Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > December 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 106094 December 28, 1992 - PSCFC FINANCIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 106094. December 28, 1992.]

PSCFC FINANCIAL CORPORATION (NEW PSCFC BUSINESS CORPORATION), Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. HERMINIO I. BENITO, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 132, Makati, Metro Manila, NOTARY PUBLIC ENRIQUE I. QUIASON, and BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS & MORTGAGE BANK, Respondents.

Lutgarda C. Baquiran-Peralta for Petitioner.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; REQUEST FOR ADMISSION UNDER SEC. 1, RULE 26; COUNSEL CAN MAKE THE RESPONSE IN BEHALF OF CLIENT. — Petitioner submits that the answer to the request for admission under Rule 26 should be made by the party himself and anybody else, not even his lawyer. Consequently, failure of respondent Banco Filipino, upon whom the call for admission was served, to render the required sworn statement would constitute an implied admission of the facts sought to be admitted. Thus, it must be the party itself who must respondent to the request for admission and that a mere reply made and verified by its counsel alone is insufficient and contrary to the Rules and the intent behind recourse to modes of discovery. The argument is untenable. Section 21 of Rule 138 states- "SEC. 21. Authority of attorney to appear. — An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client . . ." Petitioner has not shown that the case at bar falls under any of the recognized exceptions as found in Art. 1878 of the Civil Code which enumerates the instances when special powers of attorney are necessary, or in Rule 20 of the Rules of Court on pre-trial where the parties and their attorneys are both directed to appear before the court for a conference; so that for counsel to appear at the pre-trial in behalf of his client, he must clothe the former with an adequate authority in the form of a special power of attorney or corporate resolution. Section 23 of Rule 138 provides that" (a) attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure . . ." Thus, when Rule 26 states that a party shall respond to the request for admission, it should not be restrictively construed to mean that a party may not engage the services of counsel to make the response in his behalf. Indeed, the theory of petitioner must not be taken seriously; otherwise, it will negate the principles on agency in the Civil Code, as well as Sec. 23, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court.

2. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE FOR INTERCALATING A MATERIAL FACT IN A JUDICIAL DECISION TO ATTAIN A FAVORABLE JUDGMENT FOR HER CLIENT. — In insisting that only a client could make a binding admission in discovery proceedings, petitioner cites Koh v. IAC. It even went to the extent of quoting in its petition, found on pages 15-16, certain paragraphs supposedly taken therefrom which are nor actually found therein, except the last paragraph which states: ". . . All the parties are required to lay their cards on the table so that justice can be rendered on the merits of the case." The Court Resolves to REQUIRE counsel for petitioner, ATTY. LUTGARDA C. BAQUIRAN-PERALTA, of the BALGOS & PEREZ LAW OFFICE, 5th Floor, Corinthian Plaza, Paseo de Roxas, Makati, Metro Manila, to SHOW CAUSE within ten 910) days from notice hereof why she should not be administratively dealt with for misquoting the text of the decision in Koh v. IAC, supra, to support her position and attain a favorable judgment for her client.


R E S O L U T I O N


BELLOSILLO, J.:


At issue in this petition for review is whether a request for admission directed to an adverse party under Sec. 1, Rule 26, of the Rules of Court may be answered only by his counsel.

On 17 March 1988, petitioner PSC Financial Corporation (PSCFC) filed a complaint against private respondent Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino) for annulment of foreclosure proceedings and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 88-368.

Petitioner PSCFC alleges that as land developer it availed itself of the Home Financing Plan of Banco Filipino and borrowed from the latter the amount of P6,630,690.00 as "developer loan." As security, petitioner constituted a mortgage over several lots in Pasay City which properties were not yet sold at that time to third parties, It was agreed that under the Home Financing Plan, the "developer loan" would mature only after the lots shall have been subdivided and improved and then sold to third persons who would then be substituted as mortgagors to the extent of the loan value of the lots and houses bought by them. However, on 25 September 1987, without the loan having matured as none of the lots have been conveyed to buyers, such that the latter could now take the place of petitioner as mortgagors, the mortgage was extra judicial foreclosed and a certificate of sale was executed in favor of private respondent Banco Filipino.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

In their answer of 10 June 1988, private respondent admitted the loan of P6,630.690.00 for which petitioner had executed a promissory note secured by a real estate mortgage on the properties described in the complaint. However, they denied that petitioner had availed itself of Banco Filipino’s Home Financing Plan, averring instead that under the promissory note and the contract of mortgage, the subject loan would fall due "1 year from date" or on 5 January 1986 and that upon default of petitioner, Banco Filipino could immediately foreclose the mortgage under Act No. 3135 as in fact it did, upon compliance with the legal requirements with respect to extrajudicial foreclosures.

