Spouses Afulugencia vs Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co.

G.R. No. 185145 February 5, 2014

Facts:
After the pre-trial, petitioners filed a motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad
Testificandum to require Metrobank’s officers to appear and testify as their initial witnesses
during the hearing for the presentation of their evidence-in-chief and to bring documents related
to the case.
The RTC and CA denied the petitioner’s motion on the ground that under Rule 25 a party cannot
compel the opposing party to testify in court if there is no serving of written interrogatories to the
opposing party.
Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in requiring notice and hearing for a mere motion for
a subpoena of respondent bank’s officers when such requirements apply only to deposition under
sec. 6, rule 25, rules of court.
Ruling:
No. The Court said that as a rule, in civil cases, the procedure of 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 6, Rule 25 of the Rules, which provides that 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 compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court or to
give a deposition pending appeal.