ALFUGENCIA V.

METROPOLITAN BANK
GR NO 185145
February 5, 2014
TOPIC: INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES RULE 25

FACTS:
Petitioners filed a Complaint against Respondent for nullification of mortgage, foreclosure, auction sale,
certificate of sale and other documents with damages. A Motion for issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad
Testificandum was filed by petitioners after the filing of the parties’ pleadings and with the conclusion of pre-
trial.

Metrobank filed an Opposition arguing that (1) for lack of a proper notice of hearing; and (2) that Metrobank’s
officers, who are considered adverse parties may not be compelled to appear and testify in court for the
petitioners since they were not initially served with written interrogatories.

A reply was submitted by petitioners stating that the lack of a proper notice of hearing was cured by the filing of
Metrobank’s Opposition. They further argued that Metrobank’s officers, the subject of the subpoena, are not
party-defendants, and do not comprise the adverse party; they are individuals separate and distinct from
Metrobank, the defendant corporation being sued in the case.
.
ISSUE:
WON, petitioners may call Metrobank’s officers to the witness stand as their initial and main witnesses,
and present documents in latter’s possession as part of the former’s principal documentary evidence
HELD:
NO. Petitioners may not be allowed to present Metrobank’s officers – who are considered adverse
parties as well, based on the principle that corporations act only through their officers and duly authorized
agents. as their main witnesses; nor may they be allowed to gain access to Metrobank’s documentary
evidence for the purpose of making it their own. This is tantamount to building their whole case from the
evidence of their opponent.
As a rule, in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed,
unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter. This is embodied in Section 6, Rule 25 of the
Rules, which provides –

Sec. 6. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories.

Unless thereafter allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not
served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court,
or to give a deposition pending appeal.

One of the purposes of the above rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is there to
maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trials. It will be presumed that a party who does not serve written
interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case if it
later opts to call the adverse party to the witness stand as its witness. Instead, the process could be treated as
a fishing expedition or an attempt at delaying the proceedings; it produces no significant result that a prior
written interrogatories might bring