Annotation Admission by Adverse Party

8/17/2019 Annotation Admission by Adverse Party

1/41

§ 1.

§ II.

§ III.

§ IV.

a)

b

c)

§ V.

a)

i.

ii.

b)

§ VI.

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

A N N O T A T I O N

ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY: ONE PROCEDURAL

ROAD LESS TRAVELLED

By

ROGELIO E SUBONG

*

__ ___ ___ _______

Introduction, p. 533

Modes of Discovery, p. 534

Sanctions for Refusal to Comply with Modes

of Discovery, p. 537

Nature and Rationale, p. 538

Definition, p. 538

Nature, p. 539

Rationale, p. 540

Modes of Discovery in the U.S. and in the

Philippines, p. 541

In American jurisdiction, p. 541

Maryland doctor, p. 541

Filipino seaman, p. 542

In Philippine jurisdiction, p. 543

Some Pertinent Cases on Modes of Discovery,

p. 543


2/41

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

§ VII.

a)

i.

ii.

b)

i.

ii.

c)

§ VIII.

§ IX.

Lopez et al. vs. Maceren 95 Phil. 754 (1954), p. 544

Uy Chao vs. De la Rama Steamship Co., Inc., 116

Phil. 392 (1962), p. 545

Bay View Hotel, Inc. vs. Ker & Co., Ltd., 116 SCRA

327 (1982), p. 547

Po vs. CA, 164 SCRA 668 (1988), p. 549

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212 (1991),p. 550

Briboneria vs. CA, 216 SCRA 607 (1992), p. 552

______________

* A.B. ’62 (UP) and Ll.B. ’66 (UP).

533

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 533


Travelled

Security Bank Corp. vs. CA, 323 SCRA 330 (2000),

p. 554

Admission by Adverse Party, p. 555

The Codal provision, p. 555

Two (2) matters for admission, p. 555

Request must now be filed with the court, p. 556

Nature of Admission by Adverse Party, p. 556

It is not actually a form of discovery, p. 556

Request for admission cannot be used for “fishing

expedition”, p. 557

Rationale of the Rule on Admission of Adverse

Parties, p. 557

Forms of Request for Admission, p. 558

The Case Under Annotation, F. Duque vs. CA,

G.R. No. 125383 Prom. July 2, 2002 &

Companion Case, p. 559


3/41

a)

b)

§ X.

a)

b)

§ XI.

Reiteration of the holdings in the cases of Po vs. CA,

supra and Briboneria vs. CA, supra, p. 560

Liberal grant of this Mode did not prevail, p. 561

A Procedural Road Less Travelled, p. 561

A seeming disinclination to resort to Modes of

Discovery, p. 561 Possible reasons, p. 562

Conclusion, p. 565

_______________

§ 1. Introduction

It is ironic that some of the least “discovered” provisions of

the Rules of Court are those on the Modes of Discovery.

They are supposed to contain a cornucopia of procedural

gems that may be used to great advantage by a party

litigant. In law schools Modes of Discovery are studied and

memorized perfunctorily only for purposes of the class

examinations. Given the dearth of local jurispru-

534



Travelled

dence on the matter, reliance has been on American

decisions for principles and guidance. But they mainly

pertain to a different legal landscape. Then too, the

professors on procedure (and many of whom are judges)

hardly accord to these provisions such importance and

relevance to actual practice.

This has been the experience of generations of law

students for several decades on these Modes of Discovery.

They leap from law schools onto law practice after passing

the bar with nothing much impressed in their minds about

the benefits of these modes in their cases. They usually

hone their skills in how to obscurate, confuse and leave the

opponent guessing as to what surprises to spring in court.


4/41

1.

On the other hand, the basic aim of the Modes of Discovery

is that litigation should not be carried on in the dark. But

TV exploits of Perry Mason or Robert Donnel and his

associates in “The Practice” as they literally leave their

opponents in the dark as to their moves in the courtroom

are just too irresistible for generations of trial lawyers not

to be deeply influenced by.

Fortunata Duque vs. Court of Appeals, et al., under G.R.No. 125383 promulgated on July 2, 2002 and companion

case are the latest decisions on Modes of Discovery

particularly under Rule 26 (Admission by Party) of the

Rules of Court resolved by the High Court. This should be a

good occasion to have a more current look on the

application of these Modes of Discovery provisions of the

Rules of Court and to find out if they are now widely used

in litigations.

§ II. Modes of Discovery

The thrust of authorities and jurisprudence is to encourage

discovery processes for that may result in the shedding by

partylitigants of their resistance to settlement and thus

pave the way for the early termination of the case. These

are usually extra-judicial or party-to-party processes

without court intervention. Modes of Discovery are under

Rules 23 to 28 of the Rules of Court. Rule 29 pertains to

sanctions and disadvantages that the non-complying partymay suffer. Let us enumerate them:

Rule 23 is titled “Depositions Pending Action” and

Rule 24 is titled: “Deposition Before Action or

Pending Appeal”—They pertain to the taking of

depositions during pendency and on appeal. Depo

535

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 535


Travelled

sition is the more known among the Modes of Discovery.

Deposition is “the written testimony of a witness given in

the course of a judicial proceeding in advance of the trial or

hearing upon oral examination or in response to written


5/41

2.

interrogatories and where an opportunity is given for cross-

examination ” (23 Am Jur. 2d 443.) In other words,

deposition may be given orally (on oral examination) or in

writing (upon written interrogatories). Simply put,

deposition is a testimony taken not before the trial judge

hearing the case but out-of-court before persons authorized

by the rules, e.g., notary public, etc. These persons however

cannot rule on objections relating to admissibility of questions in the course thereof, and had to await the ruling

of the trial judge once the deposition is read into the

records during trial. The deponents may be the parties or

witnesses to either preserve their testimony or for use

during the trial proper. There is no limit to the inquiry

except relevancy and the privileged nature of queries. In

other words, wide latitude is given to the party requesting

deposition though the same may be stopped for “good

cause” and to prevent annoyance, etc.

There is also the classification of deposition according topurpose: a) Deposition de bene esse or that taken for the

purposes of pending action which is for discovery; and b)

Deposition in perpetuam rei memoriam or that to record or

perpetuate testimony for future litigation or in case of

appeal.

Hence, depositions are basically a mode of discovery.

“They are intended as a means to compel disclosure of facts

resting in the knowledge of a party or other persons which

are relevant in a suit or proceeding in court. Depositions,and the other modes of discovery x x x x x x are meant to

enable a party to learn all the material and relevant facts,

not only known to him and his witnesses but also those

known to the adverse party and the latter’s own witnesses.”

( Dasmarinas Garments Inc. vs. Reyes, 225 SCRA 622

(1993).

Rule 25 is titled: “Interrogatories to Parties”—This

pertains to party-to-party request for answers to

written queries after Answer is filed. Under theconditions similar to the request for deposition, any

party “desiring to elicit material and relevant facts

from any adverse parties” may address directly to

such other party or

536



6/41

3.

4)


Travelled

parties such written interrogatories which should

be answered under oath within fifteen (15) days

from receipt thereof. The usual limitations are

materiality and relevancy, as well as the matter

being asked being privileged and covered by a courtorder. In other words, just like depositions, written

interrogatories may be served upon the other party

and not to witnesses in the case, without leave of

court after answer has been served being a party-

to-party process also and with leave before service

of answer. And failure to answer such written

interrogatories by plaintiff is valid ground for the

dismissal of the complaint ( Arellano vs. CFI of

Sorsogon, 65 SCRA 46 [1975]).

