RULE 29

Refusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery

Section 3. Other Consequences. — If any party or an officer or managing agent of a
party refuses to obey an order made under Section 1 of this Rule requiring him or her
to answer designated questions, or an order under Rule 27 to produce any document
or other thing for inspection, copying, or photographing or to permit it to be done, or
to permit entry upon land or other property, or an order made under Rule 28 requiring
him or her to submit to a physical or mental examination, the court may make such
orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and among others the following: (a) An order
that the matters regarding which the questions were asked, or the character or
description of the thing or land, or the contents of the paper, or the physical or mental
condition of the party, or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established
for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the
order; (b) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose
designated claims or defenses or prohibiting him or her from introducing in evidence
designated documents or things or items of testimony, or from introducing evidence of
physical or mental condition; (c) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or
staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or
proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgement by default against the
disobedient party; and (d) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto,
an order directing the arrest of any party or agent of a party for disobeying any of such
orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. (3a)

Section 4. Expenses on Refusal to Admit. — If a party after being served with a

request under Rule 26 to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any
matter of fact, serves a sworn denial thereof and if the party requesting the admissions
thereafter proves the genuineness of such document or the truth of any such matter of
fact, he or she may apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to pay
him or her the reasonable expenses incurred in making such proof, including
reasonable attorney's fees.
Unless the court finds that there were good reasons for the denial or that admissions
sought were of no substantial importance, such order shall be issued. (4a)

Section 5. Failure of Party to Attend or Serve Answers. — If a party or an officer or

managing agent of a party wilfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take his
or her deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or fails to serve answers to
interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 after proper service of such interrogatories,
the court on motion and notice, may strike out all or any part of any pleading of that
party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by
default against that party, and in its discretion, order him or her to pay reasonable
expenses incurred by the other, including attorney's fees. (5a)
Section 1.Refusal to answer. — If a party or other deponent refuses to answer any
question upon oral examination, the examination may be completed on other
matters or adjourned as the proponent of the question may prefer. The
proponent may thereafter apply to the proper court of the place where the
deposition is being taken, for an order to compel an answer. The same procedure
may be availed of when a party or a witness refuses to answer any interrogatory
submitted under Rules 23 or 25.

If the application is granted, the court shall require the refusing party or deponent
to answer the question or interrogatory and if it also finds that the refusal to
answer was without substantial justification, it may require the refusing party or
deponent or the counsel advising the refusal, or both of them, to pay the
proponent the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the
order, including attorney's fees.

If the application is denied and the court finds that it was filed without substantial
justification, the court may require the proponent or the counsel advising the
filing of the application, or both of them, to pay to the refusing party or deponent
the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the application,
including attorney's fees. (1a)

Section 2.Contempt of court. — If a party or other witness refuses to be sworn or

refuses to answer any question after being directed to do so by the court of the
place in which the deposition is being taken, the refusal may be considered a
contempt of that court. (2a)

Section 3.Other consequences. — If any party or an officer or managing agent of a

party refuses to obey an order made under section 1 of this Rule requiring him to
answer designated questions, or an order under Rule 27 to produce any
document or other thing for inspection, copying, or photographing or to permit it
to be done, or to permit entry upon land or other property or an order made
under Rule 28 requiring him to submit to a physical or mental examination, the
court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and among others
the following:

(a) An order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked, or
the character or description of the thing or land, or the contents of the
paper, or the physical or mental condition of the party, or any other
 designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the
action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;

(b) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose

designated claims or defenses or prohibiting him from introducing in
evidence designated documents or things or items of testimony, or from
introducing evidence of physical or mental condition;

(c) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further

proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or
proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against
the disobedient party; and

(d) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order

directing the arrest of any party or agent of a party for disobeying any of
such orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
(3a)

