G.R. No. L-18928 December 28, 1963
ANGELES CASON, substituted by ANTONIO C. GARRETERO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE SAN PEDRO and CARMEN FAVILA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Angeles Cason filed a complaint seeking the permanent closure of certain windows and balconies on the defendants’ VICAR Building in Dagupan City, alleging they offered direct views into her tenement, and demanded the removal of electrical wirings attached to a shared wall, plus attorney’s fees. Defendants Vicente San Pedro and Carmen Favila answered, asserting their construction complied with approved plans and permits, that plaintiff acquiesced during the years-long construction, and that the openings did not violate law. They also raised the defense of laches and filed a counterclaim for moral damages.
After issues were joined, plaintiff served written interrogatories upon the defendants on two occasions. The defendants failed to answer these interrogatories within the reglementary period. Plaintiff moved to declare defendants in default for this failure. Defendants opposed, claiming they were abroad, that the questions were improper, and that answering would improperly shift the burden of proof. The trial court granted the motion, struck out the defendants’ answer, and declared them in default. It subsequently rendered a judgment by default in favor of the plaintiff. Defendants appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in declaring the defendants in default and striking out their answer for failure to answer written interrogatories.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The legal logic centers on the proper application of procedural rules governing discovery. Under Section 5, Rule 24 of the Rules of Court (now Section 3, Rule 25, 1997 Rules), a party’s willful failure to answer interrogatories can result in the court striking out pleadings or declaring the disobedient party in default. The Court held that the defendants’ failure was willful. Their claim of being abroad was insufficient, as they received the interrogatories and took no timely action to seek an extension or to object properly through a motion to disallow under Rule 24. Their belated objections, raised only in opposition to the motion for default, were deemed waived. The Court emphasized that the rules on interrogatories are designed to expedite trial and enable parties to ascertain facts before trial, a purpose defeated by defendants’ inaction. Furthermore, the fact that issues had already been joined did not preclude the use of interrogatories, as discovery mechanisms remain available post-joinder to compel disclosure of relevant facts. By their default, defendants lost their standing in court, and the trial court was justified in proceeding to render judgment based on the plaintiff’s evidence.