Duque v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Fortunata N. Duque filed a complaint alleging that respondents spouses Enrico and Edna Bonifacio negotiated checks totaling P270,000.00, representing themselves as holders in due course with sufficient funds. Upon presentment, the checks were dishonored, and despite notice and demands, the respondents failed to honor or replace them. Petitioner Marcosa D. Valenzuela filed a similar complaint involving P432,000.00 under analogous circumstances. The respondents denied personally negotiating the checks, making such representations, or refusing to settle after notice of dishonor, though they admitted making arrangements for settlement of checks they issued and disputed the total amounts claimed. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, issued a pre-trial order defining the issues. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a Request for Admission. As the respondents failed to respond within the prescribed period, the RTC, citing Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, deemed the matters admitted and rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners, ordering the respondents to pay the principal amounts with interest. Dissatisfied, the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which vacated the RTC's decision and remanded the case for trial on the merits, finding that the requests for admission were improperly served and that some matters sought to be admitted were already denied in the respondents' answers. The Petition: The petitioners seek review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in not applying Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 26 by failing to recognize the implied admissions resulting from the respondents' failure to respond to the Request for Admission. They also contend that the appellate court erred in holding that there was no proper service of the requests, asserting that service on the counsel should be considered sufficient. The core issues presented are whether the failure to respond to the request for admission constitutes an implied admission and whether personal service on the respondents was necessary.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure of the private respondents to respond to the Request for Admission constitutes an implied admission under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. Whether service of the Request for Admission on the counsel for the private respondents is sufficient compliance with the Rules.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of implied admission: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the requests for admission were improper. The Court reiterated that a request for admission should not merely reproduce allegations already denied in the Answer, as this would be superfluous and redundant. Specifically, the request for admission regarding the negotiation of checks was deemed improper because the respondents had already denied this in their Answer. Similarly, the requests concerning the demand letters were considered redundant as the complaint alleged demand and the answer denied it. The Court noted that while the request regarding promissory notes was not entirely superfluous, it was defective for failure to attach copies of the said notes as required by Section 1 of Rule 26. On the issue of service of process: The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling that service of the Request for Admission on the counsel for the respondents, Atty. H.G. Domingo, Jr., was insufficient. The Court emphasized that while the general rule under Section 2 of Rule 13 (formerly Rule 27) of the Rules of Court is that notices are served upon counsel, this rule does not apply when the law expressly provides for service upon a specific person. Rule 26, Section 1, requires service upon "any other party." Therefore, service must be made directly upon the party to be bound by the admission. The Court cited Briboneria vs. Court of Appeals to support the principle that notice must be served directly upon the party when the law specifically requires it, and service on counsel alone is not valid in such instances. Consequently, since the requests for admission were not validly served, the private respondents could not be deemed to have admitted the matters requested, and the summary judgment rendered by the RTC lacked a legal basis.
Main Doctrine
Service of a Request for Admission must be made directly upon the party, not merely upon their counsel, to be valid under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. Failure to comply with the service requirement renders any subsequent implied admission invalid.