RULE 25.

INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES

Basic Concept:
What is an interrogatory?
Questions in writing exhibited, that is addressed, to a party to an action by an
adverse party, before trial of the action, and answered in writing under oath.
Interrogatories to Parties and Service.
Sec. 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
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.
 How will interrogatories to parties be made?
Under the same conditions specified in Sec. 1 of Rule 23, any party desiring
to elicit material and relevant facts from any adverse parties shall:
a. File and serve upon the latter written interrogatories to be answered by
the party served; or
b. 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.

 Remedy in case of denial of written interrogatories.

The trial court’s order denying the written interrogatories is interlocutory in
nature. And the extraordinary remedy writ of certiorari is generally not an
available remedy to challenge an interlocutory order of a trial court, the proper
remedy in such a case is appeal from the adverse judgement where incorporated
in said appeal are the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order. Nonetheless,
this by no means is an absolute rule. This Court finds that the order disallowing
petitioner’s written interrogatories are patently erroneous, hence, the resort to
certiorari is warranted.
Sec. 2. Answer to Interrogatories. – The interrogatories shall be answered fully in
writing and shall be signed and sworn to by the person making them. The party
upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall file and serve a copy of
the answers on the party submitting the interrogatories within fifteen (15)
calendar days after service thereof, unless the court, on motion and for good
cause shown, extends or shortens the time.
 What are the requirements in case of a response to interrogatories?
The requirement in responding to interrogatories shall be:
a. Answered fully in writing; and
b. Shall be signed and sworn to by the person making them.

 When to file an answer to interrogatories?

The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall:
a. File and serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting the
interrogatories within fifteen (15) calendar days after service thereof;
b. Unless the court, on motion and for good cause shown, extends or
shortens the time.

Sec. 3. Objections to interrogatories. – Objections to any interrogatories may be

presented to the court within ten (10) calendar days after service thereof, with
notice as in case of a motion; and answers shall be deferred until the objections
are resolved, which shall be at as early a time practicable.

Sec. 4. Number of interrogatories. – No party may, without leave of court, serve

more than one set of interrogatories to be answered by the same party.
How many interrogatories can be served?
 As mandated by the above-cited rule, that no party may, without leave of
court, serve more than one set of interrogatories to be answered by the same
party.

Sec. 5. Scope and use of interrogatories. – Interrogatories may relate to any

matters that can be inquired into under Section 2 of Rule 23, and the answers
may be used for the same purposes provided in Section 4 of the same Rule.
 What are the scope and use of interrogatories?
As mandated by the above provision of the rules, interrogatories may relate
to the following:
a. Any matters that can be inquired into under Sec. 2 of Rule 23; and
b. The answers may be used for the same purposes provided in Sec. 4 of
the same Rule.
Effect of Failure to Serve Interrogatories
Sec. 6. Effect of failure to serve 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 compelled by the adverse party
to give testimony in open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal.
 Distinguish Written Interrogatories under Rule 23 and Written
Interrogatories under Rule 25.
Written Interrogatories Written Interrogatories
(Rule 25) (Rule 23)
a. In written interrogatories a. In written interrogatories
under Rule 25, it is directly under Rule 23, the deponent is
served to the adverse party. a third person not necessarily
a party.
b. In written interrogatories b. In written interrogatories
under Rule 25, no officer to under Rule 23, it is required that it
take deposition is required. will be taken by a deposition
officer.
  Distinguish Written Interrogatories to Parties (Rule 25) from Bill of
Particulars (Rule 12).
Written Interrogatories Bill of Particulars
(Rule 25) (Rule 12)
a. Written Interrogatories under Rule a. Bill of Particulars under Rule 12 is
25 seek to disclose all materials and intended for the purpose of clarifying
relevant facts from a party. ambiguities in a pleading or to state
with sufficient definiteness the
allegations in the pleading.
b. Written Interrogatories under Rule b. Bill of Particulars under Rule 12, is
25 is not directed to a pleading, but directed to the pleadings with
to the material and relevant facts ambiguous allegations.
within the knowledge of the adverse
party.

CASE:
Ng Meng Tam vs China Banking Corp.
765 SCRA 471, August 5, 2015

FACTS:
China Bank alleged that it granted Ever a loan. The loan was allegedly backed by two surety
agreements executed by Vicente, George and petitioner in its favor. When Ever defaulted in its
payment, China Bank sent demand letters collectively addressed to George, Vicente and
petitioner. The demands were unanswered. China Bank filed the complaint for collection.

In his Answer, petitioner alleged that the surety agreements were null and void since these were
executed before the loan was granted. Petitioner posited that the surety agreements were
contracts of adhesion to be construed against the entity which drafted the same. Petitioner also
alleged that he did not receive any demand letter.

Petitioner served interrogatories to parties pursuant to Sections 1 and 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of
Court to China Bank and required Mr. George C. Yap, Account Officer of the Account
Management Group, to answer.

George Yap executed his answers to interrogatories to parties.

Petitioner moved for the hearing of his affirmative defenses. Because he found Yap’s answers
to the interrogatories to parties evasive and not responsive, petitioner applied for the issuance
of a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum against George Yap pursuant to Section 6,14
Rule 25 of the Revised Rules of Court.
When the case was called for the presentation of George Yap as a witness, China Bank
objected citing Section 5 of the JAR. China Bank said that Yap cannot be compelled to testify in
court because petitioner did not obtain and present George Yap’s judicial affidavit. The RTC
required the parties to submit their motions on the issue of whether the preparation of a judicial
affidavit by George Yap as an adverse or hostile witness is an exception to the judicial affidavit
rule.

Petitioner contended that Section 5 does not apply to Yap because it specifically excludes
adverse party witnesses and hostile witnesses from its application. Petitioner insists that Yap
needed to be called to the stand so that he may be qualified as a hostile witness pursuant to the
Rules of Court. China Bank, on the other hand, stated that petitioner’s characterization of Yap’s
answers to the interrogatories to parties as ambiguous and evasive is a declaration of what type
of witness Yap is. It theorizes that the interrogatories to parties answered by Yap serve as the
judicial affidavit and there is no need for Yap to be qualified as a hostile witness.

The RTC ruled that Section 5 did not apply to Yap since he was an adverse witness and he did
not unjustifiably decline to execute a judicial affidavit.

The RTC stressed that Section 5 of the JAR required the requested witness’ refusal to be
unjustifiable. It stated: the [JAR] requires that the refusal must be unjustifiable and without just
cause. It must be pointed out that [China Bank]’s previous motions to quash the subpoena was
grounded on the claim that having already submitted to this court his sworn written
interrogatories, his being compelled to testify would be unreasonable, oppressive and pure
harassment. Thus, witness’ refusal to testify cannot be considered unjustifiable since he raised
valid grounds.