Rule 26 titled “Admission by Adverse Party”—This

pertains to another party-to-party process involving

a request for admission of the a) “ genuineness of

any relevant documents” attached to the request

and b) “truth of any relevant matter of fact set forth

in the request.” This is done without leave of court

after the issues are joined or after the defendant

has filed answer. However, the Request had to be

filed in court too under the new Rules of Civil

Procedure of 1997.

As sanction, failure to deny under oath the genuineness of

documents and matters sought to be admitted within a

period of not less than ten (10) days from receipt of the

request, has the effect of admission. Such admission may

be used against a party like in a motion for summary

judgment or during trials for which proof of genuineness of

documents or of particular facts alleged may be dispensed

with.

There is the usual caveat that the documents whose

genuineness is sought to be admitted and the facts also

sought to be admitted must be as in other modes of

discovery material and relevant to the case.

Rule 27 titled: “Production or Inspection of

Documents or Things”—This pertains to the

request of a party-litigant to ask the aid of the court

in which the action is pending to issue an order, a)


7/41

5)

directing a party “to produce and permit the

inspection and copying or photographing” of

documents, papers, books, etc., not privileged,

which are in his custody or control, or b) permit

entry into a land or other property in the possession

of a party for the purpose of inspection, measuring,

surveying or photographing thereof.

537

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 537


Travelled

The production and inspection of documents, etc. is nothing

more but to gain access to documents and things and to

gain entry into a land or private property subject or

pertinent to a litigation for helpful information in the

formulation of his cause of action or defense. This request

for inspection of documents and things may be made in

cases involving voluminous documents and heavy or

immovable things, like machineries, heavy equipment, and

the like.

Rule 28 titled: “Physical and Mental Examination

of Person”—This pertains to the request to cause

the examination of the physical and mental

condition of a party in a case wherein such

condition is an issue. This request is made under

the catch-all ground of “for good cause shown”

which examination shall be done under specified

doctor, venue and conditions. The request for

mental examination is applied for by a party in a

case involving guardianship over a person of

unsound mind. Physical examination is usually

applied for in cases involving accidents or physicalinjuries cases suffered by a party. The Rule is

however not clear as to who should choose the

physician or whether he should be from a

government hospital or court-appointed. Since this

is an out-of-court process and initiated by a party,

authorities are of the view that the physician shall

be chosen by movant.


8/41

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

§ III. Sanctions for Refusal to Comply with Modes of

Discovery

To insure compliance with the modes of discovery by the

other parties subject of the extra-judicial process there are

corresponding sanctions under Rule 29.

In case of deposition and the deponent refuses to

answer questions upon oral examination, the

examination may be completed on other points and

thereafter the proponent may apply with the court

for an order to compel the deponent to answer,

under pain of contempt;

The same sanction may be resorted to by the

proponent in the event the party or witness refuses

to answer any interrogatory under Rules 23 or 25.

The court may compel the deponent or witness to

answer under pain of contempt and if the refusal is

“without substantial justification” the deponent

and/or the advising

538


Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road LessTravelled

counsel may be assessed expenses for securing the

order and attorney’s fees;

The refusal of the party or witness to be sworn or to

answer questions during deposition taking may

constitute contempt of court;

Under Rule 26, Sec. 2, there shall be implied

admission for failure or refusal to deny under oaththe genuineness of documents and the matters

covered by the Request for Admission within the

specified period after service thereof;

If any party or an officer or managing agent of a

party refuses to answer as required or to produce

any document or thing for inspection, copying, etc.,

or permit entry into a land under Rule 27 or submit

to a physical or mental examination, the court may


9/41

issue such orders that are just and may include

those enumerated in said Rule.

§ IV. Nature and Rationale

a) Definition

Discovery is “the disclosure of facts resting in the

knowledge of the defendant, or the production of deeds,

writings, or things in his possession or power, in order to

maintain the right or title of the party asking it, in some

suit or proceeding” (V J Francisco, The Rules of Court of the

Philippines, Vol. II, p. 89, citing Bouvier’s Law Dictionary,

p. 882). About a similar definition comes from Black’s Law

Dictionary: “ Discovery. In a general sense, the

ascertainment of that which was previously unknown, thedisclosure or coming to light of what was previously

hidden, the acquisition of notice or knowledge of given acts

or facts; as in regard of the “discovery” of fraud affecting

the running of statute of limitations, x x” (Abridged Fifth

Edition, p. 243). Hence, modes of discovery are nothing

more but the kinds of procedural options or devices

available to a party-litigant to enable him to secure

disclosure of the existence of facts and/or documents

mainly within the knowledge and competence of the other

party pertinent to his cause of action or defense in a case.

539

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 539


Travelled

b) Nature

What is actually the nature of these modes of discovery?

Modes of discovery is gaining wider use with progress and

advances in technology. When life was simple then, suits

especially civil suits did not require so much documents.

Perhaps in suits involving loan obligations a written

contract evidencing indebtedness and related documents

would have sufficed. Now with suits involving cases as

sophisticated as the anti-trust complaint against Microsoft,


10/41

telecommunications gateways and internet/cyberspace

issues, hundreds, nay thousands of pages of documents

may make up the exhibits of one party alone. Thus there is

a need to inquire into, go into “fishing expedition”, examine

and photocopy documents in advance or enter into certain

premises or examine pertinent machineries and devices

before trial. All these with the end in view of apprising both

parties of facts, documents and circumstances to allowthem to intelligently plead and/or enter into trial.

In our jurisdiction, the prosecution panel in the plunder

case against President Joseph Estrada has touted the

presentation of no less than seven hundred (700) exhibits.

The defense may not have as many but, it is expected to

also throw in considerable documents in its behalf. The ill-

gotten wealth cases against the Marcoses and the cronies

have racked up several bundles of folders of numerous

documents from both sides.

Hence, Modes of Discovery, are nothing more but theopportunity given to the parties to ask for a complete

disclosure of their respective cases against each other—

among other reasons, to abbreviate proceedings or pave the

way for early settlement of the case. It seems a little

simplistic, though. But that is what the discovery

provisions suggest and encourage. A justice of our Supreme

Court likened the application of the modes of discovery to

an impending battle between two mighty armies. The

generals of both sides would ask for the number of soldiersand officers of the orther. And what and where they keep

their weaponries. Then with this information, they may

result in “truce and peace” (Justice Antonio Barredo,

Lecture, “ Discovery Procedures”, Remedial Law Revisited

1972, UP Law Center, 1973, p. 116).

540



Travelled

But in war, as they say, the first casualty is the truth. Do

we expect each side to candidly disclose exact figures to

each other? Certainly, each side would bloat the number of

its soldiers, divisions and war machine. And in war, the

battle cry through the ages since the first caveman started

making spears has been: “There is no substitute to victory.”


11/41

A truce is no victory.

c) Rationale

In any case, with the expected discoveries from the modes

or processes mainly availed of extra-judicially, there is

either settlement even before trial or at the early stages

thereof when the parties upon knowing the indubitable

facts and documentary “artillery” of either side, would seethe futility of fighting. Then too, as there is awareness of

the position and documents of each other, surprises are

obviated and litigation is thus conducted in full

transparency, not in the dark, so to speak. The nagging

question is: Are Filipino lawyers ready for that?

American Jurisprudence 2d., then summarizes the

purpose of modes of discovery:

“Generally speaking, the purpose of modern discovery is to assist

the administration of justice, to aid a party in preparing andpresenting his case or his defense, by enabling a party to narrow

and clarify the basic issues between the parties, and to ascertain

the facts, or information as to the existence or whereabouts of

facts relative to those issues. The discovery rules simply advance

the state at which disclosure can be compelled from the time of

trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing the possibility of

surprise, and the need to conduct a trial in the dark or blindly.

