Case Digest (G.R. No. 130243)
Facts:
Roberto Dela Torre et al. v. Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc. and Pepsico, Inc., G.R. No. 130243, October 30, 1998, the Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are numerous individuals who claimed to hold winning soft‑drink bottle caps under a promotional contest sponsored by respondents Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc. (PCPPI) and Pepsico, Inc. (PI); PCPPI is the domestic bottler and distributor and PI is a foreign shareholder and sponsor.On August 24, 1994 petitioners filed eight separate complaints for specific performance and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City after respondents allegedly refused to deliver the advertised prizes. The cases were consolidated and assigned to RTC, Branch 142. Petitioners moved for authority to litigate in forma pauperis. On November 22–23, 1994 respondent PI served 59 written interrogatories on petitioners primarily probing their financial status to determine pauper eligibility (examples included employment, income, ownership and value of real property, and type of dwelling and rent). On November 25, 1994 the RTC issued an order suspending proceedings until petitioners completed the documents needed to establish pauper status.
Believing the RTC’s suspension extended to other matters, petitioners did not answer the interrogatories. PI then moved to dismiss for refusal to make discovery. In an order dated March 9, 1995 the RTC granted the motion and dismissed the complaints for failure to answer interrogatories; a motion for reconsideration was denied on June 16, 1995. Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari which was referred to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, by decision dated August 8, 1997 (per Tuquero, J., with Labitoria and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concurring), affirmed the RTC’s dismissal, reasoning that failure to answer within t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the petition comply with the Rule 45 non‑forum‑shopping certification requirement?
- Does the petition raise a question of fact, thereby precluding review under Rule 45?
- Is dismissal an available or proper sanction for a party’s failure to answer written interrogatories when those interrogatories concern matters ancillary to the merits (e.g., pauper status)?
- Did petitioners substantially comply with the requirements imposed by the written interro...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)