proof and
evidence falls on petitioners, not on Metrobank; if petitioners cannot prove their claim
using their own evidence, then the adverse party Metrobank may not be pressured to
hang itself from its own defense.
It is true that under the Rules, a party may, for good cause shown and to prevent a failure
of justice, be compelled to give testimony in court by the adverse party who has not
served written interrogatories. But what petitioners seek goes against the very principles
of justice and fair play; they would want that Metrobank provide the very evidence with
which to prosecute and build their case from the start. This they may not be allowed to
do.
Finally, the Court may not turn a blind eye to the possible consequences of such a move
by petitioners. As one of their causes of action in their Complaint, petitioners claim that
they were not furnished with specific documents relative to their loan agreement with
Metrobank at the time they obtained the loan and while it was outstanding. If Metrobank
were to willingly provide petitioners with these documents even before petitioners can
present evidence to show that indeed they were never furnished the same, any
inferences generated from this would certainly not be useful for Metrobank. One may be
that by providing petitioners with these documents, Metrobank would be admitting that
indeed, it did not furnish petitioners with these documents prior to the signing of the loan
agreement, and while the loan was outstanding, in violation of the law.
• Petitioners, spouses Vicente and Leticia Afulugencia, filed a
Complaint for nullification of mortgage, foreclosure, auction sale,
certificate of sale and other documents, with damages, against
respondents Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (Metrobank) and
Emmanuel L. Ortega (Ortega) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of
Malolos City
 o Metrobank is a domestic banking corporation existing under • W/N PETITIONERS MUST FIRST SERVE WRITTEN
Philippine laws, while Ortega is the Clerk of Court and Ex- INTERROGATORIES TO RESPONDENT BANK'S OFFICERS
officio Sheriff of the Malolos RTC. BEFORE THEY CAN BE SUBPOENAED? YES
• After the filing of the parties' pleadings and with the conclusion of pre-
trial, RATIO:
o petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces IN CIVIL CASES, CALLING THE ADVERSE PARTY TO THE WITNESS
Tecum Ad Testificandum to require Metrobank's officers to STAND IS NOT ALLOWED, UNLESS WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES ARE
appear and testify as the petitioners' initial witnesses during FIRST SERVED UPON THE LATTER
the August 31, 2006 hearing for the presentation of their On the procedural issue, it is quite clear that Metrobank was notified of the
evidence-in-chief, Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum; in fact, it
o and to bring the documents relative to their loan with filed a timely Opposition thereto. The technical defect of lack of notice of
Metrobank, as well as those covering the extrajudicial hearing was thus cured by the filing of the Opposition.
foreclosure and sale of petitioners' 200-square meter land in
Meycauayan, Bulacan covered by the TCT. Nonetheless, contrary to petitioners' submission, the case of Adorio cannot
apply squarely to this case. In Adorio, the request for subpoena duces tecum
METROBANK SPS AFULGENCIA was sought against bank officials who were not parties to the criminal case for
• that pursuant to Sections • a proper notice of hearing violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The situation is different here, as officers
1 and 6 of Rule 25 of the was cured by the filing of of the adverse party Metrobank are being compelled to testify as the calling
Rules, Metrobank's Metrobank's Opposition; party's main witnesses; likewise, they are tasked to bring with them documents
officers — who are • that applying the principle which shall comprise the petitioners' principal evidence. This is not without
considered adverse of liberality, the defect
significant consequences that affect the interests of the adverse party, as will
parties — may not be may be ignored; that
compelled to appear and leave of court is not be shown below.
testify in court for the necessary for the taking
petitioners since they of Metrobank's officers' As a rule, in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the
were not initially served depositions; witness stand is not allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served
with written • that for their case, the upon the latter. This is embodied in Section 1 and 6, Rule 25 of the Rules,
interrogatories; petitioners issuance of a subpoena is which provide —
were merely fishing for not unreasonable and
evidence. oppressive, but instead
Section 1. Interrogatories to parties; service thereof —
favorable to Metrobank,
Under the same conditions specified in Section 1 of Rule 23, any party desiring to
since it will present the
elicit material and relevant facts from any adverse parties shall file and serve upon
testimony of these officers
the latter written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party
just the same during the
presentation of its own served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association, by any
evidence; officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf.
