This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-08-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In Afulugencia v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co.,[27] this Court stated that “in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter.”[28] There petitioners Spouses Afulugencia sought the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to compel the officers of the bank to testify and bring documents pertaining to the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of a certain parcel of land. Metrobank moved to quash the issuance of the subpoenas on the ground of non-compliance with Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court. In quashing the issuance of the subpoena, the Court reminded litigants that the depositions are a mechanism by which fishing expeditions and delays may be avoided. Further written interrogatories aid the court in limiting harassment and to focus on what is essential to a case. The Court stated: One of the purposes of the above rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is there to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial. It will be presumed that a party who does not serve written interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case if it later opts to call the adverse party to the witness stand as its witness. Instead, the process could be treated as a fishing expedition or an attempt at delaying the proceedings; it produces no significant result that a prior written interrogatories might bring. | |||||