Discovery should expedite the disposition of the litigation, by

educating the parties in advance of trial of the real value of their

claims and defenses, which may encourage settlements, and

assure that judgments rest upon the real merits of causes and not

upon the skill and manuevering of counsel, although it has been

recognized that under certain circumstance liberal discovery

provision can be abused.” (pp. 334-335)

541

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 541


Travelled

§ V. Modes of Discovery in the U.S. and in the

Philippines

a) In American jurisdiction


12/41

In American jurisdiction, modes of discovery are regularly

resorted to before trials. The moment a civil suit is filed,

the discovery machinery is immediately set in motion. In

that famous libel case of Quentin Reynolds vs. Westbrook

Pegler, in the early 1950’s immortalized in the bestselling

book of Louis Nizer titled “My Life in Court”, modes of

discovery, particularly depositions and interrogatories were

much in use. For a solid and thorough preparation, Mr.Nizer as counsel for the plaintiff Reynolds, travelled to

England and Europe to interview, secure affidavits, take

depositions and send out written interrogatories to people

who knew the plaintiff during the war. These efforts served

the cause of the plaintiff well during the trial. About 11,000

pages of documents were submitted at the end of the case.

Plaintiff Reynolds won damages which were considered

huge at the time.

i) Maryland doctor

There was this case of a doctor in Maryland who before

travelling with his family to North Carolina, had his van

checked and his tires replaced by a reputable motor repair

shop in the suburbs of Baltimore, also of Maryland. While

the van was cruising along the Interstate highway of North

Carolina, a rear tire suddenly got disengaged from the

vehicle and rolled onto the car following behind causing

injuries to those inside the car as well to those inside the

van which almost turned turtle with only three (3) wheelsleft. A suit was immediately filed by the car owner against

the owner of the van, the doctor. The car-owner requested

for deposition of the doctor who disclosed in the course

thereof the prior service performed by the motor repair

shop. This led to an agreement between plaintiff and

defendant to train their guns on the motor repair shop

company. Perhaps, if there were no discovery procedure it

would be in the middle of the trial or after possible adverse

judgment when the plaintiff and the defendant would have

realized that strategy.

542



Travelled


13/41

ii. Filipino seaman

Recently, a Filipino seaman suffered an injury in the neck

and shoulder due to his fall from the service stairs of a

luxury vessel while carrying heavy linens for the

passengers. The luxury vessel or “love boat” which plies the

Caribbean, named Viking Serenade is owned and operated

by the Royal Carribean Cruise Line based in Miami,Florida. The service elevator had been out of order for

about 3 months at the time of the accident. The seaman

through a Florida lawyer sued the shipping company.

Immediately upon the filing of the complaint for damages,

the defendant shipping company sent out Written

Interrogatories and Request to Produce Documents to the

plaintiff. These Requests were forwarded by the Florida

lawyer to the plaintiff in the Philippines. This writer was

requested by this seaman to help him prepare answers to

the detailed and even repetitious questions about theaccident and on any relevant documents as well as medical

records. There were about 76 questions just on this

stairway accident and related matters alone. It actually

needed about three (3) sessions to compose equally detailed

and point-by-point replies to all these queries. Defendant’s

counsel also scheduled the taking of deposition of the

plaintiff at Miami, Florida but he was not able to go for two

(2) reasons: a) he had no money for the trip; and b) when he

tried to apply with the Embassy for a visa, it was denied.Plaintiff’s lawyer must have also sent equally detailed,

repetitious and probing interrogatories, requests for

documents and for the taking of deposition of officials and

possible witnesses for the defendant. Then, to our surprise,

even before trial, the seaman was notified by his Florida

lawyer that the defendant shipping company offered an

amount as settlement which the former immediately

grabbed. Perhaps, the preliminary skirmishes through

discovery process must have prompted the defendant to

settle. Thanks to these modes of discovery, because anotherwise protracted and expensive suit (for the Filipino

seaman) for damages was literally abbreviated and settled.

543

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 543


Travelled


14/41

b) In Philippine jurisdiction

In our jurisdiction, modes of discovery are hardly resorted

to by lawyers. They view this process not mainly as a

means to honestly effect the laying of all cards on the table

for both parties. They are rather used to “discover” the

weak points and inconsistencies of the opponent as well asto impeach and discredit him and/or his witnesses during

the trial proper which is allowed though under the Rules. A

brilliant trial lawyer who became a senator and one of the

authentic heroes during the Marcos dictatorship was a

favorite speaker on trial technique at the UP Law Center.

This writer recalls reading one of his lectures on trial

technique, wherein he related how he used deposition to

get his opponent to make that crucial admission which he

would use during the trial proper. It took him three (3)deposition days before the opponent lowered his guard and

made that sought for admission. He even dismissed the

rest of the questions he propounded for the last three (3)

days as “basura” until he hit that gold nuggets of admission

on the third day. This admission was presented during the

trial which effectively broke the case of the opponent.

What does this mean? It would appear that three (3)

days were purposely wasted and not put to good use for

discovery purposes—but as distracting preliminaries to

that crucial admission. In other words, deposition appearsto be abused, misused and unused in this incident. But that

is not surprising for that seems to be the attitude and view

of many of our lawyers. It seems that these modes of

discovery are not often resorted to for the purposes they

were conceptualized. Even Mr. Nizer in his 17-day

crossexamination of Mr. Pegler in that libel case earlier

mentioned, made profuse use of the previous deposition of

the latter to contradict his testimony during trial proper.

§ VI. Some Pertinent Cases on Modes of Discovery

The few cases that reached the High Court on questions of

modes of discovery is a proof that they are hardly resorted

to by our trial lawyers. There is a stronger propensity to

immediately go into trial rather than engage into that

seemingly time-consuming extra-judicial skirmishes that

may be also covered during trial.


15/41

544



Travelled

Then of the few cases involving modes of discovery, there isa continuing unwillingness or unawareness to apply the

proper office of these modes. The High Court through Chief

Justice Narvasa in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 202 SCRA

212, deplored the seeming general lack of interest,

familiarity and precise understanding of the discovery

process. He took the occasion to make a plea for a wider use

of the modes of discovery to achieve the ration d ‘etre of

courts—to resolve controversies.

In any case, let us summarize some of these precious few

cases involving modes of discovery that reached the High

Court that have added much needed jurisprudence on the

matter.

a) Lopez, et al. vs. Maceren, 95 Phil. 754 (1954)

In Lopez vs. Maceren, supra., the High Court early on gave

importance to the right of plaintiff to take deposition. It

even linked the denial by the trial judge of the request as

also a denial of due process. This is a suit filed by a second

wife, in behalf of her children for a share in the estate of the deceased husband, against the first wife and her

children. The decedent during his lifetime maintained two

(2) families with a set of children in both. The plaintiff, the

second wife who was not aware of the first marriage until

the death of the husband, filed an action for the delivery of

some property of this deceased husband. The plaintiff along

with her children was based in Manila whereas the other

family was based in Davao City where the action was

instituted.

The plaintiff suing as pauper litigant filed a “notice for

the taking” of her deposition here in Manila after the

answer was filed. This was opposed by the defendants and

sustained by the trial judge who denied this request. Thus

plaintiff went to the High Court claiming abuse of

discretion on the part of the trial judge considering that the

taking of deposition may be done even without leave of

court since an answer was already filed.

