Afulugencia vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co.

A party who has not served written interrogatories upon an adverse party may not compel that adverse party, or the officers of a corporate adverse party who represent its interests, to give testimony in open court, unless allowed by the court for good cause shown to prevent a failure of justice; the prohibition aims to prevent fishing expeditions, needless delays, and the unfair burdening of adverse parties with courtroom appearances, and to protect the calling party from damaging its own case by being bound by adverse testimony.

Spouses Vicente and Leticia Afulugencia obtained a loan from Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (Metrobank) secured by a mortgage on their 200-square meter land in Meycauayan, Bulacan. After the loan was foreclosed extrajudicially, the spouses instituted an action before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City seeking nullification of the mortgage, foreclosure proceedings, auction sale, and certificate of sale, alleging irregularities and claiming they were not furnished specific loan documents required by law.

• Nature of the Action: Civil Case No. 336-M-2004 was instituted by petitioners Spouses Vicente and Leticia Afulugencia against respondent Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (Metrobank) and Emmanuel L. Ortega (Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff) for nullification of mortgage, extrajudicial foreclosure, auction sale, certificate of sale, and other documents, with damages.
• The Subpoena Motion: Following the conclusion of pre-trial, petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum requiring specific Metrobank officers (Oscar L. Abendan, O.L. Cajucom, and B.C.T. Reyes) to appear as petitioners' initial witnesses and to bring documents relative to the loan agreement and the extrajudicial foreclosure of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 20411 (M).
• Procedural Defect in Notice: The motion contained a notice of hearing addressed only to the Branch Clerk of Court ("Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration and approval of the Hon. Court immediately upon receipt hereof"), failing to specify a date and time for hearing and failing to address Metrobank as required by Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
• Opposition and Reply: Metrobank filed an Opposition arguing that the motion was a mere scrap of paper for lack of proper notice, and that under Sections 1 and 6, Rule 25, its officers—being adverse parties—could not be compelled to testify without prior written interrogatories. Petitioners replied that the defect was cured by Metrobank's filing of the Opposition, that the rules should be liberally construed, and that the officers were mere employees, not adverse parties.

• Characterization as Non-Litigated Motion: Petitioner argued that the motion was not a litigated motion seeking relief but a request for the issuance of mere process (subpoena), and therefore did not require notice and hearing under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15.
• Applicability of Adorio: Petitioner cited Adorio v. Hon. Bersamin to support the claim that requests for subpoenas do not require notice to other parties since no violation of due process results, as the adverse party would have ample opportunity to examine the witnesses and documents once presented in court.
• Status of Officers: Petitioner maintained that Metrobank's officers are not adverse parties but individuals separate and distinct from the corporate defendant, and thus not covered by the prohibition in Rule 25, Section 6.
• Liberality and Cure of Defect: Petitioner argued that the Rules should be liberally construed in their favor and that the filing of Metrobank's Opposition cured any defect in the notice of hearing.

• Litigated Motion: Respondent countered that the motion was litigated because it sought to compel adverse party officers to testify as petitioners' principal witnesses and to produce documents constituting petitioners' main evidence, thereby substantially affecting Metrobank's interests.
• Mandatory Nature of Notice: Respondent argued that the requirements for notice and hearing under Rule 15 are mandatory and must be strictly observed.
• Rule 25 Prohibition: Respondent insisted that under Section 6, Rule 25, none of its officers could be compelled to testify unless written interrogatories were first served; corporate officers are deemed adverse parties representing the corporation because a corporation acts only through its officers.
• Witness Fees: Respondent argued that the subpoena should be denied for failure to tender witness fees and kilometrage as required by the Rules.

• Notice and Hearing Requirement: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in requiring notice and hearing under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 for a motion for subpoena when such requirements apply only to depositions under Section 6, Rule 25.
• Prior Written Interrogatories: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioners must first serve written interrogatories to respondent bank's officers before they could be subpoenaed to testify.

• Notice and Hearing: The defect in the notice of hearing was cured by Metrobank's filing of an Opposition; however, the motion was properly treated as litigated because it sought to compel the adverse party's officers to testify as petitioners' principal witnesses and to produce documents constituting petitioners' main evidence, thereby substantially affecting the rights of the adverse party.
• Prior Written Interrogatories: Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court prohibits compelling an adverse party to testify in open court without prior service of written interrogatories; this prohibition extends to officers of a corporate adverse party who are deemed to represent the corporation's interests. The rule prevents fishing expeditions, needless delays, and the unfair burdening of adverse parties with courtroom appearances, and it protects the calling party from damaging its own case by being bound by adverse testimony. The burden of proof lies with the calling party, which may not shift it to the adverse party by compelling it to provide the evidence with which to prosecute the case against it.

• The Written Interrogatories Rule (Rule 25, Section 6) — Unless allowed by the court for good cause shown to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court or to give a deposition pending appeal. The rule serves to prevent fishing expeditions, maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial, and prevent the calling party from being bound by adverse testimony that might damage its own case.
• Corporate Officers as Adverse Parties — Officers of a corporate adverse party are considered adverse parties themselves for purposes of Rule 25, as a corporation can only act through its officers and duly authorized agents. Consequently, they may not be compelled to testify for the opposing party without prior service of written interrogatories upon the corporation.

• "Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court (Rules) provides that 'a party not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal.' The provision seeks to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays. Its goal is to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial."
• "As a rule, 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."
• "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."

• Adorio v. Hon. Bersamin, 339 Phil. 411 (1997) — Distinguished; therein, the subpoena was sought against bank officials who were not parties to the criminal case, whereas here the officers of the adverse party were being compelled to testify as the calling party's main witnesses.
• United Features Syndicate, Inc. v. Munsingwear Creation Manufacturing Company, 258-A Phil. 841 (1989) — Followed; the technical defect in the notice of hearing was cured by the filing of an opposition by the adverse party.

• Section 6, Rule 25, Rules of Court — Cited as the basis for prohibiting the compulsion of an adverse party to testify without prior written interrogatories.
• Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15, Rules of Court — Cited regarding the requirements for notice and hearing on motions.
• Section 10, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Cited by petitioners regarding the permissibility of leading questions when examining an adverse party; the Court noted this does not override the requirement of prior written interrogatories under Rule 25, Section 6.

Antonio T. Carpio, Arturo D. Brion, Jose Portugal Perez, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.