Answer to Interrogatories

• Under the Rules of Court, the interrogatories shall be answered separately and fully under oath.• The answers shall be signed by the party 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) days after service thereof, unless the court, on motion and for good case shown, extends or shortens the time.

(Section 2, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court)

Answer to Interrogatories

• A party who willfully gives false or deceptive answers to interrogatories or recklessly resists efforts to secure such answer, necessitating the taking of depositions to secure and desired information, may be required to bear the necessary added expenses.• The making of false or evasive answers to interrogatories

may be punished as a contempt. (Crosley Radio Corp. vs. Hied, 5 FRS 467)

Answer to Interrogatories

• For failure to answer interrogatories, the proper remedy is not a motion to compel answers but a motion for judgment by default.

(US exrel General Electric Supply Corp. vs. W.E. O’Niel Const. Co., 4 FRS 527)

• A judgment by default may be rendered against a party who fails to serve his answer to written interrogatories.

(Cason vs. San Pedro, L-18928, December 28, 1962)

Answer to Interrogatories

• Answers to interrogatories are admissible in evidence at the trial as admission or for impeachment but not by the answering party as a self-serving statement.

(Bailey vs. New England Mutual Life Ins. Co., 4FRS 521)• After service of the answer, leave of court is not required for

the service of written interrogatories upon a party. (Arellano vs. CFI of Sorsogon, et. al., G.R. No. l-34897, July 15 1975)

Raul Arellano, petitionervs.

Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, Branch 1, and Santiago Uy-Barreta, respondents

G.R. No. L-34897, July 15, 1975Facts:• On February 4, 1967 when Barreta filed a civil case with respondent

court against Arellano and Emilio B. Bayona for reconveyance, with damages, of a certain parcel of land located in Sorsogon, Sorsogon, alleging as cause of action that the defendants had successfully maneuvered in bad faith, through a supposedly false extrajudicial partition, to secure the issuance of the certificate of title which enabled them to have the cancellation thereof by TCT in the name of Arellano.

• After being served with summons, Arellano filed instead of an answer, a motion to dismiss based on the ground of failure of the complaint to state a cause of action.

• Simultaneously, pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of Court, Arellano dispatched written interrogatories to Barreta.

• Baretta failed to file the corresponding opposition after which the said motion will be deemed submitted for resolution.

• After issuance of an order, the court noted the failure of Barreta to comply with the promise to file an opposition to the written interrogatories within 10 days, and with reference to the motion to dismiss, gave him another 5 days from receipt of the order, but to no avail.• Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to file his objection to said

Written Interrogatories nor answered the same, as prayed for by counsel for the defendant, Raul Arellano, the complained was hereby dismissed as against the said defendant, Raul Arellano, without special pronouncement as to costs.

Issue:

Whether or not the dismissal of action as ground of failure of plaintiff to answer or object written interrogatories is

justified.”

Ruling:• The contention of respondent that it was erroneous for the

trial court to dismiss the action without first ordering Barreta to answer the interrogatories of Arellano and waiting for his failure to do so has no merit.• Neither is there merit in the claim that the sending of the

interrogatories in question had not yet been given due course by the court.• Leave of court is not necessary before written interrogatories

may be served upon a party.

Ruling:• The order of dismissal, which counsel referred to in his motion

as having been issued “in view of plaintiff’s failure to answer the written interrogatories” was virtually accepted as final in said motion, so much so that the artifice of moving for the reinclusion of Arellano as an indispensable party was conceived. • In brief, there is here a case where the party served with written

interrogatories has for unexplained reasons failed altogether to comply with the requirement of Section 2 of Rule 25 that they be answered. • Under these circumstances, the assailed dismissal finds

justification in Section 5 of Rule 29.