Defendants relied upon then Section 16 of the Rules


16/41

which provided that for good cause shown, deposition may

not be taken or that the court may issue “any order which

justice requires to protect the party or witness from

annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.” The High

Court cited Justice Moran in his Comments on the Rules of

Court: “In other words, this provision affords the ad-

545

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 545


Travelled

verse party, as well as the deponent, sufficient protection

against abuses that may be committed by a party in the

exercise of his unlimited right to discovery, as a writer

said: ‘Any discovery involves a prying into another person’saffairs—a prying that is quite justified if it is to be a

legitimate aid to litigation, but not justified if it is not to be

such an aid.’ For this reason, courts are given ample

powers to forbid discovery which is intended not as an aid

to litigation, but merely to annoy, embarrass or oppress

either the deponent of the adverse party, or both.” (Manuel

Moran, “Comments on the Rules of Court”, Vol. 1, pp. 435-

6,1952, ed.).

The High Court held that: “It is not claimed the order

complained of sought to avert any of the evils which said

section 16 was meant to prevent or arrest.” It noted that

plaintiff sued as a pauper which means that she could not

afford the trip to Davao for the hearing which may not be

held on the day set and she had to stay longer at her

expense. It concluded: “Hence, the order in question

tended, in effect, to deprive her, not only of her right under

Section 1 of Rule 18, to take the deposition in question, but

also, of the opportunity to prove her claim and

consequently, of the due process guaranteed by theConstitution.”

Held: Order set aside.

b) Uy Chao vs. De la Rama Steamship Co., Inc., 116 Phil.

392 (1962)

In Uy Chao vs. De la Rama, supra.—Request for Admission

is not premature even though made prior to Answer but

after a Motion to Dismiss the complaint was filed. This case

is an appeal from the order of dismissal of the then Court of


17/41

First Instance (now, Regional Trial Court) of the Complaint

and the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration thereof.

Plaintiff Uy Chao, filed a complaint for collection of sum of

money for the purchases made by defendant De la Rama

Steamship from him between October 1 and December 1,

1941. Since the Complaint was filed in 1958, the defendant

moved to dismiss on the ground of prescription. Plaintiff

opposed the motion claiming that the ten (10)-yearprescription period has been interrupted by debt

moratorium statutes passed after the war.

546



Travelled

The factual issue was whether or not defendant was a war

sufferer and had filed a war damage claim for which the

moratorium may have applied. The lower court denied the

Motion to Dismiss because among others, “it cannot be

determined with certainty from the allegations of the

Complaint whether or not the action has already

prescribed.” Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration

for which the court issued an order holding that plaintiff

must present evidence during the hearing that defendant

was a war sufferer and had filed a war damage claim.

Then plaintiff, hoping to elicit evidence from defendant

served upon the latter a written Request For Admission

under Rule 23. He sought admission that: defendant was a

war sufferer and had applied for war damage claim.

Defendant countered with a motion to strike the request for

admission for being premature at that stage, “as no answer

to the complaint had been submitted.”

During the hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration of

the denial of the Motion to Dismiss, which was also thehearing on the request for admission, plaintiff was directed

to present proof of whether defendant was a war sufferer

and had filed a war damage claim. He presented no other

proof except the Request for Admission. For failure to show

that the case falls under the moratorium law by presenting

proofs that defendant was a war sufferer and had applied

for war damage claim, the lower court dismissed the

Complaint.

The Supreme Court noted that the lower court ruled in


18/41

effect that the defendant’s stand was correct on the ground

that the request for admission was premature, the

pleadings not having yet been closed as provided in Section

1 of Rule 23.”

The issue: Was the ruling of the lower court correct?

Held: Lower court order set aside and it was directed to

give due course to the request for admission.

The earlier provisions of Rule 23, Section read:

“SECTION 1. Request for Admission.—At any time after the

pleadings are closed, a party may serve upon any other party a

written request for admission by the latter of the genuineness of

any relevant documents described in and exhibited with the

request or of the truth of any relevant matters of fact set forth

therein. Copies of the documents

547

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 547

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less Travelled

shall be delivered with the request unless copies have already

been furnished.

The High Court in this case defined the rationale of the

request for admission. It declared that: “The purpose of the

rule governing requests for admission of facts and

genuineness of documents is to expedite trial and to relieve

parties of the costs of proving facts which will not be

disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained

by reasonable inquiry.”

However, the High Court held here that even if there

was no answer yet, if a motion to dismiss was filed, the

stage of proof is accelerated and the “purpose of the rule

comes into play.”

It thus concluded: “The reason for the requirement that

such request must be made after the pleadings are closed isthat the questions of fact involved in the case are required

into only when it reaches the stage of proof. But where the

stage, as to any particular relevant fact, is accelerated by a

motion to dismiss which cannot be fairly resolved without

evidence thereon being received, the purpose of the rule

comes into play. In so far as that fact is concerned, the

issue is already joined and the pleadings may be deemed to

be closed within the meaning of Rule 23. To hold otherwise,


19/41

would be to substitute technicality for substance and

hamper an expeditious inquiry into the facts, contrary to

the principle of liberal construction of the rules ‘in order to

promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining

just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action,

and proceeding.’ ”

c) Bay View Hotel, Inc. vs. Ker & Co., Ltd., 116 SCRA 327(1982)

In Bay View Hotel, Inc. vs. Kerr & Co., Ltd., supra., the

admission or implied admission remains valid even after

amendment of pleadings. Sometime in January, 1958, the

plaintiff Bay View Hotel Inc. then lessee and operator of

the Manila Hotel secured a fidelity insurance bond from

Kerr & Co., a general agent of a foreign insurance, Phoenix

Assurance Co. Ltd. In the course of the operation of the

hotel, an employee failed to remit more than P40,000.00

which prompted the Bay View Hotel Inc. to demand

548



Travelled

indemnity payment from Kerr & Co. which refused to pay.

A suit was filed by plaintiff Bay View Hotel Inc. against

Kerr & Co.

During the pendency of the suit, Kerr & Co. filed a

request for admission, to wit: that Bay View applied for

fidelity insurance with Phoenix Insurance Co., attaching a

copy of the policy; that such policy was issued by Phoenix

and renewed from time to time with even amendments;

and that this claim was denied by the Phoenix in a letter

which was also attached thereto.

When plaintiff failed to submit any answer to therequest for admission within the period prescribed, Kerr &

Co. filed a Motion to Dismiss on Affirmative Defense

claiming that the matters being requested for admission

were deemed admitted. This meant that the proper party

against whom plaintiff should sue was the Phoenix not

Kerr & Co. which was merely an agent.

Thereafter, Plaintiff asked for leave to admit amended

complaint which this time impleaded Phoenix. Defendants

then moved for summary judgment claiming that as to


20/41

Kerr & Co. it was merely an agent and as to Phoenix,

plaintiff failed to comply with Condition No. 8 of the policy

which directed it to first resort to arbitration as to disputes

on the amount of the claim.

When the complaint was dismissed, plaintiff appealed

and assigned as one of the errors, that the implied

admission for failure to answer should not benefit or be

availed of by Phoenix because the same was made prior toamendment of the complaint.

Held: The complaint was dismissed as against Kerr &

Co. being merely an agent. But as to Phoenix, the hearings

should proceed because Condition No. 8 did not apply since

it pertains to dispute on the amount of claim not when

there is total negation of claim.

However, as to the error regarding request for admission

which is pertinent to this annotation, the High Court

held:

“The argument is untenable. Admission is in the nature of

evidence and its legal effects were already part of the records of

the case and therefore could be availed of by any party even by

one subsequently impleaded. The amendment of the complaint

per se cannot set aside the legal effects of the request for

admission since its materiality has not been affected by the

amendment. If a fact is admitted to be true at any stage of the

proceedings, it is not stricken out through the amendment of the

complaint. To allow a party to alter the legal effects of the request

for admission by the

549

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 549


mere amendment of a pleading would constitute a dangerous and

undesirable precedent. The legal effects of plaintiff-appellant’s

failure to answer the request for admission could and should have

been corrected below by its filing a motion to be relieved of the

consequences of the implied admission with respect to respondent

Phoenix.”

d) Po vs. CA, 164 SCRA 668 (1988)

In Po vs. CA, supra., the High Court ruled that matters

already denied in the Answer need not be denied anew or


21/41

for a second time in the Request for Admission. This is a

complaint for damages arising from a boat accident against

a motor banca operator while plaintiff was shooting the

rapids at Pagsanjan Falls, at Pagsanjan, Laguna. After the

defendant answered the complaint, plaintiff served upon

him a Request For Admission. For failure to answer the

request for admission, plaintiff moved for summary

judgment. This was denied by the trial court which foundthat the interrogatories were mere reiteration of portions of

the complaint and which were already denied in the

answer.