• that the Rules do not
prohibit a party from Sec. 6. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories. —
presenting the adverse Unless thereafter allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent
party as its own witness. a failure of justice, a party not served with written interrogatories may not be
compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a
ISSUES: deposition pending appeal.
One of the purposes of the above rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and
needless delays; it is there to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial.
It will be presumed that a party who does not serve written interrogatories on
the adverse party beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to
its case if it later opts to call the adverse party to the witness stand as its
witness. Instead, the process could be treated as a fishing expedition or an
attempt at delaying the proceedings; it produces no significant result that a
prior written interrogatories might bring.
Besides, since the calling party is deemed bound by the adverse party's
testimony, compelling the adverse party to take the witness stand may result
in the calling party damaging its own case. Otherwise stated, if a party cannot
elicit facts or information useful to its case through the facility of written
interrogatories or other mode of discovery, then the calling of the adverse party
to the witness stand could only serve to weaken its own case as a result of the
calling party's being bound by the adverse party's testimony, which may only
be worthless and instead detrimental to the calling party's cause.
Another reason for the rule is that by requiring prior written interrogatories, the
court may limit the inquiry to what is relevant, and thus prevent the calling party
from straying or harassing the adverse party when it takes the latter to the
stand.
Thus, the rule not only protects the adverse party from unwarranted surprises
or harassment; it likewise prevents the calling party from conducting a fishing
expedition or bungling its own case. Using its own judgment and discretion,
the court can hold its own in resolving a dispute, and need not bear witness to
the parties perpetrating unfair court practices such as fishing for evidence,
badgering, or altogether ruining their own cases. Ultimately, such unnecessary
processes can only constitute a waste of the court's precious time, if not
pointless entertainment.
In the present case, petitioners seek to call Metrobank's officers to the witness
stand as their initial and main witnesses, and to present documents in
Metrobank's possession as part of their principal documentary evidence. This
is improper. Petitioners may not be allowed, at the incipient phase of the
presentation of their evidence-in-chief at that, to present Metrobank's officers
— who are considered adverse parties as well, based on the principle that
corporations act only through their officers and duly authorized agents — as
their main witnesses; nor may they be allowed to gain access to Metrobank's
documentary evidence for the purpose of making it their own. This is
tantamount to building their whole case from the evidence of their opponent.
The burden of proof and evidence falls on petitioners, not on Metrobank; if
petitioners cannot prove their claim using their own evidence, then the adverse
party Metrobank may not be pressured to hang itself from its own defense.
It is true that under the Rules, a party may, for good cause shown and to
prevent a failure of justice, be compelled to give testimony in court by the
adverse party who has not served written interrogatories. But what petitioners
seek goes against the very principles of justice and fair play; they would want
that Metrobank provide the very evidence with which to prosecute and build
their case from the start. This they may not be allowed to do.
Finally, the Court may not turn a blind eye to the possible consequences of
such a move by petitioners. As one of their causes of action in their Complaint,
petitioners claim that they were not furnished with specific documents relative
to their loan agreement with Metrobank at the time they obtained the loan and
while it was outstanding. If Metrobank were to willingly provide petitioners with
these documents even before petitioners can present evidence to show that
indeed they were never furnished the same, any inferences generated from
this would certainly not be useful for Metrobank. One may be that by providing
petitioners with these documents, Metrobank would be admitting that indeed,
it did not furnish petitioners with these documents prior to the signing of the
loan agreement, and while the loan was outstanding, in violation of the law.
Disposition of the Court
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed April 15, 2008 Decision
and October 2, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
99535 are AFFIRMED.