1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 25

2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Interrogatories to Parties

Rule 25
INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES

Q: Going back to Rule 23, what are the modes of deposition taking?
A: The following:
(1) Deposition upon oral examination; and
(2) Deposition upon written interrogatories.

Rule 25 should not be confused with Rule 23, Section 25 – yung tinatawag na Deposition Upon
Written Interrogatories.

In written interrogatories under Rule 23, questions are already prepared beforehand and they are
going to be submitted to a deposition officer who will propound the questions to the deponent and
record the answers under oath. EXAMPLE is, if you want to take the deposition of somebody abroad
through a deposition officer abroad. Of course, it would be very expensive to go there and conduct an
oral examination. So, the best thing is to resort to deposition upon written interrogatories under Rule
23.

That is not the same as interrogatories to parties under this rule. We are going to distinguish one from
the other later.

Interrogatories mean written questions. EXAMPLE: I file a case against Frudo. Frudo filed an
answer and of course, he has his affirmative defenses which are statements of ultimate facts. along
details, no evidentiary facts. But I am interested to find out what are these evidentiary facts I will write
a letter addressed to Frudo under Rule 25 and direct him to answer the following interrogatories:

According to your answer, you already paid, please answer the

following questions:
Q1: When did you pay?
Q2: Place?
Q3: Who was present when you paid?

Or

Q1: Mr. Frudo, you have been in continuous possession of this piece
of land for 30 years, would you kindly narrate the improvements that you
introduced in the property?
Q2: What year did you introduce them?
Q3: Who are your witnesses? etc…

Now, under Rule 25, you are obliged to answer me also in writing. Then you sign your answer and
you swear to the truth of it. So I will ask you directing a question – How will you prove this? Who are
your witnesses? I will compel you to reveal the evidentiary facts. And that process is called written
interrogatories to parties. Di para na ring deposition?

I can also ask the same questions through deposition taking under Rule 23. Why do I have to resort
to Rule 25? The trouble is under Rule 23, kukuha pa ako ng deposition officer and I will have to course
everything to him. In Rule 25, walang deposition officer. Diretsahan na ito. I will ask you a question
and you will answer me. So, less expensive.

But take note, under Rule 25, you can only ask questions to your opponent. You cannot ask
questions to a stranger. Unlike in Rule 23, you can take the deposition of any person whether a party
or not. In Rule 25, the questioning is direct. Plaintiff questions the defendant, defendant questions the
plaintiff. So, these are the differences between deposition upon written interrogatories and
interrogatories to parties.

Q: Distinguish INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES (Rule 25) from DEPOSITION UPON WRITTEN

INTERROGATORIES (Rule 23).

Lakas Atenista 19
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 25
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Interrogatories to Parties

A: The following are the distinctions:

1.) Under Rule 23 on Depositions upon written interrogatories, the deposition is taken before a
deposition officer; whereas
Under Rule 25 on Interrogatories to Parties, there is no deposition officer;

2.) Under Rule 23 on Depositions upon written interrogatories, questions are prepared
beforehand. They are submitted to the deposition officer who will ask the deponent the
questions and he will record the answers.; whereas
Under Rule 25 on Interrogatories to Parties, the questioning is direct. Plaintiff questions
defendant, defendant questions the plaintiff. There is no third person who will
intervene; and

3.) Under Rule 23 on Depositions upon written interrogatories, the deposition of any person
may be taken, whether he is a party or not, may be taken; whereas
Rule 25 on Interrogatories to Parties applies to parties only. You can send interrogatories
only to parties. You cannot ask question to a stranger.

SEC. 1. Interrogatories to parties; service, thereof – Under the same

conditions specified in section 1 of Rule 23, any party desiring to elicit
material and relevant facts from any adverse parties shall file and serve upon
the latter written 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 cause shown,
extends or shortens the time. (1a)

Q: Is leave of court necessary to apply Rule 25? Do I have to apply for a court permission before I
can send interrogatories to parties?
A: IT DEPENDS. The Rule says “under the same conditions specified in Section 1 of Rule 23.” So the
manner of resorting to interrogatories are done under the same conditions for taking of depositions.

So if an answer has already been served, leave of court is not necessary. If no answer has been
served, although the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, leave of court is
necessary. That is the same under the rule on deposition.