On 21 June 1988, petitioner served upon Banco Filipino a written request for admission of the truth of certain matters set forth as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The plaintiff (PSCFC) . . . was . . . granted by you under your BF Home Financing Plan, on the security of mortgages constituted on the lands acquired, under the terms of which the developer loans, despite the contents of the covering promissory notes and security instruments, would mature only after the development of the acquired lands into residential subdivision and the resale of the . . . lots . . . to interested third parties who would then be substituted as mortgagors . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. . . . in 1984, availing itself of your said Home Financing Plan, the plaintiff obtained from you a loan . . . of P6,630,690.00 for which it signed in your favor a promissory note on the security of a mortgage constituted on . . . lots, which were not then yet sold to any third person . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. . . . on September 1987, without the said loan having yet mature for the reason that none of the . . . lots had yet been the subject of sale to third persons such that substitution of the latter as mortgagors in your favor could not yet be had, a certificate of sale was executed by the Notary Public over the xxx lands in your favor." 1

On 27 June 1988, petitioner received Banco Filipino’s answer to its request for admission signed by its counsel, Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun. Counsel admitted, inter alia, petitioner’s mortgage loan as well as the fact that Banco Filipino was engaged in land development loans. However, respondent denied that petitioner availed itself of the Home Financing Plan including the agreement that the maturity of the debt would depend on the resale of the mortgaged subdivision lots.

On August 1988, petitioner made a second request for admission on respondent Banco Filipino impliedly objecting to the first reply having been made by its lawyer Atty. Fortun; who was not even an attorney yet when Banco Filipino inaugurated its financing plan in February 1968 and therefore did not have personal knowledge of the financing scheme. The second request called on Banco Filipino to admit that it did not send a formal notice of its intention to foreclose the mortgage and that there was no publication of the notice of foreclosure in a newspaper of general circulation.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

By way of response made 26 August and 4 November 1988, respondent Banco Filipino objected to the matters requested on the ground of irrelevancy and denied all the rest. In its motion of 7 November 1988 petitioner asked the trial court for a ruling that the matters sought to be admitted in its second bid for admission should be considered as impliedly admitted when the answer was made by a lawyer who was not qualified to do so as he had no direct and personal knowledge of the matters sought to be admitted. In insisting that only a client could make a binding admission in discovery proceedings, petitioner cites Koh v. IAC . 2 It even went to the extent of quoting in its petition, found on pages 15-16, certain paragraphs supposedly taken therefrom which are not actually found therein, except the last paragraph which states: ". . . All the parties are required to lay their cards on the table so that justice can be rendered on the merits of the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

In any case, the lower court was not persuaded, so that petitioner went to the Court of Appeals maintaining that there was a tacit admission of the matters included in its second request for admission as the answer thereto was signed only by Atty. Fortun who had no personality to do so.

The appellate court sustained the trial court; hence, this instant recourse.

Petitioner submits that the answer to the request for admission under Rule 26 should be made by the party himself and nobody else, not even his lawyer. Consequently, failure of respondent Banco Filipino, upon whom the call for admission was served, to render the required sworn statement would constitute an implied admission of the facts sought to be admitted. Thus, it must be the party itself who must respond to the request for admission and that a mere reply made and verified by its counsel alone is insufficient and contrary to the Rules and the intent behind recourse to modes of discovery.

The argument is untenable. Section 21 of Rule 138 states —

"SECTION 21. Authority of attorney to appear. — An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client . . . ." 3

Petitioner has not shown that the case at bar falls under any of the recognized exceptions as found in Art. 1878 of the Civil Code which enumerates the instances when special powers of attorney are necessary, or in Rule 20 of the Rules of Court on pre-trial where the parties and their attorneys are both directed to appear before the court for a conference; so that for counsel to appear at the pre-trial in behalf of his client, he must clothe the former with an adequate authority in the form of a special power of attorney or corporate resolution.

Section 23 of the Rule 138 provides that" (a)ttorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thus, when Rule 26 states that a party shall respond to the request for admission, it should not be restrictively construed to mean that a party may engage the services of counsel to make the response in his behalf. Indeed, the theory of petitioner must not be taken seriously; otherwise, it will negate the principles on agency in the Civil Code, 4 as well as Sec. 23, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court. 5

Nonetheless, even assuming arguendo that Atty. Philip Sigfrid Fortun overstepped his authority, it is only his client, respondent Banco Filipino, which has the prerogative to impugn his acts and not petitioner, the adverse party. Interestingly, Banco Filipino has not objected to the response made by its counsel in its behalf.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolves to: (a) DENY the instant petition for utter lack of merit; and, (b) REQUIRE counsel for petitioner, ATTY. LUTGARDA C. BAQUIRAN-PERALTA, of the BALGOS & PEREZ LAW OFFICE, 5th Floor, Corinthian Plaza, Paseo de Roxas, Makati, Metro Manila, to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from notice hereof why she should not be administratively dealt with for misquoting the text of the decision in Koh v. IAC, supra, to support her position and attain a favorable judgment for her client.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Padilla and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Quoted in CA Decision, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 30-31.

