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.