FIRST
DIVISION
CONCRETE
AGGREGATES CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 117574
January 2, 1997
-versus-
THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
HON. PRISCILA S. AGANA, Regional Trial
Court of Cebu City, Branch 24 and
VIVIEN S. SORIGUEZ,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Does Rule 26 of
the Revised Rules of Court require
a party to respond to a Request for Admission of matters raised in his
pleadings? Will his failure to place under oath his denials in his
response
to the request be deemed an admission of the matters sought to be
admitted?
Petitioner is a
domestic corporation engaged in
the business of manufacturing and selling Bituminous Concrete Mix,
Ready
Mix Concrete and other construction materials. It has several plant
sites
in the country one of which is the Cebu plant site situated in Tuyan,
Naga,
Cebu. Private respondent on the other hand is engaged in the business
of
providing security services to various establishments under the name
and
style 101 Security and Detective Services.cralaw:red
Sometime in
October 1990, petitioner retained
the services of private respondent for its Cebu plant site. On 8
November
1991, it terminated the services of private respondent alleging that it
was dissatisfied with the latter's services because she failed to
prevent
and promptly investigate a theft case which occurred in its Cebu plant
site.cralaw:red
On 6 October
1992, private respondent Vivien S.
Soriguez instituted an action with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu[1]
for collection of unpaid fees for her security services rendered to
petitioner.
She also claimed that the termination of her services was unlawful so
that
she should be awarded moral damages.cralaw:red
Petitioner
contended that its refusal to pay was
justified because private respondent was answerable for the losses it
incurred
arising from the theft attributable to her fault. Petitioner thus
claimed
that there was legal set-off or compensation regarding the unpaid fees
due private respondent and the amount of the stolen articles owned by
petitioner.cralaw:red
On 30 August
1993, petitioner sent private respondent
a Request for Admission by the latter of her responsibility of the
theft
that occurred on 5 June 1991 at the Cebu plant site.[2]
Thereafter private respondent through counsel filed a Manifestation and
Reply to the Request for Admission.[3]
It was not under oath.cralaw:red
On 8 October
1993, petitioner filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment positing that private respondent impliedly admitted
the
matters set forth in the Request for Admission by failing to respond
under
oath as required under Sec. 2, Rule 26, of the Rules of Court.[4]
Petitioner contended that the manifestation and reply not being
verified
was ineffectual and thus should be stricken off the records. Private
respondent
countered that her reply although not under oath effectively denied the
matters set forth in the request.cralaw:red
Public
respondents ruled in favor of private respondent
holding that the circumstances warranted a relaxation of the rules in
the
interest of justice.[5]
The trial court rationalized that
While it is
desirable that the Rules of Court
be faithfully and even meticulously observed, courts should not be so
strict
about procedural lapses as in this case which do not really impair the
proper administration of justice. Considering that the protection of
the
substantive rights of the parties is paramount over mere
technicalities,
the court elects to deny defendant's motion for summary judgment.[6]
Respondent courts
further ruled that a summary
judgment was improper because the dispute involved factual issues which
could only be resolved in a full-blown hearing.[7]
After the trial
court denied its motion for reconsideration
petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals in a special
civil
action for certiorari but the latter likewise denied the petition for
lack
of merit; hence, the instant petition.cralaw:red
The pivotal issue
in this case is the effect of
the Request for Admission filed by petitioner and, consequently,
whether
private respondent may be considered to have impliedly admitted the
matters
referred to in the request when she filed a manifestation and reply
that
was not under oath.[8]
We deny the
petition.cralaw:red
The Request for
Admission of petitioner does not
fall under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. As we held in Po v. Court of
Appeals[9]
and Briboneria v. Court of Appeals,[10]
Rule 26 as a mode of discovery contemplates of interrogatories that
would
clarify and tend to shed light on the truth or falsity of the
allegations
in a pleading. That is its primary function. It does not refer to a
mere
reiteration of what has already been alleged in the pleadings.cralaw:red
A cursory reading
of petitioner's Request for
Admission clearly shows that it contains the same material averments in
his Answer to respondent's Complaint in the trial court. Petitioner
merely
recopied or reproduced in its Request for Admission its affirmative
defenses
and counterclaims alleged in its Answer. As we held in Bo v. CA,[11]
petitioner's request constitutes an utter redundancy and a useless,
pointless
process which the respondent should not be subjected to. In the first
place,
what the petitioner seeks to be admitted by private respondent is the
very
subject matter of the complaint. In effect, petitioner would want
private
respondent to deny her allegations in her verified Complaint and admit
the allegations in the Answer of petitioner (Manifestation and Reply to
Request for Admission). Plainly, this is illogical if not preposterous.