2. G. R. No. 71388, 23 September 1986, 144 SCRA 259.

3. See Mercado v. Ubay, No. L-35830, 24 July 1990, 187 SCRA 719.

4. Art. 1868, et seq.

5. Villa Rhecar Bus v. De La Cruz, G. R. No. 78936, 7 January 1988, 157 SCRA 13.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 75032-33 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TIU

  • G.R. No. 85186 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO D. ABARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 94214 December 1, 1992 - CONSUELO REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100724 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO J. EVARDO

  • G.R. No. 101345 December 1, 1992 - NONITO J. BERNARDO v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC.

  • G.R. No. 84398 December 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SUGURAN

  • G.R. Nos. 9627782 December 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO C. AVENDAÑO

  • G.R. No. 100416 December 2, 1992 - SAMUEL M. SALAS v. PURIFICACION CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 100878 December 2, 1992 - ESTRELLITA AGUILAR v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 69696 December 7, 1992 - AVELYN B. ANTONIO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 101680 December 7, 1992 - ENRIQUETA H. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 102881 December 7, 1992 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 74886 December 8, 1992 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 97492 December 8, 1992 - CANLUBANG SECURITY AGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 92248 December 9, 1992 - VICENCIO T. TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100486 December 9, 1992 - FELIX ZEPEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 101122-23 December 9, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIANO T. ALBORES

  • A.C. No. 3727 December 11, 1992 - NELSON BUENSUCESO v. JOELITO T. BARRERA

  • G.R. No. 65706 December 11, 1992 - TOP FORM MFG. CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 70113 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL ELIGINO

  • G.R. No. 70481 December 11, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 76656 December 11, 1992 - EUTIQUIANO CLUTARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82514 December 11, 1992 - PAZ A. CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 86491 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO M. RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 87781 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOYET L. POMENTEL

  • G.R. No. 90297 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL PAMA

  • G.R. No. 92540 December 11, 1992 - ANIANO TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 93664 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEMISTOCLES T. CASTOR

  • G.R. No. 93783 December 11, 1992 - EVANGELINE C. BUCAD v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 93828 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO EVARISTO

  • G.R. No. 95509 December 11, 1992 - JOHANNESBURG PACKAGING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96389 December 11, 1992 - REYNALDO ABAYA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 98185 December 11, 1992 - SIBAGAT TIMBER CORP. v. ADOLFO B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 100386 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO C. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 101883 December 11, 1992 - LYDIA MELITON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 103982 December 11, 1992 - ANTONIO A. MECANO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 105088 December 11, 1992 - BIENVENIDO OCIER v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 107435-36 December 11, 1992 - SAIDAMEN B. PANGARUNGAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80161 December 14, 1992 - CANDIDA MARIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 83030 December 14, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO MINDAC

  • G.R. No. 88915 December 14, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO IRAN

  • G.R. No. 89980 December 14, 1992 - B.H. BERKENKOTTER & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 97339 December 14, 1992 - NOSTRAM LABORATORIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 98046 December 14, 1992 - CEBU CONTRACTORS CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101431 December 14, 1992 - ARABESQUE INDUSTRIAL PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101682 December 14, 1992 - SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.C. No. 3806 December 16, 1992 - ARACELI S. DE JESUS v. CONSUELO COLLADO

  • G.R. No. 84731 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR BIENDO

  • G.R. No. 94470 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRED JACOLO

  • G.R. No. 95441 December 16, 1992 - CARLOS O. ELIDO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100880 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO CLAUDIO

  • G.R. No. 102004 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE DABON

  • G.R. Nos. 94188-89 December 17, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BATIS

  • G.R. No. 73535 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS CAMAHALAN

  • G.R. No. 82606 December 18, 1992 - PRIMA PARTOSA-JO v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 92144-49 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 92387 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON L. MENDOZA

  • A.M. No. 91-6-007 December 21, 1992 - REQUEST OF JUDGE ALEX Z. REYES

  • Adm. Matter No. 92-5-009-CTA December 21, 1992 - IN RE: ALEX Z. REYES

  • G.R. No. 93073 December 21, 1992 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100294 December 21, 1992 - BENITO A. TIATCO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. 102409-10 December 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 93986 December 22, 1992 - BENJAMIN T. LOONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98120 December 22, 1992 - FILOMENA R. MANCITA v. CEFERINO P. BARCINAS

  • G.R. No. 104139 December 22, 1992 - LYDIA M. PROFETA v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • A.M. No. R-668-P December 21, 1992 - HORACIO M. PASCUAL v. GERRY C. DUNCAN

  • G.R. No. 65230 December 23, 1992 - PROVINCE OF TARLAC v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 91015 December 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAQUILLO L. MIANA

  • G.R. No. 105717 December 23, 1992 - JOSE L. ONG, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50837 December 28, 1992 - NARCISO BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 106094 December 28, 1992 - PSCFC FINANCIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 91115 December 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACALSO K. MAT-AN