Rule 29

Sections 4-6
Santos, Earl Mark Johnson C.
 Section 4. Refusal to Admit
• Refuses to admit the genuineness of a document or;
• Refuses to admit the truth of any matter of a fact
• And serves a sworn denial
-Then the party proving the same may be entitled to the
expenses incurred in making the proof
Section 5. Failure to attend Depositions or
to Serve Answers to Interrogatories
• The court may, on MOTION and NOTICE:
• -strike out all or any part of the pleading of that party;
• -dismiss the action or proceeding;
• -render judgment by default;
• -order that party to pay fees.
• Sec. 5 only applies if there is refusal to answer the whole set of
written interrogatories.
• If there is only partial refusal, Sec. 3 C will apply. This requires an
order to compel the party to answer and only upon refusal may
consequences take effect.o
 Section 6. Expenses against the
Republic of the Philippines
• Expenses and attorneys are not imposable against the Republic of
the Philippines.
 Case: Zepeda vs. China Bank Corporation
• Respondent file written interrogatories with 20 questions.
• Petitioner failed to answer Respondent's written interrogatories.
• Respondent filed a motion to expunge the complaint based on Section 3(c)
of Rule 29.
• Court stated that the petitioners refused to answer the whole set of written
interrogatories, not just a particular question. Clearly then, respondent bank
should have filed a motion based on Section 5 and not Section 3© of Rule
29.
 Case: Santiago Land Vs. CA
• Petitioner served written interrogatories on respondent's counsel and
because of failure to answer the same, a motion to dismiss was filed.
• Respondent filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss alleging that there
was no valid service of the written interrogatories as the service was made
on the respondent's counsel.
• Trial court denied the motion to dismiss which prompted the petitioner to
file a petition for certiorari.
• Section 5, Rule 29 of the Rules of Court warrants the dismissal of the
complaint when the plaintiff fails or refuses to answer the written
interrogatories. It should be noted that it is discretionary on the court to
order the dismissal of the action.
• In Arellano vs. CFI, it was held that "The dismissal of an action for failure
of the plaintiff to prosecute the same rests upon the sound discretion of the
trial court and will not be reversed on appeal in the absence of abuse."