RULE 29: REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MODES OF

DISCOVERY
RULE 29: SECTIONS 4
TO 6
RULE 29: REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY

• 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)
 REFUSAL TO ADMIT

• If a party refuses to admit the genuineness of any

document or the truth of any matter of fact and
serves a sworn denial thereof and if the other party
later on proves the genuineness of the document or
the truth of such matter of fact, the court upon
proper application, may order the former to pay the
reasonable expenses in making such proof,
including attorney’s fees.
  

REFUSAL TO THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY

1. Require the payment of reasonable fees incurred

by the proponent (Sec. 1-4); and

2. Each of the matters of which an admission is

requested is deemed admitted (Sec. 5, Rule 26).
RULE 29: REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH
MODES OF DISCOVERY

NOTE: The remedy of the party, in this

case, is to file a motion to be relieved of the
consequences of the implied admission.
The amendment of the complaint per se
cannot set aside the legal effects of the
request for admission since its materiality
has not been affected by the amendment.
RULE 29: REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH
MODES OF DISCOVERY
Section 5. Failure of a 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 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)
JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE MODES OF DISCOVERY

• The rule is that a default order and

consequently a default judgment is
triggered by the failure of the defending
party to file the required answer (Sec. 3,
Rule 9).
JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE MODES OF DISCOVERY

By way of exception, a judgment by default may be

rendered in the following cases despite an answer
having been filed:
• If a party refuses to obey an order requiring him or
her to comply with the various modes of discovery
(Sec. 3[c], Rule 29); or
• If a party or officer or managing agent of a party
willfully fails to appear before the officer who is to
take his deposition (Sec. 5, Rule 29).
FAILURE TO ATTEND DEPOSITIONS OR TO SERVE ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

The court may:

• Strike out all or any part of the pleading of that
party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any
part thereof; or
• Enter a judgment by default against that party,
and its discretion,
• Order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred by
the other, including attorney’s fees.
RULE 29: REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH
MODES OF DISCOVERY

• The consequences under Sec. 5 of Rule 29 will

apply if a party refuses to answer the whole set of
written interrogatories, and not just a particular
question. 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, Sec. 3[c] of Rule 29 will apply.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CONSEQUENCES PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 3[C] OF RULE 29:

• The court may issue an order striking out

pleadings or parts thereof;
• The court may issue an order staying further
proceedings until the order is obeyed; or
• The court may issue an order rendering a
judgment by default against the disobedient party.
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. VS. COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. NO. 97654, NOVEMBER 14, 1994
 RULING:

• While the modes of discovery are intended to attain

the resolution of litigations with great expediency,
they are not contemplated, however, to be ultimate
causes of injustice. It behooves trial courts to
examine well the circumstances of each case and
to make their considered determination thereafter.
It is only in clear cases of grave abuse of that
discretion when appellate courts will interfere in
their judgment.
THE VARIOUS MODES OR INSTRUMENTS OF DISCOVERY
ARE MEANT TO SERVE:

(1) as a device, along with the pre-trial hearing under

Rule 20, to narrow and clarify the basic issues
between the parties, and

(2) as a device for ascertaining the facts relative to

those issues.
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. VS. COURT OF APPEALS

• The evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable the

parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to
obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues
and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that
said trials are carried on in the dark.
 RULE 29: REFUSAL TO COMPLY
WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY

Section 6. Expenses against the Republic of the

Philippines. – Expenses and attorney’s fees are not
to be imposed upon the Republic of the Philippines
under this Rule. (6)