SEC. 2. Answer to Interrogatories - The interrogatories shall be answered

fully in writing and shall be signed and sworn to by the person 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 courts, on motion and for good cause
shown, extends or shortens the time. (2a)

As I have mentioned, you are mandated by law to answer fully in writing my questions and signed
and sworn by you. As a general rule, you are given 15 days to answer my interrogatories.

SEC. 3. Objections to Interrogatories – Objections to any interrogatories

may be presented to the court within ten (10) days after service thereof, with
notice as in case of a motion; and answers shall be deferred until the
objections are resolved, which shall be at as early a time as is practicable.
(3a)

Q: Suppose you do not want to answer my questions because you believe my questions are
improper, you want to object to my questions, what is your remedy?
A: You go to the court where the case is pending and object. Let the court decide whether you will
have to answer or not.

SEC. 4. Number of Interrogatories - No party may, without leave of court,

serve more than one set of interrogatories to be answered by the same party. (4)

It means, I send to you interrogatories and I thought tapos na. Then I remembered kulang pa pala
iyon, so another set – ahh hindi na pwede! Dapat once lang unless the court allows me to send to you
another set.

Lakas Atenista 20
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 25
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Interrogatories to Parties

So, as a general rule, when you send questions to your opponent, you better compile. Lahat ng
gusto mong itanong, itanong mo na because no party is given, as a rule, the privilege of securing more
than one set of interrogatories.

SEC. 5. Scope and Use of Interrogatories - Interrogatories may relate to

any matters that can be inquired into under section 2 of Rule 23, and the
answers may be used for the same purposes provided in section 4 of the same Rule
(5a)

Q: What kind of questions can you ask under Rule 25 to your opponent?
A: The same questions that you can ask in Rule 23 section 2:
1.) anything that is related to the claim or defense provided it is relevant; and
2.) it is not privileged.

Q: Suppose there are already answers to the interrogatories given by your opponent, how do you
use those answers?
A: They have the same uses under Rule 23 Section 4 – you can use it for impeachment, or any other
purpose like to prove an admission already made by the adverse party.

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 the testimony in open court, or to give a deposition
pending appeal (n)

This is entirely a new question. It has no counterpart in the old rules. Now, this is a very
controversial section. Actually, you will not understand this until you study Evidence where you can
compel the adverse party to testify. This is actually related to Rule 132, Sec. 10 (e) of the Rules of
Evidence.

[The following discussions are taken from the Remedial Law Review Transcription 1997-98]

This is related to the rule on Evidence particularly Rule 132, Section 10 [e]:

Rule 132, Sec. 10. Leading and misleading questions. – A question which
suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a
leading question. It is not allowed except:
x x x x x x
x x x x x x
(e) of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or
managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse party.
x x x x x x

Rule 132, Section 10 [e] is the provision in the Rules which authorizes a party to call the adverse
party to the witness stand. A party may call the adverse party to the witness stand and interrogate him
by leading questions – as an element of surprise. I can call my opponent to the witness stand and he
cannot refuse.

I can conduct direct examination on the adverse party and I am entitled under the Rules to ask
leading questions as if he in under cross-examination because he is the adverse party. He is not actually
my witness. The purpose here is to actually secure admissions from him while he is in the witness
stand because anything that he says against me does not bind me even if I were the one who called him
to the witness stand. But anything he might say that is against himself binds him.

Under Section 6, if I intend during the trial to call him to the witness stand, I am obliged to send
him ahead written interrogatories. I have to follow Rule 25. Now, if I do not send written
interrogatories to him, then I have no right to call him to the witness stand. That is why Section 6 is a
very radical provision.

So, if I am the lawyer of a party, then binigla mo ako dahil there is really that element of surprise as
it has happened several times before. The lawyer is caught by surprise when the opposing party says

Lakas Atenista 21
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 25
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Interrogatories to Parties

that it would present the adverse party to the witness stand. The lawyer is then caught off-guard as he
has not talked to his client yet.

Ngayon, may panlaban ka na. Pag-binigla ka, you can counter it by arguing that written
interrogatories were not sent under Rule 25. Hence, you can object to the opposing counsel’s motion to
call your client to the witness stand.

This practically compels the lawyers to avail of the modes of discovery because if you will not
compel him, chances are Filipino lawyers do not make much use of the modes of discovery. So now, if
the opposing counsel suddenly sends interrogatories to you, the he must be planning to call you in the
witness stand later.

Lakas Atenista 22
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law