Castillo vs.

Torres-Aquino
G.R. No. 190034, April 29, 2005, Chico-Nazario
Case Digest by: Heber Suarez
Doctrine:
The RTC has the power, in the interest of justice and fair play, to relax the stringent
application of the rules of court.
Facts:
Atty. P.M. Castillo, representing Permanent Piggery Farm, filed a Petition for
Prohibition and Injunction against local public officials in Tanauan City, Batangas.
Castillo alleged that he was the owner of the piggery farm and that false
information was spread about the farm being toxic and hazardous to health. He
also claimed that his application for a business permit was unacted upon and
accused the officials of bias. The mayor issued an order to close the piggery farm,
and the city council declared it a nuisance. Castillo filed a petition before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) praying for a temporary restraining order and a decision
declaring the closure order and resolution null and void. The RTC denied the
motion for a temporary restraining order and referred the case to the Philippine
Mediation Center.
Issue:
Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) committed a reversible error in affirming the
RTC's denial of the motion to declare respondents in default?
Ruling:
No, the CA made no reversible error. Section 5 of rule 29 of the rules of court
provides that the court, on motion and notice, may enter into a judgement on
default of a party who willfully fails to serve answers to interrogatories after a
proper service thereon. However, the RTC liberally construed the letter of the law
in the interest of fair play, when it noted, upon opposition by respondents, that the
latter was willing to file an answer to interrogatories. More important, respondents
had already filed their answer with compulsory counterclaim as early as October 19
2007. Hence, their failure to file an answer to written interrogatories may not
necessarily result in an entry of judgement by default against them. They have
already stated in their answer that the petitioner had no legal right to protect, since
he had managed his business without the requisite mayor’s permit, sanitary permit,
and environmental certificate- a fact admitted by the petitioner. Thus, the CA
correctly ruled that no grave abuse of discretion could be imputed to the trial court
for ruling as the latter did: the RTC denied the motion to declare the respondents in
default and consequently denied the motion to declare the respondents in default
and consequently, denied the prayer for a writ of injunction.