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)

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, may
be required to bear the necessary added expenses.
The making of false or evasive
answers to
interrogatories may be punished as a contempt.

(Crosley Radio Corp. vs. Hied, 5 FRS 467)

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

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

Raul Arellano, petitioner

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

 After being served with summons, Arellano filed

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

 After issuance of an order, the court noted the failure

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

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

Ruling:
The order of dismissal, which counsel referred to in his
motion as having been issued in view of plaintiffs failure to
answer the written interrogatories was virtually accepted as
final in said motion, so much so that the artifice of moving
for the reinclusion of Arellano as an indispensable party was
conceived.
In brief, 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.
Under these circumstances, the assailed dismissal finds
justification in Section 5 of Rule 29.