Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Philippine Health Insurance Corp vs Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital

Facts: Petitioner Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) is a government corporation.PHIC filed a
Complaint with its Legal Sector -Prosecution Department against OLLH for the administrative offense of filing
multiple claims. Allegedly, OLLH filed two claims of the same amount of PhilHealth benefits involving the same
patient for the same diagnosis and covering the same period of confinement.

Summons was duly served upon OLLH. OLLH filed a Verified Answer. After which, the parties were directed to file
their respective Position Papers. PHIC complied with the order. On its part, OLLH moved to defer the submission of
its position paper pending the answer of the PHIC President and CEO to the written interrogatories as well as the
inspection and copying of the original transmittal letter and all other claims.

According to OLLH, these modes of discovery were availed of because its representatives were denied and/or not
given access to documents and were not allowed to talk to PHIC personnel with regard to the charge. PHIC filed its
Comment on OLLH's motion. Thereafter, the PHIC Arbitration Department, through Arbiter De Leon, denied OLLH's
motion. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by OLLH suffered the same fate

Aggrieved, OLLH elevated the issue to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari. As stated, the CA reversed
the Resolution and Order of the PHIC Arbitration Department. In ruling that grave abuse of discretion was
committed when OLLH's resort to modes of discovery was denied the Court stated that petitioner OLLH has shown
good cause for its resort to the modes of discovery as the same was anchored on its being able to intelligently
prepare a position paper considering that it was not allowed access to some pertinent documents or talk to PHIC
personnel with regard the charge of filing multiple claims.

Before the Supreme Court, PHIC holds that OLLH's resort to modes of discovery is not a matter of right as it is
provided neither in the PHIC Charter nor in the IRR, and that even if the Rules may be applied in suppletory
character, the Arbiter may exercise his sound discretion on whether to resort to modes of discovery consistent
with Our ruling in Limos, et al. v. Spouses Odones.

Issue: Whether or not modes of recovery may be availed

Held: Through written interrogatories, a party may elicit from the adverse party or parties any facts or matter that
are not privileged and are material and relevant to the subject of the pending action. Like other modes of
discovery authorized by the Rules, the purpose of written interrogatories is to assist the parties in clarifying the
issues and in ascertaining the facts involved in a case. On the other hand, the provision on production and
inspection of documents is to enable not only the parties but also the court to discover all the relevant and
material facts in connection with the case pending before it. It must be shown, therefore, that the documents
sought to be produced, inspected and/or copied/photographed are material or contain evidence relevant to an
issue involved in the action.

In this case, the questions contained in the written interrogatories filed and received on July 28, 2009 sought to
elicit facts that could already be seen from the allegations as well as attachments of the Complaint and the Verified
Answer. Specifically, the entries in the three (3) Validation Report that OLLH sought to be identified and/or
explained by PHIC are either immaterial or irrelevant (to the issue of whether OLLH is guilty of filing multiple claims
and OLLH's defense that it inadvertently attached a second copy of the subject PhilHealth Claim Form 2 to the
Transmittal Letter filed on June 19, 2007) or, even if material or relevant, are self-explanatory and need no further
elaboration from PHIC. Thus, the interrogatories were frivolous and need not be answered. Aside from this, the
PHIC Arbitration Department correctly observed that the written interrogatories were mistakenly addressed to the
President and CEO of PHIC, who could not competently answer, either based on his job description or first-hand
experience, issues that arose from and related to the filing and processing of claims.
Afulgencia vs Metrobank

Facts: Spouses Vicente and Leticia Afulugencia, filed a Complaint for nullification of mortgage, foreclosure, auction
sale, certificate of sale and other documents, with damages, against respondents Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co.
before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City.

After the filing of the parties pleadings and with the conclusion of pre-trial, petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance
of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum to require Metrobanks officers to appear and testify as the
petitioners initial witnesses during the hearing for the presentation of their evidence-in-chief, and to bring the
documents relative to their loan with Metrobank, as well as those covering the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of
petitioners 200-square meter land in Meycauayan, Bulacan.

