Interrogatories to parties (RULE 25) | Modes of Discovery | CIVIL PROCEDURE

A COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION ON INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES (RULE 25, PHILIPPINE RULES OF COURT)

I. OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE

Interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 of the Rules of Court is one of the recognized modes of discovery in Philippine civil procedure. Along with depositions (Rules 23 and 24), requests for admission (Rule 26), production or inspection of documents (Rule 27), and physical/mental examination (Rule 28), interrogatories serve the overarching goal of expediting litigation by:

  1. Narrowing the issues in controversy;
  2. Obtaining evidence and relevant information;
  3. Preventing surprise at trial; and
  4. Facilitating a fair and just resolution of the case.

By allowing a party to propound written questions to an adverse party, Rule 25 ensures that each side has an opportunity to elicit material facts before trial, thereby encouraging more thorough case preparation and potentially promoting settlement.

II. TEXTUAL ANCHOR: THE SECTIONS OF RULE 25

Below is a structured discussion of the key provisions of Rule 25. (Note that references to particular “Sections” correspond to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by the 2019 Amendments, unless otherwise indicated.)

A. Section 1: Interrogatories to Adverse Parties; Service Thereof

  1. When Available

    • A party may serve written interrogatories upon any adverse party after the adverse party has filed an answer, unless otherwise authorized by the court.
    • The purpose is to ascertain material and relevant facts from the other side.

  2. Form and Content

    • Interrogatories must be in writing and should be explicitly addressed to the adverse party from whom the information is sought.
    • They must be clear, concise, and not unduly burdensome. Vague or argumentative interrogatories may be objected to or stricken.

  3. Manner of Service

    • They are served upon the party (or counsel of record) in the same manner as other pleadings and court papers.
    • If the adverse party is a juridical entity (corporation, partnership, association), the interrogatories are answered by an officer or agent who can provide the information on behalf of the entity.

  4. Timing Requirement

    • Interrogatories must be served within the discovery period set by the court (often specified at pre-trial or in a court-issued scheduling order).
    • Under the general rule (before the 2019 Amendments), one had 15 days after service of the final pleading (e.g., after the Answer) to serve interrogatories as a matter of right. Courts typically are lenient if there is good cause to allow interrogatories later, but it must be done before the deadline to avoid penal consequences under Rule 25, Section 6.

B. Section 2: Answer to Interrogatories

  1. Time to Answer

    • The party upon whom the interrogatories are served has 15 days from service (or as the court may allow) to serve the answers and/or objections.
    • Any extension of time to answer must be sought via motion showing good cause.

  2. Form of Answers

    • Answers must be made in writing and under oath (i.e., verified).
    • Each interrogatory must be answered fully and directly, unless objected to.
    • If the party served is a juridical entity, the authorized representative answering must sign and verify the answers.

  3. Certification and Signature

    • The person making the answers signs them, certifying under oath that the answers are truthful and complete.
    • If there are objections, they are typically signed by counsel, stating the legal grounds therefor.

  4. Supplementation

    • While Rule 25 does not expressly require supplementation, general discovery principles in Philippine procedure encourage correcting or supplementing responses if a party learns that a given answer was incomplete or incorrect.

C. Section 3: Objections to Interrogatories

  1. Grounds for Objection
    Common grounds include:

    • Irrelevance or immateriality of the interrogatory;
    • Privilege (e.g., attorney-client privilege, physician-patient, etc.);
    • Violation of the work-product doctrine (e.g., mental impressions of counsel);
    • Vagueness, undue breadth, or burdensomeness;
    • Proprietary or confidential information.

  2. Procedure

    • Objections must be specifically stated and served within the same 15-day period (or within 10 days under older text, depending on how strictly the new amendments are construed or the court’s scheduling order).
    • General or blanket objections are not favored.
    • If the court overrules the objection, it may order compliance within a specified period. Failure to comply can result in sanctions under Rule 29.

  3. Waiver of Objections

    • Any ground not raised in a timely objection may be deemed waived, unless the court excuses the failure for good cause.

D. Section 4: Number of Interrogatories

  • One Set Without Leave
    • Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, no party may serve more than one set of interrogatories upon the same adverse party without leave of court.
    • This does not mean there is a strict numerical limit (like the US Federal Rules which set 25). Rather, there is a limit on how many “batches” of interrogatories may be served.
    • If a party wishes to propound additional sets, it must seek leave of court, showing that additional interrogatories are necessary and relevant.

E. Section 5: Scope and Use of Interrogatories

  1. Scope

    • Interrogatories may relate to any matter within the scope of Rule 23, Section 2—meaning any non-privileged matter relevant to the pending action.
    • They may include factual questions, inquiries about documents, identity of persons with knowledge of relevant facts, and other discoverable information.

  2. Use in Trial

    • Answers to interrogatories may be used at trial or in motion practice to the same extent as depositions. They can:
      • Impeach or contradict the answering party;
      • Serve as evidentiary admissions, subject to the rules on evidence;
      • Narrow or clarify issues for trial.
    • They are not automatically conclusive judicial admissions; their evidentiary value is subject to the usual rules of evidence, though they carry weight as statements from a party under oath.

  3. Relation to Other Discovery Methods

    • Interrogatories are often used in conjunction with depositions, requests for admission, and requests for production. Answers to interrogatories may reveal leads for further discovery, or they may help narrow the need for depositions.

