A ruling by the Court of Appeals (CA) has ordered a Batangas court to proceed on the merits  in the case filed by former Justice Secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez against  controversial  former Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez, in connection with the latter’s claim that Perez demanded $2 million in bribes.
In a 16-page ruling by Associate Justice Rosmari Carandang, the CA’ s Special Fifth Division held that the trial court erred when it rendered the judgment by default for Jimenez’s failure to answer the interrogatories served upon him by Perez.
At the time he was asked to answer the interrogatories  Jimenez was serving a prison sentence in the United States.
The appellate tribunal’s decision  sets aside the ruling issued by the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City in 2005 ordering Jimenez to pay former Perez damages in the amount of P10 million.
Associate Justices Normandie Pizarro and Leoncia Dimagiba concurred with the decision directed the remand to the trial court of the case for further proceedings on the merit.
Perez sued Jimenez aka Mario Crespo after the latter  called him as a “legal terrorist” who was engaged in regulary shaking down bribes  from businessmen.
Perez, Jimenez claimed obtained  $2 million, which was allegedly deposited in his account at Coutts Bank in Hong Kong and received by him.
The sum, Jimenez, in his privilege speech in Congress,  claimed was to ensure the  approval of the $470-million contract with Argentine firm Industrias Metalurgicas Pescarmona Sociedad Anonima (IMPSA) for the rehabilitation of the Caliraya-Botocan-Kalayaan hydropower plant in Laguna.
Ruling for Jimenez, the CA held that the Batangas RTC should not have issued the ruling based on Jimenez’s failure to answer the interrogatories considering that most of the interrogatories filed by Perez are the same as the allegations contained in the original complaint by the latter who have been denied by the former solon in his counter-affidavit.
“The interrogatories do not serve its purpose of eliciting material and relevant facts for these are the same facts which have been alleged in the complaint and denied in defendant-appellant’s answer,” the CA noted.
Under Section 1 of Rule 25 of the Revised Rules of Court on Interrogatories to Parties, the purpose of serving interrogatories is to elicit material and relevant facts from any adverse party.
The CA added that the trial court should have taken into consideration that Jimenez was being held in prison in Miami, Floria, USA for federal election fraud.
It noted that based on the records of the case, it was clear that Jimenez has shown willingness to submit his answers to the written interrogatories but was prevented from doing so because of his incarceration.
The trial, according to the CA, cannot expect the former solon to answer the interrogatories fully in writing and under oath within the reglementary  and extended period given.
“The foregoing circumstances considered, the trial court should not have rendered a judgment by default. Substantial justice would be better served if the case is decided on the merits. This is also in keeping with the rule that rules on technicality were promulgated to secure, not to override substantial justice,” the CA pointed out.
“It would be in the paramount and overriding interest of justice if we allow the defendant-appellant to air his side of the story and present evidence to support his defense,” it added.