REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT), vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, BIENVENIDO R. TANTOCO, JR. and DOMINADOR R. SANTIAGO .
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 90478
- Promulgated: 1991-11-21
- Ponente: Narvasa, J.
Doctrine
The field of inquiry in depositions and interrogatories is as broad as oral testimony at trial and extends to all relevant facts, ultimate or evidentiary, except privileged matters.
Depositions, interrogatories to parties, and requests for admissions may be availed of without leave of court after an answer has been served; court intervention is generally unnecessary for these discovery modes.
A governmental body (PCGG) is not absolved from answering interrogatories on the ground of task-related immunity; disclosure of non-privileged, non-self-incriminatory facts relevant to the action is required.
Facts
PCGG, on behalf of the Republic, filed Civil Case No. 0008 in the Sandiganbayan on 21 July 1987 for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages under Executive Order No. 14; private respondents Tantoco, Jr. and Santiago are defendants (along with others).
After summons, Tantoco, Jr. and Santiago filed on 3 November 1987 a joint 'Motion to Strike Out Some Portions of the Complaint and for Bill of Particulars'; PCGG opposed and movants replied; on 29 January 1988 the Sandiganbayan gave PCGG 45 days to expand its complaint to make certain allegations more specific.
Issues
Whether depositions, interrogatories and requests for admissions may cover broad inquiry relevant to the subject of the pending action and thus be used as discovery without leave of court after an answer is served.
Whether the PCGG or its members are exempt from answering interrogatories on account of assertions of immunity under Executive Order No. 1.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED and the temporary restraining order of 27 October 1989 is LIFTED AND SET ASIDE.
Discovery mechanisms (depositions, interrogatories, requests for admissions) allow broad inquiry into relevant, non-privileged matters; leave of court is not required to avail of these modes after an answer has been served.
PCGG's claim of immunity under Executive Order No. 1 does not justify refusal to answer interrogatories; factual disclosures not self-incriminatory or privileged must be made.
Keywords
G.R. No. 90478, Executive Order No. 14, Civil Case No. 0008, reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, damages, MOTION TO STRIKE OUT SOME PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT AND FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court, Interrogatories under Rule 25, Expanded Complaint, Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, Reply to Answer with Motion to Dismiss Compulsory Counterclaim, Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents, ill-gotten wealth, piercing the corporate veil, Section 4, Executive Order No. 1, motion