INSULAR LIFE V. CA (REMEDIAL)

Sections 1 and 2, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court on the matter of WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES, state:

SECTION 1. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES, SERVICE THEREOF - Under the same conditions specified in Section 1 of Rule 24, any party may serve upon any adverse party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served...

SECTION 2. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES - The interrogatories shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath. The answer shall be signed by the person making them, and the party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting the interrogatories 15 days after service of the interrogatories, unless the court on motion and notice and for good cause shown, enlarges or shortens the time.

The submission of interrogatories to parties under this rule is one of the five major procedural MODES OF DISCOVERY. Discovery in general, is defined as the disclosure of facts resting in the knowledge of the defendant, or as the production of deeds, writings, or things in his possession or power, in order to maintain the right or title of the party asking it, in a suit or proceeding.

In order to give life to the provisions on interrogatories, Section 5, Rule 29 states:

SECTION 5. FAILURE OF PARTY TO ATTEND OR SERVE ANSWERS - If a party or an officer or managing agent of a party willfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take his deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or fails to serve answers to interrogatories submitted under Rule 25, after proper service of such interrogatories, the court on motion and notice, may strike out all or part of any pleading of that party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, o r enter a judgment by default against that party, and in its discretion, order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the other, including attorney's fees.

As private respondents failed to give their answers to the interrogatories, Insular filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and moved to declare the third party defendant in default, which was opposed by private respondents arguing that the modes of discovery should not be utilized as to, in effect, permit unrestrained "fishing expeditions."

The real question now before us is whether or not the trial court has committed grave abuse of discretion in its questioned order. Like the appellate court to which the matter has been initially addressed, we are not inclined to conclude that any such clear transgression has been committed by the court a quo.