Metrobank filed an Opposition arguing that for lack of a proper notice of hearing, the Motion must be denied; that
being a litigated motion, the failure of petitioners to set a date and time for the hearing renders the Motion
ineffective and pro forma; that pursuant to Sections 1 and 6 of Rule 25 of the Rules, Metrobanks officers who
are considered adverse parties may not be compelled to appear and testify in court for the petitioners since they
were not initially served with written interrogatories; that petitioners have not shown the materiality and
relevance of the documents sought to be produced in court; and that petitioners were merely fishing for evidence.

Petitioners submitted a Reply to Metrobanks Opposition, stating that the lack of a proper notice of hearing was
cured by the filing of Metrobanks Opposition; that applying the principle of liberality, the defect may be ignored;
that leave of court is not necessary for the taking of Metrobanks officers depositions; that for their case, the
issuance of a subpoena is not unreasonable and oppressive, but instead favorable to Metrobank, since it will
present the testimony of these officers just the same during the presentation of its own evidence; that the
documents sought to be produced are relevant and will prove whether petitioners have paid their obligations to
Metrobank in full, and will settle the issue relative to the validity or invalidity of the foreclosure proceedings; and
that the Rules do not prohibit a party from presenting the adverse party as its own witness.

Issue: Whether or not the partys failure to serve written interrogatories may be dispensed

Held: No. In the present case, petitioners seek to call Metrobanks officers to the witness stand as their initial and
main witnesses, and to present documents in Metrobanks possession as part of their principal documentary
evidence. This is improper. Petitioners may not be allowed, at the incipient phase of the presentation of their
evidence-in-chief at that, to present Metrobanks officers who are considered adverse parties as well, based on
the principle that corporations act only through their officers and duly authorized agents as their main witnesses;
nor may they be allowed to gain access to Metrobanks documentary evidence for the purpose of making it their
own. This is tantamount to building their whole case from the evidence of their opponent. The burden of proof
and evidence falls on petitioners, not on Metrobank; if petitioners cannot prove their claim using their own
evidence, then the adverse party Metrobank may not be pressured to hang itself from its own defense.

It is true that under the Rules, a party may, for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, be compelled
to give testimony in court by the adverse party who has not served written interrogatories. But what petitioners
seek goes against the very principles of justice and fair play; they would want that Metrobank provide the very
evidence with which to prosecute and build their case from the start. This they may not be allowed to do.
Chandler VS Cutler

Facts: The complaint is by Chandler and Panish as joint plaintiffs, and alleges infringement by defendant. The
defendant filed The defendant had proposed certain interrogatories which the plaintiff objected to on the ground
that they call for the opinion of the plaintiffs, and their theories and conclusions with respect to the construction
of the claims in suit, and their theories of infringement.
. The defendant then fild an answer and also a counter claim for a declaratory judgment, asking that Panish patent
No. 1,747,594 be declared void.

Defendant alleges that the plaintiffs have been notifying the trade, including the defendant, of the alleged
infringement not only of the Chandler reissue patent, which was the basis of the complaint herein, but also the
Panish patent. The plaintiffs filed a reply in the nature of a counter claim, alleging that the Panish patent is valid,
and infringed by the defendant. The matter before the court is the motion of defendant for judgment on its
counter claim, wherein it asks for a declaratory judgment that said Panish patent is invalid, and for a dismissal of
the Panish counter claim with prejudice.

Issue: Whether or not the objection of the interrogatories is correct

Held: No. The courts recognize that interrogatories may cover as broad a field of inquiry as when the interrogated
party is called as a witness to testify orally at the trial. It is very evident that it was the intent of the framers of the
new Rules that they should provide ample facilities for the discovery of facts before trial, so that surprise at the
trial and possible miscarriage of justice might be avoided.