Ong v. Mazo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Elvira C. Lanuevo and Charito A. Tomilloso filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Elena S. Ong and her bus driver, Iluminado J. Caramoan, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guiuan, Eastern Samar. The complaint stemmed from a vehicular accident where the bus allegedly bumped a jeep owned and driven by respondent Lanuevo, with respondent Tomilloso as a passenger. Procedural History: After petitioner Ong filed her answer and a motion to dismiss, the respondents amended their complaint. Subsequently, petitioner served written interrogatories and filed a motion to compel answers, which the trial court denied, deeming it a "fishing expedition" to be addressed at pre-trial. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of this denial was also denied. Following these denials, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the trial court's orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition as belatedly filed. The Petition: Petitioner Elena S. Ong seeks review of the Court of Appeals' dismissal of her petition for certiorari. She argues that the appellate court erred in treating her petition as an ordinary appeal, which would have been subject to a shorter reglementary period. Instead, she contends her petition for certiorari, filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, was timely within the 60-day period. The Supreme Court, in the interest of justice, agreed to resolve the underlying issue of whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in disallowing the written interrogatories, finding the trial court's orders patently erroneous and correctible by certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari as belatedly filed. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to compel respondents to answer written interrogatories.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for certiorari was seasonably filed and that the trial court erred in denying the written interrogatories. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals and the orders of the Regional Trial Court were set aside. The Presiding Judge of the RTC was ordered to require respondents to serve their answers to petitioner's written interrogatories and to proceed with the disposition of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for certiorari: The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari as belatedly filed. Applying Section 4 of Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000, the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari is counted from the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner received the denial of her motion for reconsideration on July 18, 2000. Therefore, the 60-day period should be reckoned from this date. The petition filed on August 4, 2000, was within this period, especially considering the retroactive application of the amended rule as established in prior cases like Systems Factors Corporation v. NLRC and Unity Fishing Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals. The CA's computation based on the remaining days of the old rule was incorrect. On the propriety of written interrogatories: The Court found that the trial court's orders disallowing the written interrogatories were patently erroneous and thus correctible by certiorari. The Court reiterated its policy of encouraging the availment of discovery modes under Rules 24 to 29 of the Revised Rules of Court. The purpose of these rules is to enable parties to discover facts relevant to the action, including those known to the adversary, to facilitate settlement or expedite trial. The Court explicitly stated that the "fishing expedition" argument can no longer be a reason to prevent a party from inquiring into the facts underlying the opposing party's case through discovery procedures, citing Republic v. Sandiganbayan. Therefore, denying the written interrogatories on this ground disregarded established jurisprudence and the policy favoring discovery.
Main Doctrine
The denial of written interrogatories, when patently erroneous and without adequate remedy through appeal, may be assailed through a petition for certiorari. The policy of the law encourages the availment of discovery modes, and the claim of 'fishing expedition' is no longer a valid reason to prevent inquiry into the facts underlying an opponent's case through discovery procedures.