F. Section 6: Effect of Failure to Serve Written Interrogatories

  1. General Rule

    • A party who fails to serve written interrogatories on an adverse party may not be permitted to present evidence—whether testimonial or documentary—which could have been elicited from such adverse party by written interrogatories (or by deposition), unless the court allows otherwise for good cause and to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

  2. Rationale

    • This provision is designed to encourage parties to use the modes of discovery early and consistently. It prevents a party from withholding or avoiding discovery and then ambushing the adversary with new evidence or unverified allegations at trial.

  3. Exceptions

    • The court has discretion to relax this rule where justice and fairness demand (e.g., newly discovered evidence, impossibility of earlier compliance). However, a party must show good cause for failing to serve interrogatories within the discovery period.

  4. Interaction with Judicial Affidavits

    • Under the current rules on the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC), parties must submit sworn statements of their witnesses’ testimonies before trial. While that rule operates alongside the general discovery framework, failing to serve interrogatories when you could have discovered facts in that manner may still bar you from using certain evidence at trial.

III. PROCEDURAL AND PRACTICAL INSIGHTS

  1. Strategic Timing

    • Propound interrogatories early to gather essential facts, identify supporting documents, and shape deposition or trial strategy.
    • Late submission of interrogatories risks running afoul of the 15-day rule and may prompt objections or sanctions.

  2. Drafting Quality Interrogatories

    • Keep questions precise, clear, and relevant to avoid valid objections on grounds of vagueness or overbreadth.
    • Avoid harassing or duplicative interrogatories—courts may disallow or penalize abusive discovery tactics.

  3. Objecting Properly and Timely

    • If you receive interrogatories you believe are improper, lodge specific objections within the prescribed period.
    • Merely stating “irrelevant” without explaining why is often deemed insufficient. The court requires particularity.

  4. Supplementation and Updates

    • Although the Rules of Court do not expressly mandate “supplemental” answers, best practice is to update or correct answers if you discover they were incomplete or inaccurate. Doing so fosters good faith in discovery and avoids potential impeachment or sanctions later.

  5. Interaction with Rule 29 (Refusal to Answer)

    • If an adverse party refuses to answer, or provides evasive/insufficient responses, the propounding party may file a motion to compel or a motion for sanctions under Rule 29. The court may:
      • Order the recalcitrant party to provide proper answers;
      • Strike out pleadings;
      • Dismiss the action or proceeding;
      • Hold the party in contempt.

  6. Consequences of Evasive or Dishonest Answers

    • Parties answering interrogatories under oath expose themselves to potential perjury if they deliberately provide false answers.
    • Dishonest or misleading responses can be used to impeach credibility at trial and may lead to adverse inferences or sanctions.

IV. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE AND PRINCIPLES

  1. Liberal Construction Favoring Discovery

    • Philippine courts have consistently held that discovery rules should be given liberal interpretation to promote the speedy disposition of cases and prevent trial by surprise.
    • Objections to interrogatories should be scrutinized; frivolous or purely dilatory objections may be overruled promptly.

  2. Scope of Relevance

    • Courts have emphasized that “relevance” in discovery is broader than the standard for admissibility at trial. As long as the interrogatories are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, they are permissible.

  3. Good Cause Requirement

    • In the spirit of fairness, courts may relax the rules on the effect of non-service of interrogatories (Section 6) upon a showing of good cause. However, the burden is on the defaulting party to prove that non-service was justified and that admitting its evidence will not prejudice the adverse party.

  4. Sanctions for Discovery Abuse

    • If a party uses interrogatories to harass or cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, or expense, the court may issue protective orders or impose costs and other disciplinary measures.

V. KEY TAKEAWAYS AND BEST PRACTICES

  1. Serve Interrogatories Early

    • To avoid missing the discovery deadlines and to maximize the benefit of obtaining details from your adversary, serve interrogatories soon after issues are joined (i.e., after the Answer).

  2. Draft with Precision

    • Each interrogatory should directly address a factual matter or legal element essential to your claim or defense. Avoid verbosity.

  3. Anticipate Objections

    • Frame each question in a way that is clearly relevant and not privileged, to minimize risk of valid objections.

  4. Answer Candidly and Completely

    • When responding, do so under oath and with thorough detail. Partial or evasive answers are open to motions to compel and possible sanctions.

  5. Use Answers Strategically

    • Answers to interrogatories can set up admissions or concessions that may obviate the need for additional proof. They are also useful to test the credibility of the adverse party’s witness later at trial.

  6. Follow-Up with Other Discovery

    • Interrogatories often reveal leads for further depositions, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission. Keep your discovery plan cohesive.

  7. Comply with Court-Imposed Schedules

    • Courts often issue Pre-Trial Orders or Case Management Orders that fix the timeframe for completing discovery. Adhere strictly to these deadlines.

  8. Seek Leave for Additional Sets

    • If you need more interrogatories after the first set, file a motion for leave, explaining why additional interrogatories are necessary and not cumulative.

VI. CONCLUSION

Interrogatories under Rule 25 of the Philippine Rules of Court are a powerful and flexible discovery device. They enable parties to probe the factual underpinnings of the opponent’s position, clarify issues, and gather evidence in a cost-efficient manner. Properly utilized—drafted with clarity and served within the prescribed timelines—interrogatories can significantly streamline litigation and reduce the risk of surprise at trial. Conversely, failure to use interrogatories or to respond fully and honestly can lead to the exclusion of evidence, adverse judgments, or significant sanctions.

In sum, meticulous use of interrogatories is both a sword and shield in Philippine civil litigation. Mastery of Rule 25 ensures that you capitalize on a vital discovery mechanism, reinforcing procedural fairness and promoting just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login