Section 4.Expenses on refusal to admit. — If a party after being served with a

request under Rule 26 to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of
any matter of fact serves a sworn denial thereof and if the party requesting the
admissions thereafter proves the genuineness of such document or the truth of
any such matter of fact, he may apply to the court for an order requiring the other
party to pay him the reasonable expenses incurred in making such proof,
including attorney's fees. Unless the court finds that there were good reasons for
the denial or that admissions sought were of no substantial importance, such
order shall be issued. (4a)

Section 5.Failure of party to attend or serve answers. — If a party or an officer or

managing agent of a party wilfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take
his deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or fails to serve answers to
interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 after proper service of such
interrogatories, the court on motion and notice, may strike out all or any part of
any pleading of that party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any part
thereof, or enter a judgment by default against that party, and in its discretion,
order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the other, including attorney's
fees. (5)
 [G.R. No. 172175. October 9, 2006.]
SPS. EXPEDITO ZEPEDA AND ALICE D. ZEPEDA vs.
CHINA BANKING CORPORATION.

Facts:

Spouses Zepeda filed a complaint for nullification of foreclosure

proceedings and loan documents with damages against Chinabank. Chinabank
filed a set of written interrogatories with questions. After plaintiff failed to
answer the written interrogatories, Chinabank filed a motion to expunge the
complaint which the trial court denied for being premature, and directed the
Clerk of Court to set the pre-trial conference.

Aggrieved, Chinabank filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 which

was granted by the Court of Appeals. It ruled that compelling reasons warrant
the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint when they failed to answer Chinabank's
written interrogatories as provided for in Section 3(c), Rule 29 of the Rules of
Court.

Ruling:

We do not agree with the CAs' ruling that the complaint should be dismissed
for failure of petitioners to answer Chinabank's written interrogatories.

It should be noted that respondent bank filed a motion to expunge the

complaint based on Section 3(c) of Rule 29 which states:

SEC. 3. Other consequences. — If any party or an officer or managing

agent of a party refuses to obey an order made under section 1 of this Rule
requiring him to answer designated questions, or an order under Rule 27 to
produce any document or other thing for inspection, copying, or photographing
or to permit it to be done, or to permit entry upon land or other property, or an
order made under Rule 28 requiring him to submit to a physical or mental
examination, the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as are
just, and among others the following:

xxxxxxxxx

(c) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further

proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or
any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient
party;

xxxxxxxxx.
As we have explained in Arellano v. Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, the
consequences enumerated in Section 3(c) of Rule 29 would only apply where
the party upon whom the written interrogatories is served, refuses to answer a
particular question in the set of written interrogatories and despite an order
compelling him to answer the particular question, still refuses to obey the
order.

In the instant case, 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(c) of Rule 29.
Section 5 of Rule 29 reads:

SEC. 5. Failure of party to attend or serve answers. — If a party or an

officer or managing agent of a party willfully fails to appear before the officer
who is to take his deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or fails to
serve answers to interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 after proper
service of such interrogatories, the court on motion and notice, may strike
out all or any part of any pleading of that party, or dismiss the action or
proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by default against that
party, and in its discretion, order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred by
the other, including attorney's fees.

Due to respondent bank's filing of an erroneous motion, the trial court

cannot be faulted for ruling that the motion to expunge was premature for lack
of a prior application to compel compliance based on Section 3.

A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC on July 13, 2004provided for the guidelines to be

observed by trial court judges and clerks of court in the conduct of pre-
trial and use of deposition-discovery measures. It directs the courts to issue
orders requiring parties to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 and
request for admission of adverse party under Rule 26 or at their discretion
make use of depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rule 27 and
28 within 5 days from the filing of the answer. The parties are likewise required
to submit, at least 3 days before the pre-trial, pre-trial briefs, containing among
others amanifestation of the parties of their having availed or their intention to
avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners.

Section 5:

 Where a party fails to appear or fails to serve answer to interrogatories:

a.) Strike all or any party of pleading of that party.

b.) Dismiss the action
c.) Judgment of default
d.) Payment of reasonable expenses including attorney’s fees.
 Refuses to answer after being directed by the court
- May be a considered a contempt of court.