BDO Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Asia Amalgamated Holdings Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Asia Amalgamated Holdings Corporation (respondent), a holding company whose majority shares are owned by Mr. Jimmy Gow, filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of contract and damages against BDO Strategic Holdings, Inc. and Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc. (petitioners). The trial commenced with Mr. Gow's testimony, and his cross-examination began on January 24, 2012. Procedural History: During the cross-examination of Mr. Gow, petitioners sought a subpoena duces tecum, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted. However, respondent moved to quash the subpoena, and petitioners subsequently filed written interrogatories. The RTC quashed the subpoena and denied the written interrogatories, finding that the subpoena would make Mr. Gow a witness for the adverse party and that the interrogatories would not facilitate the case's disposition. After the RTC denied their motions for reconsideration, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA reversed the RTC's quashal of the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum but affirmed the denial of the written interrogatories. Petitioners sought review of the CA's decision, specifically challenging the disallowance of the written interrogatories. They argued that the interrogatories were relevant and not intended to annoy, embarrass, or oppress. This Court denied the petition, finding that the CA did not err in affirming the disallowance, as the extensive written interrogatories, comprising 561 questions, would cause further delay and that the facts sought could be obtained through the continuation of the cross-examination.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the disallowance of the written interrogatories addressed to respondent.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari, affirming the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the disallowance of written interrogatories: The Court held that while modes of discovery, including depositions by written interrogatories, are encouraged for the speedy disposition of cases, their use is not absolute and has limitations. The Rules of Court allow a court to order that a deposition not be taken for good cause, which includes situations where the examination is conducted in bad faith, to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent, or when the inquiry is irrelevant or encroaches upon privilege. The court enjoys considerable leeway in matters pertaining to discovery, and its exercise of discretion will not be set aside absent abuse, capriciousness, or oppressiveness that affects substantial rights. In this case, the CA correctly ruled that the use of written interrogatories would not serve its purpose as the case was already in the cross-examination stage. The Court found that the 561 questions in the 16 sets of interrogatories would only cause further delay, and the facts sought could be extracted from the continuation of the cross-examination. Petitioners failed to establish that the disallowance was arbitrary or oppressive. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and will not disturb the findings of the lower courts unless there are strong and cogent reasons, which were absent here. The allegations of relevance and good faith by petitioners were insufficient to warrant a revisit of the factual evidence.
Main Doctrine
The disallowance of written interrogatories, even if discovery is generally encouraged, is within the sound judicial discretion of the court, which may disallow them for good cause, such as when they would cause further delay in proceedings that are already in the cross-examination stage and the information sought can be obtained through continued cross-examination.