Republic of the Philippines

Fourth Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 74
Antipolo City

PHILIPPINE VETERANS
BANK
Plaintiff.
CIVIL CASE. No. 08-8583
-versus-
For: Recovery of Possession and
Payment of Rentals
MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA,
RIZAL,
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------------x

OBJECTION TO WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES

COMES NOW, defendant, by the undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges THAT:

1. On 12 November 2018, the Municipal Legal Office of Cainta, Rizal

received from plaintiff an undated written interrogatories addressed to Atty.
J. Keith P. Nieto, incumbent Mayor of Cainta, requesting the latter or his
representative to answer the subject interrogatories.

2. It is worthy to note that this case was filed as early as 18 February

2008. Defendant then filed its Answer on 10 October 2008. Proceedings
ensued for several years. Plaintiff even moved to reset the scheduled
hearings set on 2 December 2014 and 3 February 2016. Further, plaintiff
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on 6 July 2015 which was DENIED
by this Honorable Court.

3. After several hearings and resetting from the plaintiff, and referral
to Judicial Dispute Resolution, this case was initially set for presentation of
plaintiff’s first witness on 9 August 2018 but counsel for plaintiff again
prayed for the resetting of the hearing because their witness is not available.
Hence, the Honorable Court set the initial presentation on 15 November
2018.

Page 1 of 4
 4. As previously stated, defendant received a written interrogatory on
12 November 2018. Unfortunately, no Judicial Affidavit of plaintiff’s
witness was ever sent to defendant.

5. On 15 November 2018, the hearing was reset. To this date

defendant has not yet received the Judicial Affidavit of plaintiff’s first
witness.

6. As can be gleaned from the foregoing, the written interrogatory was

submitted not as a mode of discovery but rather to excuse plaintiff’s failure
to present its first witness. The written interrogatory was undated, indicating
that it was hastily made.

7. Instead of filing the Judicial Affidavit of their first witness they

opted to file written interrogatories. Plaintiff’s submission of written
interrogatories does not preclude them to submit the Judicial Affidavit of
their witness.

8. It would appear that if the hearing set on 15 November 2018

proceeded, plaintiff would have prayed to have it reset because they have not
yet submitted a Judicial Affidavit. Presentation of plaintiff’s witness should
proceed independently pending resolution of the written interrogatories.

9. In the case of Isidro T. Pajarillaga vs. C.A. and Thomas T.

Kalangeg, G.R. No. 163515, 31 October 2008, “Finally, we must emphasize
that while the rules on discovery are liberally constructed so as to ascertain
truth and to expedite the disposal of cases, the trial court may disallow a
deposition if there are valid reasons for so ruling. Here, we find the
protracted delay in the litigation at petitioner’s instance coupled with the
belated and unsubstantiated allegations of illness and threats to petitioner’s
life, more than sufficient reasons for the trial court to deny petitioners
motion.”

10. Here, plaintiff had moved to reset the case for several times and
instead of submitting their Judicial Affidavit they belatedly filed a written
interrogatory. Ten (10) years had already lapsed since defendant had filed its
Answer. Plaintiff should have availed of the modes of discovery at the
earliest opportunity. To avail the same at this stage and time, plaintiff’s
motive and intent is suspicious.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

unto this Honorable Court that the undated written interrogatories submitted
Page 2 of 4
by plaintiff through counsel be DENIED for belated submission and that it
was intended to delay the proceedings.

Other reliefs, just and equitable, under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

22 November 2018. Cainta, Rizal for Antipolo City.

COUNSELS FOR PETITIONER

MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA, PROVINCE OF RIZAL

ATTY. SHERWIN C. FERRER

Roll No. 59320
IBP No. 025793/10.Jan.2018/Rizal
PTR No. 7263228/10.Jan.2018/Marikina
MCLE Compliance V - 0021981

ATTY. MAYER B. BALADBAD

Roll No. 66278
IBP Lifetime No. 018433
PTR No. 9069004/3.Jan.2018/Rizal
MCLE Compliance No. VI - 0008859

NOTICE OF HEARING

Atty. MA. CORAZON LEYNES-XAVIER

Counsel for Plaintiff
Unit 1219 Palace of Makati Condominium,
P. Burgos cor. Caceres St., Makati City

GREETINGS:

Please be informed that the foregoing OBJECTION will be submitted

for the consideration and approval of this Honorable Court on 29 November

Page 3 of 4
at 1:30pm or on such date and time the Honorable Court deems
convenient.

ATTY. MAYER B. BALADBAD

EXPLANATION

A copy of this Objection was furnished to counsel for the plaintiff

through registered mail due to time constraints and lack personnel.

Atty. MAYER BALADBAD

Page 4 of 4