Insular Life Assurance v.

CA 311
GR No. 97654, 14 Nov 1994, Vitug, J.
Dawn Sokoken • Law 125 – Civil Procedure

Petitioners: Insular Life Assurance

Respondents: CA, & Ofelia, Ricardo, and Donna Brucal
Nature of the Case: Petition for Review on Certiorari

RESPs filed an action to recover proceeds from the insurance policy. Insular filed a TPC impleading
Ofelia’s husband, alleging that he forged the signature of the deceased on the insurance policy. It
then filed a request for admission along with a set of written interrogatories. This was granted.
Despite RESP’s failure to answer written interrogatories of Insular Life, TC decided to proceed with
the full-blown trial “in the interest of substantial justice”. SC says TC did not commit GAD.

FACTS
• RESPs Ofelia, with her daughter, Donna, as alleged beneficiaries, filed a case against Insular
Life to recover the proceeds of insurance policy covering the life of Horacio Aquino
o Insular Life alleged that the policy was a nullity since there was material concealment
and misrepresentation in its procurement, and death of Aquino was deliberate
• Before pre-trial, INSULAR filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against
Ofelia’s husband, Ricardo, an insurance underwriter, alleging that he forged the signature of
Aquino. à GRANTED
• INSULAR then sent RESPs a request for admission along with a set of interrogatories
and production of 6 other alleged policies covering Aquino’s life
o RESP’s counsel commented that the request was merely to delay
• TC: denied request for production
• RESPs failed to answer the written interrogatories, so INSULAR filed a motion to dismiss
and to declare Ricardo Brucal in default
• TC: denied the MTD, holding that “substantial justice would be better served if the case
were to be decided on the merits”
• CA: sustained TC order and remanded the case to TC for further proceedings

ISSUES & HOLDING

• WON TC committed GAD in ordering that the case be decided on the merits.– NO. While
the modes of discovery are intended to attain the resolution of litigations with great
expediency, they are not contemplated to be ultimate causes of injustice.

RATIO
• The matter of how and when the sanctions under Sec 5, Rule 29 (Effect of Failure to Answer
interrogatories) were to be applied is one that primarily rests on the sound discretion of the
court. Modes of discovery are not contemplated to be causes of injustice.
• BUT, while the Court does not see the disquisitions of both CA and TC lacking in good
coherence, it found it appropriate to say that the discovery methods doe not deserve to be
taken lightly. These discovery rules contribute in no small measure to the simplification o
issues.

DISPOSITIVE
CA Decision AFFIRMED. Case remanded to TC to proceed in resolving case on the merits