532

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

ANNOTATION
ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY: ONE PROCEDURAL
ROAD LESS TRAVELLED
By
*
ROGELIO E SUBONG
_______________
1. Introduction, p. 533
II. Modes of Discovery, p. 534
III. Sanctions for Refusal to Comply with Modes
of Discovery, p. 537
IV. Nature and Rationale, p. 538
a) Definition, p. 538
b Nature, p. 539
c) Rationale, p. 540
V. Modes of Discovery in the U.S. and in the
Philippines, p. 541
a) In American jurisdiction, p. 541
i. Maryland doctor, p. 541
ii. Filipino seaman, p. 542
b) In Philippine jurisdiction, p. 543
VI. Some Pertinent Cases on Modes of Discovery,
p. 543

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

b) Uy Chao vs. De la Rama Steamship Co., Inc., 116
Phil. 392 (1962), p. 545
c) Bay View Hotel, Inc. vs. Ker & Co., Ltd., 116 SCRA
327 (1982), p. 547
d) Po vs. CA, 164 SCRA 668 (1988), p. 549
e) Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212 (1991),
p. 550
f) 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

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

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

p. 554
VII. Admission by Adverse Party, p. 555
a)

The Codal provision, p. 555

i. Two (2) matters for admission, p. 555
ii. Request must now be filed with the court, p. 556
b) Nature of Admission by Adverse Party, p. 556
i. It is not actually a form of discovery, p. 556
ii. Request for admission cannot be used for fishing
expedition, p. 557
c) Rationale of the Rule on Admission of Adverse
Parties, p. 557

VIII. Forms of Request for Admission, p. 558

IX. The Case Under Annotation, F. Duque vs. CA,
G.R. No. 125383 Prom. July 2, 2002 &
Companion Case, p. 559

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

supra and Briboneria vs. CA, supra, p. 560
b) Liberal grant of this Mode did not prevail, p. 561
X. A Procedural Road Less Travelled, p. 561
a) A seeming disinclination to resort to Modes of
Discovery, p. 561
b) Possible reasons, p. 562
XI. 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

534

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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.

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 extrajudicial or partytoparty 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 noncomplying party
may suffer. Let us enumerate them:
1. Rule 23 is titled Depositions Pending Action and
Rule 24 is titled: Deposition Before Action or
Pending AppealThey pertain to the taking of
depositions during pendency and on appeal. Depo
535

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002

535

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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

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 outofcourt 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 to
purpose: 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 latters own witnesses.
(Dasmarinas Garments Inc. vs. Reyes, 225 SCRA 622
(1993).
2. Rule 25 is titled: Interrogatories to PartiesThis
pertains to partytoparty request for answers to
written queries after Answer is filed. Under the
conditions 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

536

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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 court
order. 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
toparty 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]).
3. Rule 26 titled Admission by Adverse PartyThis
pertains to another partytoparty 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.
4) Rule 27 titled: Production or Inspection of
Documents or ThingsThis pertains to the
request of a partylitigant to ask the aid of the court
in which the action is pending to issue an order, a)

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

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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.
5) Rule 28 titled: Physical and Mental Examination
of PersonThis 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 catchall 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 physical
injuries 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 courtappointed. Since this
is an outofcourt process and initiated by a party,
authorities are of the view that the physician shall
be chosen by movant.

 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 extrajudicial process there are
corresponding sanctions under Rule 29.
a) 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
b) 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

538

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

counsel may be assessed expenses for securing the

order and attorneys fees
c) The refusal of the party or witness to be sworn or to
answer questions during deposition taking may
constitute contempt of court
d) Under Rule 26, Sec. 2, there shall be implied
admission for failure or refusal to deny under oath
the genuineness of documents and the matters
covered by the Request for Admission within the
specified period after service thereof
e) 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

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 Bouviers Law Dictionary,
p. 882). About a similar definition comes from Blacks Law
Dictionary: Discovery. In a general sense, the
ascertainment of that which was previously unknown, the
disclosure 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 partylitigant 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

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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 antitrust complaint against Microsoft,

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 allow
them 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 the
opportunity 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 soldiers
and 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

540

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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.

A truce is no victory.
c) Rationale
In any case, with the expected discoveries from the modes
or processes mainly availed of extrajudicially, 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 see
the 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 and
presenting 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. 334335)
541

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002

541

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

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

Philippines
a) In American jurisdiction

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 1950s 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) wheels
left. A suit was immediately filed by the car owner against
the owner of the van, the doctor. The carowner 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

542

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

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 the
accident 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 pointbypoint replies to all these queries. Defendants
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.
Plaintiffs 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 an
otherwise protracted and expensive suit (for the Filipino
seaman) for damages was literally abbreviated and settled.
543

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002

543

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

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 as
to 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 purposesbut as distracting preliminaries to
that crucial admission. In other words, deposition appears
to 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 17day
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 timeconsuming extrajudicial skirmishes that
may be also covered during trial.

544

544

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

Then of the few cases involving modes of discovery, there is

a 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
courtsto 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

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

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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 persons
affairsa 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 the
Constitution.
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

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)year
prescription period has been interrupted by debt
moratorium statutes passed after the war.
546

546

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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 the
hearing 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

effect that the defendants 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 is
that 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,

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

548

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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 the
request 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

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 to
amendment 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

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less Travelled

mere amendment of a pleading would constitute a dangerous and

undesirable precedent. The legal effects of plaintiffappellants
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

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 found
that 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. Petitioners request constitutes an
utter 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 partys pleading but should set forth
relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or
550

550

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less Travelled

documents described in and exhibited with the request, whose

purpose is to establish said partys 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 .

