GR L 2363; (September, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2363; September 23, 1948
GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., FRANCISCO JAVIER DE PITARQUE Y ELIO, ISABEL MARIA DE YNCHAUSTI DE PITARQUE Y DE YNCHAUSTI, petitioners, vs. SOTERO RODAS, Judge of First Instance of Manila, COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS and CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE TARLAC, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus seeking to set aside an order of respondent Judge Sotero Rodas. The order denied petitioners’ motion to compel respondent corporations to answer written interrogatories under Rule 20 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners argued the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. This Court initially dismissed the petition, ruling that appeal from the final judgment was the proper remedy. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the respondent judge’s order denying the petitioners’ motion to compel answers to written interrogatories.
RULING
No. The motion for reconsideration is denied. Certiorari does not lie because the respondent judge did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction, nor with grave abuse of discretion. The determination of whether interrogatories are material or privileged is governed by a rule of law (Section 2, Rule 18, Rules of Court), not left to judicial discretion. If the judge erred in finding the interrogatories immaterial, it is an error of law correctible on appeal from the final judgment, not by certiorari. An interlocutory order, such as the one denying the interrogatories, is not immediately appealable; the issue may be raised on appeal after final judgment.
AI Generated by Armztrong.