Respondent cannot be said to have admitted the averments in the Answer
of petitioner just because she failed to have her response to the
request
placed under oath since these are the very matters she raises in her
verified
Complaint in the court below. The following allegations specifically
contained
therein are self-evident:
9. That, in compliance thereto (sic)
[referring
to the request for investigation], herein plaintiff, through her
authorized
representative, went at (sic) the place and conducted the
necessary
investigation and found out that the herein plaintiff was not
responsible
for those alleged losses simply because of the following, to wit:
a. Those alleged losses like Blower,
Oil
Filter,
transmission and others were taken and brought outside the guarded
place
by certain Danny Baterna, driver of defendant, as reflected in the Log
Book of the plaintiff.[12]
Clearly,
therefore, private respondent need not reply
to the Request for Admission because her Complaint itself controverts
the
matters set forth in the Answer of petitioner which were merely
reproduced
in the request. In Uy Chao v. De la Rama Steamship[13]
we observed 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.
In the aforesaid
cases of Po and Briboneria, We
held that:
A party should not be compelled to admit
matters
of fact already admitted by his pleading and concerning which there is
no issue, nor should he be required to make a second denial of those
already
denied in his answer to the complaint.[14]
To this We add
that a party should not be made to
deny matters already averred in his complaint. At this point, it is
necessary
to emphasize what this Court laid down in the same Po and Briboneria
cases
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 documents
described in and exhibited with the request, whose purpose is to
establish
said party's cause of action or defense.[15]
Since the answer
of private respondent to the
request is no longer required in the instant case, it therefore becomes
unnecessary to dwell on the issue of the propriety of an answer that is
not under oath. Even assuming that a response to the request is needed,
private respondent had already substantially complied with the
requirement
of the law when she specifically denied the material allegations of the
petitioner in her Manifestation and Reply to the Request for Admission.
Although not under oath the reply to the request readily showed that
the
intent of private respondent was to deny the matters set forth in the
Request
for Admission. That the reply is not under oath is merely a formal and
not a substantive defect. This procedural lapse may be dispensed with
if
the circumstances call for the dispensing of the rule in the interest
of
justice. While we commend petitioner's zeal in promoting faithful
adherence
to the rules of procedure we cannot ignore the well-entrenched doctrine
that all pleadings should be liberally construed as to do substantial
justice.[16]
There being
genuine issues of fact between the
private parties, public respondents correctly denied the motion of
petitioner
for summary judgment. Where facts pleaded by the parties are disputed
or
contested proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of
trial.[17]
Trial courts have limited authority to render summary judgments and may
do so only when there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material
fact.[18]
Verily, there is a need to determine by presentation of evidence if
respondent
is really liable for the stolen articles and for violating its contract
for security services with petitioner. Until these issues are
determined
no legal compensation can take place between the parties. This factual
dispute can only be resolved by trying the case on the merits, a
process
which need not take long to conclude.[19]
WHEREFORE,
finding no reversible error committed
by the respondent Court of Appeals, as well as by the Regional Trial
Court
of Cebu, the instant petition is DENIED and the records of this case
are
remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. Costs
against
petitioner.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Padilla, Vitug,
Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.cralaw:red
________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Presided over by Judge Priscila S. Agana, RTC-Br. 24, Cebu City.
[2]
Id., p. 67.
[3]
Id., p. 70.
[4]
Id., p. 73.
[5]
CA Decision penned by Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria with Justices
Emeterio
C. Cui and Fermin A. Martin Jr. concurring.
[6]
Id., p. 43.
[7]
Id., pp. 8, 43.
[8]
Manifestation and Reply to Request for Admission, Rollo, p. 70.
[9]
No. L-34341, August 22, 1988.
[10]
G.R. No. 101682, December 14, 1992.
[11]
See Note 9.
[12]
Rollo, p. 47.
[13]
No. L-14495, 29 September 1962.
[14]
See Notes 9 and 10.
[15]
Ibid.
[16]Sec. 6, Rule 7, Rules of Court.
[17]
Archipelago Builders v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 75282,
February
19, 1991, 194 SCRA 207, 212, citing the cases of Auman v. Estenzo., No.
L-40500, 27 February 1976, 69 SCRA 524; Lorenzo v. Estenzo, No. L-3306,
29 October 1976, 73 SCRA 630; Viajar v. Estenzo, No. L-45321, 30 April
1979, 89 SCRA 684.
[18]
Ibid.
[19]
Ibid. |