G.R. No. 145542 - Ong vs. Mazo

Respondents Elvira C. Lanuevo and Charito A. Tomilloso filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Elena S. Ong and driver Iluminado J. Caramoan.
The complaint arose from a vehicular accident wherein petitioner’s bus, driven by Caramoan, allegedly bumped a jeep owned and operated by respondent Lanuevo—with respondent Tomilloso as her passenger.

Petitioner filed her Answer with Counterclaim and subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint.
Respondents, after securing leave to amend, filed an amended complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guiuan, Eastern Samar, Branch 3, in Civil Case No. 887.

On November 14, 1996, petitioner served written interrogatories on respondents.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a Manifestation and Omnibus Motion seeking, among other things, an order compelling respondents to answer the interrogatories.
Respondents objected to this motion, and the trial court eventually denied the motion on May 6, 1999, characterizing the interrogatories as a "fishing expedition."

Petitioner received the May 6, 1999 trial court order and filed a motion for reconsideration on July 19, 1999, asserting that her original answer to the complaint should suffice for the amended complaint.
The motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on July 4, 2000.
Following this, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on August 4, 2000, challenging the trial court’s order, contending that the denial of her motion and the subsequent appellate resolution amounted to grave abuse of discretion.

The Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated August 17, 2000, dismissed petitioner’s petition for certiorari on the ground that it was filed belatedly—by two days—within the reglementary period.
Petitioner argued that her petition was a special civil action under Rule 65 and should be assessed under the 60-day period provided by amended rules, rather than the 15-day period applicable to ordinary appeals.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration of the dismissal was filed but denied on October 10, 2000.

The computation of the filing period was a key issue, involving the application of Section 4 of Rule 65 as amended by Circular No. 39-98 and further amended by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC.
The case raised the issue whether the trial court’s denial to compel written interrogatories—an essential tool for discovery—was consistent with the policy of ensuring open discovery as contemplated in the Rules of Court.

Whether the petition for certiorari was timely filed under the amended 60-day period provided by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC rather than the 15-day period applicable to ordinary appeals.
Whether the appellate court erred in dismissing the petition solely on the basis of a two-day lapse in filing.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying petitioner’s motion to compel respondents to answer her written interrogatories, basing its decision on the premise of a "fishing expedition."
Whether such denial contravened the Rules of Court which promote the liberation and encouragement of discovery proceedings.

Whether the extraordinary writ of certiorari is a proper remedy for correcting an interlocutory order that is patently erroneous, especially when an ordinary appeal might not afford adequate relief.
Whether it is appropriate to invoke certiorari to address the trial court’s discovery ruling given the inherent judicial error.