Ong vs. Mazo

Under the amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari must be filed within a fresh 60-day period from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration, which applies retroactively to pending cases; furthermore, denying a party's written interrogatories on the ground that they constitute a "fishing expedition" constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

A civil case for damages stemmed from a vehicular accident. During the pre-trial phase, the dispute centered on the defendant's right to use written interrogatories to discover facts from the plaintiffs, and the procedural question of how to compute the period to file a certiorari petition when an MR is filed.

• Original Filing: RTC of Guiuan, Eastern Samar, Branch 3, Civil Case No. 887
• Lower Court Decision: May 6, 1999 — Denied petitioner's motion to compel respondents to answer written interrogatories; July 4, 2000 — Denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
• Appeal: Petition for Certiorari filed with the CA on August 4, 2000.
• CA Decision: August 17, 2000 — Dismissed the petition for being filed 2 days late (applying old Rule 65 computation); October 10, 2000 — Denied motion for reconsideration.
• SC Action: Petition for Review assailing the CA's dismissal.

• The Vehicular Accident and the Complaint: Respondents Lanuevo and Tomilloso filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Ong and her driver Caramoan before the RTC of Guiuan, Eastern Samar (Civil Case No. 887). The case arose from a bus owned by Ong and driven by Caramoan bumping a jeep driven by Lanuevo, with Tomilloso as a passenger.
• Discovery Attempt: After filing her Answer with Counterclaim, Ong served written interrogatories on respondents on November 14, 1996, and subsequently filed a motion to compel respondents to answer them.
• RTC Denial: Respondents objected to the interrogatories. The RTC, by Order of May 6, 1999, denied Ong's motion to compel, reasoning that the interrogatories were a "fishing expedition" better ventilated during the pre-trial conference.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Ong received the May 6 Order on May 26, 1999, and filed an MR on July 19, 1999. The RTC denied the MR by Order of July 4, 2000. Ong received the denial on July 18, 2000.
• CA Dismissal: Ong filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA on August 4, 2000. The CA dismissed the petition, stating that under the old Rule 65 (Circular No. 39-98), the MR only interrupted the 60-day period, leaving only 15 days from receipt of the denial of the MR. Since the 15 days expired on August 2, 2000, the August 4 filing was 2 days late. The CA denied Ong's MR.

• The CA erred in treating her Petition for Certiorari as an ordinary appeal subject to a 15-day reglementary period, instead of a special civil action under Rule 65 subject to a 60-day period.
• The RTC gravely abused its discretion in disallowing the written interrogatories.

• The CA correctly treated the petition as an appeal because the assailed RTC orders did not warrant the remedy of certiorari.
• The RTC has jurisdiction to pass upon the propriety of discovery modes under Section 3, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court.
• An error of law or fact is properly the subject of an appeal, not certiorari.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for being filed out of time based on the old computation of periods under Rule 65.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to compel answers to written interrogatories on the ground that they constitute a "fishing expedition."

• Procedural: The CA erred. Under the old Rule 65 (Circular No. 39-98), the filing of an MR interrupted the 60-day period, leaving the petitioner only 15 days to file. However, the amended Rule 65 (A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC), which took effect on September 1, 2000, provides a fresh 60-day period counted from notice of the denial of the MR. Citing Systems Factors Corporation v. NLRC and Unity Fishing Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, the SC applied the amended rule retroactively. Petitioner filed on August 4, 2000, well within 60 days from her receipt of the denial of her MR on July 18, 2000.
• Substantive: The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. While the assailed orders are interlocutory and generally not subject to certiorari, an exception exists when the interlocutory order is patently erroneous and appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. The RTC's denial of the interrogatories as a "fishing expedition" is patently erroneous because the SC has long abandoned the "fishing expedition" objection; the very purpose of discovery is to allow parties to inquire into the facts underlying the opposing party's case.

• Fresh Period Rule in Certiorari — Under the amended Section 4, Rule 65, if a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari is counted from notice of the denial of said motion. This rule applies retroactively to cases pending at the time of its effectivity.
• Certiorari against Interlocutory Orders — The extraordinary writ of certiorari is generally not available to challenge an interlocutory order of a trial court; the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal. However, if the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, certiorari may be allowed.
• "Fishing Expedition" in Discovery — The objection that written interrogatories constitute a "fishing expedition" is no longer valid. The policy of the law is to allow parties to discover or inform themselves of all facts relevant to the action before trial. The modes of discovery are designed to facilitate amicable settlement or expedite trial, and leave of court is not necessary to put them into motion after an answer has been served.

• Section 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court (as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC) — Provides the fresh 60-day reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution, or from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration/new trial. Applied retroactively to save the petitioner's filing.
• Rules 24 to 29, Rules of Court — Govern the deposition-discovery mechanism. Cited to emphasize the policy of encouraging the availment of modes of discovery without much court intervention after answer is served.