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 and
Santiago 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 pretrial,
hence, unnecessary defendants already knew of these
documents as they were already described in the pretrial
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

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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 and
even 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 themwhich is a great
pity for the intelligent and adequate use of the deposition
discovery mechanism, coupled with pretrial 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

detre 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 the
trial. 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 issuefully 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

rules of pleading and evidence, from also presenting all the

facts within his knowledge.
552

552

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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 2429. The experience in other
jurisdictions has been that ample discovery before trial
under proper regulation, accomplished one of the most
necessary 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 the
depositiondiscovery 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

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

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

After the issues were joined, plaintiff served a Request for

Admission under Rule 26 addressed to defendants 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 hardearned 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 petitioners request for
admission had been admitted, denied and/or clarified in
their 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 flipflopping 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

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 and
documents 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

554

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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
partylitigant. 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 Court
continued 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 crossclaim against a private individual. In the
course of the proceedings, the defendant under crossclaim
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

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, even
before 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

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less Travelled

gants. Through this procedure, civil trials should not be carried

on 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 the
movant 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:

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 partylitigant 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 joined
556

556

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

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

genuineness of any material and relevant document
described 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 partywithout notice to the court. Now, under the

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 partytoparty process without the court being
aware of it unless some questions arose. Now, it is still a
partytoparty process but the court is made aware of the
request. The reason is obviousbetter 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 timeconsuming and
expensive 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 Less

Travelled

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

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.
xxx
xxx
A request for admissions with respect to documents often
eliminates the necessity for tedious proof of facts constituting the
foundation for
558

558

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less Travelled

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. 418419).

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. 12)
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
partys 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 partys
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 direct
questionnaires 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 form
provided 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

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002

559

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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
2. That each of the following statement is true. (Here the
statements are enumerated)

In American jurisdiction, the phrasing is somewhat

different:
a) 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 these
documents shall be deemed admitted in your do not serve
a response in accordance with that rule on or
before_________. (the documents duly enumerated)
b) 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_______.
i. That . . . . .
ii. 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 courts
ruling, although no answer or a different answer was given by the

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 the
same defendants who are husband and wife for negotiating
with them checks in ex
560

560

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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 setaside 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 settingaside the
ruling of the trial court. The CA holding as affirmed by the
High Court is that the facts sought to be admitted where

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 were
specifically 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

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

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 partys 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 law
specifies 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

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 nonessentials 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 already
done 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 rulings
and guidelines that
562

562

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

should enrich our jurisprudence. If anything, this confirms

the 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 bestseller 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.

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:
1. The strategy goals of modes of discovery appear to be
at crosspurposes with effective trial strategyTo
repeat, 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

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

close to their heart. The modes of discovery

encourage that litigation be not conducted in the
dark. On the other hand, effective trial strategy
encourages lawyers to keep their opponents in the
dark. Now, which should be followed?
2. Litigants are not particularly enthusiastic about
going into an outofcourt processFilipino litigants
and their lawyers are not keen in going through
these preliminary skirmishes through the discovery
process, especially oral depositions and written

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 outofcourt 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 to
rule on objections let alone impose in the
proceedings the solemnity of a judicial court
3. ExpensesWhat makes the Modes of Discovery
unpopular, particularly the taking of deposition is
the added expenses and the additional time spent
for outofcourt 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 outofcourt
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
4. Resort to modes of discovery may be a dryrun for
the trial proper for which the adverse party may
prepareSome 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

564

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

rally prepare. In other words, there is a reluctance

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
5. One of the aims of modes of discovery is to eliminate
surprises, an advantage lawyers are not prepared to
give upAre lawyers ready to give up this
advantage of surprise during trials? Even trial
handbooks are not ready to declare that springing
surprises over an opponent in court is now a nono.
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)

6. Modes of discovery are viewed not as a device for

discovery but as a means of entrapment, fatal
admissions and contradictionsModes of discovery
have been conceived to allow parties to secure
disclosures that would enhance, support, or fortify
their 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

VOL. 383, JULY 2, 2002

565

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

Although this is fair game, the basic office of

discovery takes a back seat
7. There is also the prevailing thinking that the
purpose of some modes of discovery may be achieved
through pretrialSome lawyers think that
through pretrial 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 Pretrial enumerates the
purposes of pretrial 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 question
as to whether PreTrial 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 pretrial
procedure, there is nothing that cannot be done in a
pretrial 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

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

566

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admission by Adverse Party: One Procedural Road Less

Travelled

prohibits a second admission and denial after it was

already done in the Answer.
These modes suffer from conceptual infirmityfor 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 orchids society where they honestly and openly
exchange notes about their plants. They view litigation as a
kind of war where they believe with Sun Tzu in his famous
book on the Art of War, to Attack him (the opponent)
where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected
and These military devices, (or trial strategy as well as
matters and documents in regard to litigation) leading to
victory, must not be divulged before hand. (p. 5). There are
conflicting viewpoints here. As repeatedly pointed out
above, the modes of discovery encourage the laying of cards
on the table whereas effective trial strategy encourages the
keeping of your cards close to your heart, so to speak. And
while the modes also discourage surprises, effective trial
method considers them as an important ingredient of
success in court.
A clear definition and reconciliation of the rationales of
these modes of discovery and effective trial method must be
made. Reorientation as early as during law school is also
necessary so that the seeming conflict between the two may
be reconciled, clarified or explained. Otherwise, all these

exhortations for open and transparent approach to

litigation which in fact had been made as early as 1910 in
the case of Alonzo vs Villamor, supra., shall continue to fall
on deaf ears.
o0o
567

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.