Plaintiff contested this ruling before the Court of

Appeals which sustained the trial court. It noted that “Rule

26 contemplates interrogatories that would clarify and tend

to show light on the truth or falsity of the allegations of the

complaint, and does not refer to a mere reiteration of what

has been alleged in the complaint and unconditionally

denied in the answer. Petitioner’s request constitutes anutter redundancy and a useless, pointless process which

private respondent should not be subjected to and which

the lower court should not countenance as the respondent

Judge rightfully did.” Still undaunted, the petitioner went

to the High Court.

Held: Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

The High Court found that the matters sought to be

admitted were already alleged in the Complaint and denied

in the Answer of the defendant before the court a quo.

“A party should not be compelled to admit matters of fact already

admitted by his pleading and concerning which there is no issue x

x x x x, nor should he be required to make a second denial of those

already denied in his answer to the complaint. A request for

admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the

allegations of the requesting party’s pleading but should set forth

relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or

550



documents described in and exhibited with the request, whose

purpose is to establish said party’s cause of action or defense.

Unless it serves the purpose, it is, as correctly stated by the Court

of Appeals, ‘pointless, useless,’ and ‘a mere redundancy’ ”.


22/41

e) Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212 (1991)

In Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, supra., the High Court

bluntly expressed its disappointment over the general

ignorance of the effectiveness of the discovery process. It

sustained the liberal grant of the same by the

Sandiganbayan even as it encouraged its used by lawyers.

This is a complaint by the Republic of the Philippines,through the PCGG “for reconveyance, reversion,

accounting, restitution and damages” against B R Tantoco,

Jr., D Santiago, Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, and

others. After filing the initial Complaint, the Republic was

directed to expand the same to make more specific

allegations, pursuant to the Motion for Bill of Particulars,

among other pleadings filed by Tantoco and Santiago. Then

they also filed a “motion for leave to file interrogatories

under Rule 25 of the Rules of Court” and “Interrogatories

under Rule 25”. The PCCG moved to strike out said motion

and interrogatories as being impertinent, improper and

irrelevant, among other grounds.

After the PCGG filed its Expanded Complaint, Tantoco

and Santiago reiterated their motion for bill of particulars.

Thereafter the Sandiganbayan “denied the motion to strike

out, for bill of particulars, and for leave to file

interrogatories, holding them to be without legal and

factual basis.”

After several exchanges of pleadings, Tantoco andSantiago filed among other pleadings, a motion to admit

Amended Interrogatories and for the production and

inspection of certain documents which were both granted

by the Sandiganbayan. In the Motion for Reconsideration

of the Sandiganbayan order, PCGG argued that as to the

documents sought to be produced and inspected, they

would be marked as exhibits anyway during the pre-trial,

hence, unnecessary; defendants already knew of these

documents as they were already described in the pre-trial

brief and they are “privileged in character”. As to the

Amended Interrogatories, PCGG contended that they are

not specified and do not name the person who should

answer the same; they pertain to matters of proof of the

Com-

551

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 551


23/41


Travelled

plaint; and frivolous as well as premature being in the

nature of depositions.

With the denial of the motion for reconsideration, the

PCGG brought the issue to the Court of Appeals on

Certiorari.Held: Petition denied.

The High Court took occasion to deplore the “regrettable

unfamiliarity” and even outright ignorance” of the bench

and bar of the modes of discovery. It noted:

“Involved in the present proceedings are two of the modes of

discovery provided in the Rules of Court: interrogatories to

parties, and production and inspection of documents and things.

Now, it appears to the Court that among far too many lawyers

(not a few judges), there is, if now a regrettable unfamiliarity andeven outright ignorance about the nature, purposes and operation

of the modes of discovery, at least a strong yet unreasoned and

unreasonable disinclination to resort to them—which is a great

pity for the intelligent and adequate use of the deposition-

discovery mechanism, coupled with pre-trial procedure, could, as

the experience of other jurisdictions convincingly demonstrates,

effectively shorten the period of litigation and speed up

adjudication.”

The High Court proceeded to postulate that the raison

d’etre of courts is to resolve controversies. Hence, a

substantial part of our adjective law is to assure that all

facts are presented in court for proper adjudication. “It is

thus the obligation of lawyers no less than of judges to see

that this objective is attained; that is to say, that there be

no suppression, obscuration, misrepresentation or

distortion of facts; and that no party be unaware of any fact

material and relevant to the action, or surprised by any

factual detail suddenly brought to his attention during thetrial.” The High Court cited the leading 1910 case of Alonso

vs. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315 about litigation as “not a game of

technicalities.”

It further gave notice that: “The message is plain. It is

the duty of each contending party to lay before the court

the facts in issue—fully and fairly, i.e., to present to the

court all the material and relevant facts known to him,

suppressing or concealing nothing, nor preventing another

party, by clever and adroit manipulation of the technical


24/41

rules of pleading and evidence, from also presenting all the

facts within his knowledge.”

552



Travelled

It also declared that “ ‘evidentiary matters’ may be

inquired into and learned by the parties before the trial.”

That “the desideratum is that civil trials should not be

carried on in the dark; and the Rules of Court make this

ideal possible through the deposition discovery mechanism

set forth in Rules 24-29. The experience in other

jurisdictions has been that ample discovery before trial

under proper regulation, accomplished one of the mostnecessary ends of modern procedure; it not only eliminates

unessential issues from trials thereby shortening them

considerably, but also requires parties to play the game

with cards on the table so that the possibility of fair

settlement before trial is measurably increased.”

The High Court further noted that liberal treatment has

been accorded the discovery process to encourage its

availment:

“In line with the principle of according liberal treatment to thedeposition-discovery mechanism, such modes of discovery as (a)

depositions (whether by oral examination or written

interrogatories) under Rule 24, (b) interrogatories to parties

under Rule 25, and (c) requests for admission under Rule 26, may

be availed of without leave of court, and generally, without court

intervention. The Rules of Court explicitly provide that leave of

court is not necessary to avail of said modes of discovery after an

answer to the complaint has been served. It is only when an

answer has not yet been filed (but after jurisdiction has been

obtained over the defendant or property subject of the action) that

prior leave of court is needed to avail of these modes of discovery,

the reason being that at the time the issues are not yet joined and

the disputed facts are not clear.”

f) Briboneria vs. CA, 216 SCRA 607 (1992)

In Briboneria vs. CA, supra., the High Court reiterated the

ruling in Po vs. CA, supra., when it declared that there was


25/41

no implied admission for failure to deny matters which

were already denied in the Answer. This is a Petition for

Review of the decision of the Court of Appeals on its ruling

on the request for admission. This case stemmed from an

action for annulment of document and damages. The

plaintiff without his knowledge and consent suddenly

learned that their house and lot in Marikina, Metro Manila

was sold by his wife with him allegedly signed a power of attorney therefor. Against this Complaint, Defendant filed

their Answer specifically denying these material

allegations therein.

