You are on page 1of 10

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)

• The making of false or evasive answers to interrogatories may be punished as a contempt.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. vs. may be required to bear the necessary added expenses. (Crosley Radio Corp. Hied. 5 FRS 467) .

4 FRS 527) • A judgment by default may be rendered against a party who fails to serve his answer to written interrogatories. San Pedro. 1962) . Co.E. L-18928. W. the proper remedy is not a motion to compel answers but a motion for judgment by default. December 28. vs. (US exrel General Electric Supply Corp. O’Niel Const. (Cason vs.Answer to Interrogatories • For failure to answer interrogatories..

No. (Arellano vs. (Bailey vs. leave of court is not required for the service of written interrogatories upon a party.. Co. et.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. CFI of Sorsogon.. l-34897.R. New England Mutual Life Ins. 4FRS 521) • After service of the answer. July 15 1975) . G. al.

1967 when Barreta filed a civil case with respondent court against Arellano and Emilio B. respondents G. July 15. Court of First Instance of Sorsogon. petitioner vs. L-34897. Branch 1. alleging as cause of action that the defendants had successfully maneuvered in bad faith.R. Sorsogon. .Raul Arellano. and Santiago Uy-Barreta. of a certain parcel of land located in Sorsogon. with damages. through a supposedly false extrajudicial partition. No. Bayona for reconveyance. to secure the issuance of the certificate of title which enabled them to have the cancellation thereof by TCT in the name of Arellano. 1975 Facts: • On February 4.

pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of Court. Arellano filed instead of an answer.• After being served with summons. a motion to dismiss based on the ground of failure of the complaint to state a cause of action. • Simultaneously. Arellano dispatched written interrogatories to Barreta. • Baretta failed to file the corresponding opposition after which the said motion will be deemed submitted for resolution. .

Raul Arellano. gave him another 5 days from receipt of the order. the plaintiff failed to file his objection to said Written Interrogatories nor answered the same. without special pronouncement as to costs. and with reference to the motion to dismiss. . the court noted the failure of Barreta to comply with the promise to file an opposition to the written interrogatories within 10 days. • Furthermore. but to no avail. as prayed for by counsel for the defendant. Raul Arellano.• After issuance of an order. the complained was hereby dismissed as against the said defendant.

” .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. • Leave of court is not necessary before written interrogatories may be served upon a party. • 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.

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. • In brief. .Ruling: • The order of dismissal. the assailed dismissal finds justification in Section 5 of Rule 29. so much so that the artifice of moving for the reinclusion of Arellano as an indispensable party was conceived. • Under these circumstances. 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.