Modes of Discovery

Mazo vs. Ong

G.R. NO. 145542
Reymart Lopez
Mario R. Roldan Jr.
Facts:
O Respondents Elvira C. Lanuevo (Lanuevo) and
Charito A. Tomilloso (Tomilloso) filed a complaint
for damages against petitioner along with
Iluminado J. Caramoan (Caramoan) before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guiuan, Eastern
Samar,1 docketed as Civil Case No. 887.The
complaint which was raffled to Branch 3 of the
RTC, arose from a vehicular accident whereby a
bus owned by petitioner and driven by Caramoan
allegedly bumped a jeep owned and driven by
respondent Lanuevo, with respondent Tomilloso as
her passenger at the time;
O After petitioner filed an answer with counterclaim,
and a motion to dismiss the complaint, respondent
filed a motion for leave of court to file an
amended complaint which was granted;
O Petitioner served with interrogatories upon
respondents and filed a Manifestation and
Omnibus motion seeking, among other things, an
order from the trial court directing respondents to
answer the interrogatories. Respondents filed their
objection;
O The trial court denied the motion to compel
respondents to answer the interrogatories upon the
ground that it constituted a fishing expedition which
would be more properly ventilated in a pre-trial
conference;
O Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition
captioned as Petition for Certiorari assailing the
above twin orders of the trial court as having been
issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. However the same
was denied on the ground that it was belatedly
filed.
Issue/s:

O WON Court of Appeal is correct in denying the

petition on the ground that it was belatedly filed;
O WON trial court is correct in denying the motion
filed by the petitioner compelling the respondent to
answer the former’s written interrogatories;
Ruling:
O No, On August 4, 2000, when petitioner filed her Petition
for Certiorari before the appellate court, Section 4 of Rule
65, as amended by Circular No. 39-98, read as:
O SEC. 4. Where petition filed. The petition may be filed not
later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment,
order or resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme
Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower
court or of a corporation, board, officer or person in the
Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court.It may
also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the
same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the
Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.If it
involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency,
and unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the
petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court
of Appeals.
O If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or
reconsideration in due time after notice of said judgment,
order or resolution, the period herein fixed shall be
interrupted.If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party
may file the petition within the remaining period, but which
shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned
from such notice of denial.No extension of time to file the
petition shall be granted except for the most compelling
reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.
O Under the foregoing rule, when petitioners counsel received
on July 18, 2000 the trial courts order of July 4, 2000
denying her motion for reconsideration of the Order of
May 6, 1999, she still had 15 days left of the 60-day
period to file the Petition for Certiorari.
O Section 4 of Rule 65 was subsequently further amended,
however, by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC which took effect on
September 1, 2000 as follows:
O SEC. 4. When and where petition filed. The petition shall
be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the
judgment, order or resolution.In case a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such
motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period
shall be counted from notice of the denial of said
motion.
O Applying retroactively too Sec. 4 of Rule 65, as
amended by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, since petitioners
petition for certiorari was filed with the appellate court
on August 4, 2000, after receipt on July 18, 2000 by
petitioner of the order of the trial court denying her
motion for reconsideration from which latter date the
60-day period should be reckoned, the petition was
seasonably filed.It was thus error for the trial court to
dismiss the same.
O No, Supreme Court finds that the orders
disallowing petitioners written interrogatories are
patently erroneous, hence, the resort to certiorari is
warranted. In denying petitioners availment of
interrogatories, the trial court was of the view that:
.. . in as much that the written interrogatories is (sic)
a sort of fishing expedition, said questions and
answer would be properly ventilated in a pre-trial
conference for which this court direct the defendant
Elena Ong to file her answer to the amended
complaint anent thereto, both parties are required to
file their respective pre-trial briefs after which this
case will be calendared for pre-trial conference.