553

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 553


Travelled

After the issues were joined, plaintiff served a Request for

Admission under Rule 26 addressed to defendant’s lawyer,

to wit: that plaintiff with his wife, was the registered owner

of the house and lot in question; said property was declared

by them for tax purposes; plaintiff with his family used to

live there and defendant lived nearby; that the property

was acquired by plaintiff through his hard-earned income;

plaintiff never authorized his wife to sell said property and

he never executed a special power of attorney to that effect;

nor did he appear before the notary of said Special Power of

Attorney; that plaintiff never sold the said property in

question, etc.;

As to the documents for admission, plaintiff attached the

transfer certificate of title of the property and its tax

declaration.

Against this request, defendants countered that “most if

not all the matters subject of petitioner’s request for

admission had been admitted, denied and/or clarified intheir verified answer” and that other matters not admitted

were “either irrelevant or improper.” Plaintiff moved for

summary judgment arguing that there was implied

admission by defendants. After flip-flopping the lower court

finally issued an order sustaining the position of the

defendants that there was no admission by the failure to

deny the request for admission since those matters were

already covered in the Answer. Plaintiff went to the Court

of Appeals and now to the Supreme Court on certiorari on


26/41

the same issue after the CA sustained the lower court.

Plaintiff argued that these material facts and documents

subject of the request for admission “are relevant

evidentiary matters supportive of the cause of action.” And

that the failure to directly deny them amounted to implied

admission thereof.

Held: Petition denied.

The High Court noted that “the material matters anddocuments set forth in the request for admission are the

same as those set forth in the complaint which private

respondents either admitted or denied in their answer.” It

cited Po vs. Court of Appeals (164 SCRA 668) which ruled

that” A party should not be compelled to admit matters of

fact already admitted by his pleading and concerning which

there is no issue x x x x x x nor should he be re-

554



Travelled

quired to make a second denial of those already denied in

his answer to the complaint.”

Then there was also the defect in the request for

admission. It was addressed to the lawyer and not to the

party-litigant. Section 1, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court

directs that “ the request for admission must be served

upon the party” and not to counsel. The general rule is that

service to counsel is deemed service to the party or his

client. But this general rule cannot apply when the law

specifically directs that the matter or paper be served upon

a definite person or the party himself in the case.

g) Security Bank Corp. vs. CA, 323 SCRA 330 (2000)

In Security Bank Corp. vs. CA, supra., the High Courtcontinued to take the position of liberality in allowing a

mode of discovery. From an extra judicial foreclosure case,

the mortgagee bank was sued by the mortgagor who also

filed a cross-claim against a private individual. In the

course of the proceedings, the defendant under cross-claim

moved that the bank allow the production, inspection and

copying of certain documents relating to mortgage

contracts in the case where they are involved. The trial

court issued the questioned order granting the motion. On


27/41

appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter sustained the

ruling of the lower court by holding that “good cause” was

shown contrary to the position of the bank. Not satisfied,

the bank still went to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed

grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the ruling

allowing the inspection of documents.

Held: Petition is bereft of merit.The High Court saw no error on the part of the Court of

Appeals for sustaining the ruling of the lower court. It

found also that there was “good cause” for the production of

the documents. It cited Republic vs. Sandiganbayan,

supra., thus:

“In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the Court discussed exhaustively

the significance of the various modes of discovery, an example of

which is the aforecited provision. In sum, the Court held that the

said rule aims to enable the parties to inform themselves, evenbefore the trial, of all the facts relevant to the action, including

those known only to the other liti-

555

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 555


gants. Through this procedure, “civil trials should not be carriedon in the dark.” It also reminded the parties that:

“It is clear that courts are given wide latitude in granting

motions for discovery in order to enable parties to prepare for trial

or otherwise to settle the controversy prior thereto.”

Then the High Court proceeded to absolve the Court of

Appeals of any error in its ruling. “In the present case, the

Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the trial court

ruling that there was ‘good cause’ for the grant of the

Motions for inspection of documents.” It noted that themovant had alleged that said documents were “material

and important to the issues raised in the case in general,

and as between defendant and defendant Security Bank

Corporation in particular.” In other words, the High Court

held that the documents were necessary for the parties to

prepare intelligently their pleadings.

Finally, by way of reminder to the parties to be

transparent in litigation, it also enjoined litigants thus:


28/41

“Indeed, litigation is essentially an abiding quest for truth

undertaken not by the judge alone, but jointly with the

parties. Litigants, therefore, must welcome every

opportunity to achieve this goal; they must act in good faith

to reveal documents, papers and other pieces of evidence

material to the controversy.”

§ VII. Admission by Adverse Party

a) The Codal provision

SECTION 1. Request for Admission.—At any time after issues

have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any other party

a written request for admission by the latter of the genuineness of

any material and relevant document described in and exhibited

with the request or of the truth of any material and relevant

matter of fact set forth in the request. Copies of the documents

shall be delivered with the request unless copies have been

already finished.”

i. Two (2) matters for admission

From the above provision, a party-litigant may ask for two

(2) matters for admission from the opponent or adverse

party usually after the filing of the Answer or when the

issues are already joined556



Travelled

and for the purpose of this pending action only: a) the

genuineness of any material and relevant documentdescribed therein and exhibited with the request; b) or the

truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth

in the request;

ii. Request must now be filed with the court

Please note that the old Rule provided that “a party may

serve upon any other party a written request for the

admission”. The service of request was directly to the

adverse party—without notice to the court. Now, under the


29/41

1997 Rules of Procedure, as set forth above, it directs that

“a party may file and serve upon any other party” a written

request for admission.” This means that the Request for

Admisssion must be filed in court where the case is

pending and served upon the other party. Before, it was a

strictly a party-to-party process without the court being

aware of it unless some questions arose. Now, it is still a

party-to-party process but the court is made aware of therequest. The reason is obvious—better control and faster

prosecution of the process.

b) Nature of Admission by Adverse Party

i. It is not actually a form of discovery

In American jurisdiction under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the Rule is titled: “Request for Admissions”

whereas in our Rules of Court, the Rule which is Rule 26 is

titled: “Admission by Adverse Party.” However, the basic

thrust of both provisions uniformly pertain to request for

admission of the genuineness of documents and the truth of

matter of fact alleged in the request.

While the Rule on Admission by Adverse Party has been

classified under the modes of discovery, a close analysis of

the same would show that it is not actually a form of

discovery. In other words, the request for admission by

adverse party does not really aim at discovering facts but

to merely obviate the possibility of time-consuming andexpensive presentation of proofs thereof during trial. Thus

“the purpose of admissions is not to discover facts, but

rather to establish some of the material facts in a case

without the necessity of formal proof” (23 Am Jur. 2d 613).

557

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 557

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road LessTravelled

ii. Request for admission cannot be used for “fishing

expedition”

When a party is not certain of some matters and he wanted

the adverse party to provide some information about the

same, this cannot be had through a request for admission

which presupposes that the request is in pursuance of a


30/41

theory and plan of proof. Such “fishing expedition” may be

pursued through other modes of discovery like written

interrogatories. Request for admission may not also be

availed of as a substitute for the request for the production

of document or thing because under the former, there is the

presumption that the documents are in the possession of

the party requesting admission of its genuineness.

c) Rationale Of The Rule On Admission Of Adverse Parties

As stated above, while this procedural device of admission

by adverse party may not be a mode of discovery in the

strict sense of the term, it just the same aims at

eliminating necessity of proofs and delimiting factual

issues in the case so that only those that are really

disputed shall be litigated upon. Thus, it has been declared

that: “The purpose of the rule governing requests for

admission of facts and genuineness of documents is to

expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of proving

facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of

which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.” (V J

Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines,

Vol. II, 1966 ed., p. 233 citing Hanauer, for use of Wogahn

vs. Siegel, 29 F. Supp. 329)

A noted authority on trial technique pointed out the

benefits of Admission of Adverse Party or Request for

Admission:

“As a general rule, it is to your advantage to obtain as many

admission as possible in advance of trial so as to reduce expense,

time, inconvenience of proving matters not actually in dispute.

