GR 145542; (June, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145542 June 4, 2004
ELENA S. ONG, petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCISCO V. MAZO as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Guiuan, Eastern Samar, Branch 3, ELVIRA C. LANUEVO and CHARITO A. TOMILLOSO, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Elvira Lanuevo and Charito Tomilloso filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Elena Ong and her driver, arising from a vehicular accident. After filing her Answer, petitioner served written interrogatories upon the respondents and subsequently filed a motion to compel them to answer. The trial court denied this motion, characterizing the interrogatories as a “fishing expedition” more suitable for a pre-trial conference. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the trial court’s orders. The appellate court dismissed the petition, ruling it was filed two days late, having treated it as an ordinary appeal subject to a 15-day period from the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing her petition was a special civil action under Rule 65, governed by a 60-day reglementary period, and was thus timely filed.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari as having been filed out of time.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The petition was a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, not an ordinary appeal. The applicable period was sixty (60) days from notice of the order denying the motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 65, as amended by Circular No. 39-98. Petitioner received the denial order on July 18, 2000, and filed her petition on August 4, 2000, which was well within the 60-day period. The appellate court’s application of the 15-day appeal period was incorrect.
On the substantive issue, the Supreme Court found the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the written interrogatories. The rules on discovery are designed to prevent trials from being carried on in the dark. The availment of modes of discovery, including written interrogatories, is a matter of right after an answer has been served. The trial court’s justification that it was a “fishing expedition” is untenable, as the rules precisely allow a party to inquire into the facts of the opposing party’s case. The denial, being a patent disregard of established rules and jurisprudence, was correctible by certiorari. The appellate court’s resolutions were set aside, and the trial court was ordered to require respondents to answer the interrogatories.