Using formal requests for admissions also helps you avoid

surprise. It gives you a means of requiring your adversary to

confirm your view that certain matters are undisputed, or else to

put you on notice by a denial.”

x x x

x x x

A request for admissions with respect to documents ofteneliminates the necessity for tedious proof of facts constituting the

foundation for

558




31/41

admitting documents in evidence and eliminates the need for

calling a custodian as a witness in trial, if his testimony is not

required for other purposes.” Keeton, “Trial Tactics and Methods”,

1973 ed., pp. 418-419).

In the case under Annotation, F. Duque vs. CA, supra.,

the High Court declared that: “This particular Rule seeks

to obtain admissions from the adverse party regarding the

genuineness of relevant documents or relevant matters of

fact through requests for admission to enable a party to

discover the evidence of the adverse side thereby

facilitating an amicable settlement of the case or

expediting the trial of the same” (citing Oscar M. Herrera,

Vol. II, Remedial Law 1994; pp. 1-2)

Finally, the rationale set forth in the Po vs. CA, supra, is

clear: A request for admission is not intended to merely

reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting

party’s pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiarymatters of fact, or documents described in and exhibited

with the request, whose purpose is to establish said party’s

cause of action or defense. Unless it serves the purpose, it

is, as correctly stated by the Court of Appeals, ‘pointless,

useless,’ and ‘a mere redundancy.’ ”

§ VIII. Forms of Request for Admission

Sometimes, the request to admit is through directquestionnaires to the adverse party. As to documents, the

question is coached thus: “Do you admit the genuineness

and due execution of the following documents hereto

attached, Annexes A, to ___?” And as to facts, the question

is coached thus: “Do you admit the following material facts

relative to the instant case, which are enumerated

hereunder?” The common form of Request for Admission in

our jurisdiction is usually that which is similar to the

Request for Admission set forth in the case of Briboneria

vs. CA, supra. This is also consistent with the formprovided in the Judicial Standard Forms portion of the

Rules of Court. Let us reproduce the form on Request for

Admission with modification to include both Requests for

Admission of genuineness of documents and the truth of

certain matters of facts:

559


32/41

2.

a)

b)

i.

ii.

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 559


Travelled

“Plaintiff A.B. requests defendant C.D. to make the following

admission for the purpose of this action only and subject to all

pertinent objections to admissibility which may be interposed at

the trial:

By way of Request for Admission

Of Documents

That each of the following documents, exhibited with this

request, is genuine (Here list the documents and describe each of

them);

By way of Request for Admission

Of Facts

That each of the following statement is true. (Here the

statements are enumerated)”

In American jurisdiction, the phrasing is somewhat

different:

As to documents: “You are requested to admit the

genuineness of the following documents, pursuant to Rule

____, under the terms of which the genuineness of thesedocuments shall be deemed admitted in your do not serve

a response in accordance with that rule on or

before_________. (the documents duly enumerated)

As to facts: “You are requested to admit the truth of the

following statements of fact, pursuant to Rule____, under

the terms of which these matters will be deemed admitted

if you do not serve a response in accordance with that rule

on or before_______.

That . . . . .

That . . . . (reciting a single fact in each paragraph).

The latter form is preferred in American courts. It has also been

observed that: “When the fact is admitted by failure to respond

properly or in due time, it is better to be able to read the

statement as an admission rather than reading a question and

explaining that the answer is deemed to be “yes” under the court’s

ruling, although no answer or a different answer was given by the


33/41

party.” (Keeton, “Trial Tactics and Methods”, 1973 ed., pp. 420).

§ IX. The Case Under Annotation

In this case under Annotation, Fortunata N. Duque vs.

CA, et al., supra., and companion case, which were jointly

decided by the High Court, the two (2) plaintiffs sued thesame defendants who are husband and wife for negotiating

with them checks in ex-

560



Travelled

change for cash of P270,000 and P432,000, respectively.

The basic facts being the same and against common

defendants, the complaints were resolved jointly by the

trial court. After filing of the Answers, the plaintiffs filed

Requests for Admission under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court

seeking the admission of three (3) matters: that defendants

negotiated those checks as mentioned above with them for

valuable consideration in the amounts as mentioned above;

that one of the defendants spouses signed separate

promissory notes for the said amounts as mentioned above;

and that separate demand letters were sent by each

plaintiff to the defendants.

Defendants did not respond to these requests which

upon motions of plaintiffs resulted in an order holding that

there was implied admission and a decision finding them

liable for the amounts as claimed in the Complaints plus

interests. When they appealed to the Court of Appeals, the

decision was set-aside and the case remanded to the court a

quo for hearing on the merits.The plaintiffs brought the CA ruling to the High Court

on certiorari on the following issues: was there implied

admission in the failure of the defendants to respond to the

request for admission and was there personal service of the

request for admission.

As will be noted from the decision under Annotation,

the High Court upheld the CA decision setting-aside the

ruling of the trial court. The CA holding as affirmed by the

High Court is that the facts sought to be admitted where


34/41

already denied in the answer and should not be denied

anew. And the service of the Request was defective for it

was directed to the lawyer and not to the adverse party.

a) Reiteration of the holdings in the cases of Po vs. CA,

supra and Briboneria vs. CA, supra

There is actually no new doctrine introduced in this case.

The complaints alleged certain ultimate facts which werespecifically denied by defendants. Yet, plaintiffs still came

up with this Request for Admission on the very matters

which were already admitted or denied in the Answers.

The Request for Admission should not ask for admission of

matters already admitted or denied in the Answers and

which in effect would be asking for a second

561

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 561


Travelled

admission or denial. No useful purpose may be served if

this is allowed and this will only delay and muddle the

pleadings and the proceedings.

The High Court reproduced the pertinent portions of the

Answers which indubitably showed that the matters

sought to be admitted or denied were covered therein.

The proper subjects of Request for Admission are those

“relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or documents

described in and exhibited with the request, whose purpose

is to establish said party’s cause of action or defense.” ( Po

vs. CA, supra.).

Another feature of this ruling is also the adherence to

the settled exception to the rule on service to party

litigants. The general rule is that service to counsel would

be considered service to a partylitigant. But if the lawspecifies that the service of a particular motion, request,

pleading or legal paper be only to the partylitigant, then

service to counsel would be insufficient rendering such

service fatally defective. This is what happened in this case

when plaintiffs directed the Request for Admission to the

defendants’ counsel. This further rendered their failure to

respond of no adverse legal effect upon them;

b) Liberal grant of this Mode did not prevail


35/41

The consistent position of the High Court is to encourage

resort to all modes of discovery in the hope that this would

facilitate proceedings, eliminate non-essentials and pare

down the contested facts for ultimate adjudication. But

inspite of this policy and trend, the High Court just cannot

sustain the action of the trial court of allowing repeated

admissions/denials genuineness of documents and of the

truth of any relevant matters of facts which were alreadydone in the Answer.

§ X. A Procedural Road Less Travelled

a) A seeming disinclination to resort to Modes of Discovery

As noted at the outset, there are precious few cases on

Modes of Discovery, particularly Admission by Adverse

Party that ultimately reach the Supreme Court for rulingsand guidelines that

562



Travelled

should enrich our jurisprudence. If anything, this confirmsthe observation of the High Court through Chief Justice

Narvasa in recent years and Justice Antonio Barredo many

years earlier that modes of discovery are hardly resorted to

by lawyers with hardly any encouragement from the bench.

They are likened to a procedural “road less travelled” in the

quest for truth in the courtroom, to borrow the title of a one

time best-seller inspirational book by M. Scott Peck. Apart

from the general lack of familiarity over the beneficial

possibilities of this process by members of the bar and of

the bench (as noted by Chief Justice Narvasa), there seems

to be a disinclination to resort to it. And those that resorted

to it have other things in mind except the basic goals of the

process. We related earlier about this deposition wherein a

deponent was subjected to tedious and repetitious

questions not for the purpose of discovery but to

camouflage that search for admission to be used in the trial

proper.


36/41

1.

2.

b) Possible reasons

What could be the possible reasons for this lack of alacrity

to resort to Modes of Discovery by our trial lawyers? Let us

venture some reasons:

The strategy goals of modes of discovery appear to be

at cross-purposes with effective trial strategy —Torepeat, the discovery process aims to conduct trials

with transparency. There are also disclosures or

admissions on documents and facts from either

side. And the ultimate goal is to “encourage

settlement” and/or “expedite the disposition of

cases”. But will this kind of transparency sit well

with Earl Rogers, Clarence Darrow, Louis Nizer,

Percy Foreman, F. Lee Bailey and other famous

American trial lawyers? In the Philippines, we have

Don Vicente J. Francisco, Don Claro M. Recto, Sen.Jose W. Diokno and others, who also cut that

dazzling persona of the consummate trial lawyers

who kept their battle plans top secret leaving their

opponent guessing and dumbfounded as they go for

the “ kill” in the courtroom, so to speak;

In other words, the modes of discovery

encourage the parties to lay their cards on the

table. On the other hand, effective trial strategy

encourages lawyers to keep their cards

563

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 563


Travelled

close to their heart. The modes of discovery

encourage that litigation be not conducted in thedark. On the other hand, effective trial strategy

encourages lawyers to keep their opponents in the

dark. Now, which should be followed?

Litigants are not particularly enthusiastic about

going into an out-of-court process —Filipino litigants

and their lawyers are not keen in going through

these preliminary skirmishes through the discovery

process, especially oral depositions and written


37/41

3.

4.

interrogatories or even Requests for Admissions.

They think that if they have to unleash their

artillery, it might as well be in the trial proper.

They are raring to go to the courtroom instead.

They find the out-of-court proceedings, e.g.

deposition, presided over by not the judge hearing

the case to be, devoid of compelling authority as to

command attendance. He is also powerless even torule on objections let alone impose in the

proceedings the solemnity of a judicial court;

Expenses —What makes the Modes of Discovery

unpopular, particularly the taking of deposition is

the added expenses and the additional time spent

for out-of-court proceedings. This is of allowable

“fishing expedition” which implies some uncertainty

in eliciting matters within the knowledge of the

adverse party. Litigants are already balking at the

legal expenses for the trial proper, the out-of-court

proceedings are added financial burden for the

search of something which may be a little remote to

have an immediate impact on the outcome of the

trial;

One lawyer candidly, said that apart from added

the expenses for the requesting party in setting up

the needed forum and facilities for deposition, they

may not be able to collect “appearance fees” or at

least as much during actual trial;Resort to modes of discovery may be a dry-run for

the trial proper for which the adverse party may

prepare —Some lawyers think that while these

modes of discovery may give them certain

advantages and information, the opponents may

equally ask for disclosures of matters which they

may otherwise prefer to hold on to. Then too, this

may be give the opponent a preview of things to

come for which they would natu

564



Travelled

rally prepare. In other words, there is a reluctance


38/41

5.

6.

to ask questions, ask for admission, ask for

inspection of documents or things, etc. which may

hint of the thrust during trials. Very likely, the

adverse party would be warned of this and would

accordingly prepare;

One of the aims of modes of discovery is to eliminate

surprises, an advantage lawyers are not prepared to

give up— Are lawyers ready to give up thisadvantage of surprise during trials? Even trial

handbooks are not ready to declare that springing

surprises over an opponent in court is now a no-no.

Authorities are ambivalent. While they pay lip

service to the need for transparency through the

modes of discovery, they still acknowledge that trial

lawyers are entitled to that element of surprise

during trials. A litigation, however sanitized we

may view it, is still a struggle for supremacy of

ideas/persuasion for which every little advantage

counts even if that may involve some nasty tricks.

A noted author on trial technique while extolling

the virtues of discovery procedure in his book, is not

also prepared to advise lawyer to forgo the

advantages of surprise during trials:

“Using a request for admission may also affect indirectly

your opportunity of using tactics of surprise, since it may

influence your adversary to counter with a request for

admission or other discovery procedures, forcing you to

disclose information that otherwise your adversary might

not have obtained before trial.” (Keeton, “Trial Tactics

and Methods”, 1973 ed., p. 419)

Modes of discovery are viewed not as a device for

discovery but as a means of entrapment, fatal

admissions and contradictions —Modes of discovery

have been conceived to allow parties to secure

disclosures that would enhance, support, or fortifytheir cause of action or defense, separate the grain

from the chaff and pare down the issues so that

what would be presented for adjudication are

clearly defined and delimited. But it seems that the

main concern of some lawyers is to entrap, secure

fatal admission and elicit to contradict and discredit

the opponent or his witnesses during trial.

565


39/41

7.

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002 565


Travelled

Although this is fair game, the basic office of

discovery takes a back seat;There is also the prevailing thinking that the

purpose of some modes of discovery may be achieved

through pre-trial —Some lawyers think that

through pre-trial before the judge himself and not

outside of court, may accomplish the aims of some

modes of discovery, e.g., deposition, interrogatories,

admission of adverse party, etc. Rule 18 of the

Rules of Court titled “Pre-trial” enumerates the

purposes of pre-trial under Sec. 2, thereof: a) The

possibility of an amicable settlement, x x x b) The

simplification of issues; c) The necessity or

desirability of amendments to the pleadings; d) The

possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of

facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof.

The purposes under pars. a, b, and d are also

aims of some of the modes of discovery. Hence, pre-

trial may also achieve the purposes of these modes.

Justice Antonio Barredo during a open forum at the

U.P. Law Center was asked precisely the questionas to whether Pre-Trial could well substitute for

these modes of discovery. He was candid in his

answer: “Well, as I said, as long as the judge and

the parties are properly oriented in pre-trial

procedure, there is nothing that cannot be done in a

pre-trial to accomplish the purpose of all the modes

of discovery. But the trouble is that there is not

enough orientation along that line.” (Justice

Antonio Barredo, Lecture, “ Discovery Procedures”,

Remedial Law Revisited 1972, U.P. Law Center,

1973, p. 116). This was a vert surprising revelation.

Does this mean that if there is proper orientation,

some of the Modes of Discovery may be achieved

through pretrial and this would render them a

superfluity?

§ XI. Conclusion


40/41

Will the bench and bar hearken to the plea of the High

Court for more application of the various modes of

discovery? It has been consistent in ruling towards more

use of these modes. However, in the case under

Annotation the High Court sustained the Court of

Appeals which disallowed it being contrary to settled ruling

which

566



Travelled

prohibits a second admission and denial after it was

already done in the Answer.These modes suffer from conceptual infirmity—for they

aim at transparency and full disclosure of matters within

the knowledge of parties which may be used during trial.

While the purpose of litigation is to search for truth, the

hard reality is that trial lawyers have their respective

“truths” which they want to prevail. They enter into a

courtroom as hired gladiators to win and nothing short of

that. They view litigation, not as a gathering of members of

an orchid

Annotation Admission by Adverse Party

Documents

Transcript of Annotation Admission by Adverse Party