CONCRETE AGGREGATES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. PRISCILA S. AGANA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU CITY, BRANCH 24, AND VIVIEN S. SORIGUEZ, RE…

Concrete Aggregates versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review filed by Concrete Aggregates Corporation against the Court of Appeals, a regional trial court judge, and Vivien Soriguez, who provided security services to the corporation's Cebu plant. The corporation sought to compel the security provider to admit certain matters through a Request for Admission, and when she responded without placing her reply under oath, the corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing that her failure to swear to her denials amounted to an implied admission. The case matters because it clarifies the proper office of Rule 26 on requests for admission, distinguishing it from a mere repetition of pleadings, and it teaches when a procedural defect in a response may be excused in the interest of substantial justice.

Procedural History

The security provider, Vivien Soriguez, filed a complaint for collection of unpaid fees before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 24, presided over by Judge Priscila Agana. The corporation answered, raising affirmative defenses and a counterclaim based on alleged set-off for losses from a theft at its plant. The corporation then sent a Request for Admission, to which the security provider filed a Manifestation and Reply that was not under oath. The corporation moved for summary judgment, contending that the unsworn reply was ineffectual and that the matters in the request were impliedly admitted. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the circumstances warranted a relaxation of the rules in the interest of justice and that genuine factual issues required a full hearing. The corporation's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. The corporation then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals in a special civil action for certiorari, but the appellate court denied the petition for lack of merit. Hence, the corporation filed the present petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Sometime in October 1990, Concrete Aggregates Corporation engaged the services of Vivien Soriguez, doing business as 101 Security and Detective Services, for its Cebu plant site in Tuyan, Naga, Cebu. On 8 November 1991, the corporation terminated the security services, alleging dissatisfaction because Soriguez failed to prevent and promptly investigate a theft that had occurred at the plant site.

On 6 October 1992, Soriguez instituted an action for collection of unpaid fees for her security services. She also claimed that the termination was unlawful and sought moral damages. The corporation contended that its refusal to pay was justified because Soriguez was answerable for the losses from the theft, and it asserted a legal set-off or compensation between the unpaid fees and the value of the stolen articles.

On 30 August 1993, the corporation sent Soriguez a Request for Admission asking her to admit her responsibility for the theft that occurred on 5 June 1991. Soriguez, through counsel, filed a Manifestation and Reply to the Request for Admission, but it was not under oath. The corporation then moved for summary judgment, arguing that Soriguez had impliedly admitted the matters in the request by failing to respond under oath as required by the Rules. Soriguez countered that her reply, though unsworn, effectively denied the matters set forth in the request.

Issues

• Whether or not a party may be considered to have impliedly admitted the matters set forth in a Request for Admission when her response thereto was not placed under oath.
• Whether or not a Request for Admission that merely reproduces or reiterates the allegations already contained in the requesting party's answer falls under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not summary judgment is proper where there exist genuine issues of fact between the parties.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, as invoked by the petitioner, provides:

Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion and notice, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.

This provision is the basis of the petitioner's claim that the unsworn reply amounted to an implied admission of the matters in the request.

Section 6, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, cited by the Court on the liberal construction of pleadings, provides:

All pleadings shall be liberally construed so as to do substantial justice.

This provision supports the Court's holding that the lack of an oath is a mere formal defect that may be excused in the interest of justice.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the security provider could not be deemed to have impliedly admitted the matters in the request. Even assuming that a response was needed, she had substantially complied with the law when she specifically denied the material allegations in her Manifestation and Reply. The Court ruled that the lack of an oath is merely a formal and not a substantive defect, which may be dispensed with if the circumstances call for it in the interest of justice. The Court emphasized the well-entrenched doctrine that all pleadings should be liberally construed so as to do substantial justice.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Request for Admission did not fall under Rule 26. Rule 26, as a mode of discovery, contemplates interrogatories that would clarify and shed light on the truth or falsity of the allegations in a pleading. It does not refer to a mere reiteration of what has already been alleged in the pleadings. The Court found that the petitioner merely recopied or reproduced in its Request for Admission its affirmative defenses and counterclaims already alleged in its Answer. Quoting its earlier rulings, the Court stated:

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.

The Court added that a party should not be made to deny matters already averred in his complaint, and that 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 whose purpose is to establish said party's cause of action or defense. Since the answer to the request was no longer required, it became unnecessary to dwell on the propriety of an unsworn answer.

On the third issue, the Court held that summary judgment was properly denied because there were genuine issues of fact between the parties. Where the facts pleaded are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial. The Court noted that there was a need to determine by presentation of evidence whether the security provider was really liable for the stolen articles and for violating its contract, and until these issues were determined, no legal compensation could take place between the parties.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain the following rules. First, a request for admission under Rule 26 is a mode of discovery intended to clarify and shed light on the truth or falsity of the allegations in a pleading; it is not meant to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations already contained in the requesting party's pleading. Second, 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, nor be made to deny matters already averred in his complaint. Third, the lack of an oath in a response to a request for admission is merely a formal and not a substantive defect, which may be dispensed with in the interest of justice, consistent with the rule that all pleadings shall be liberally construed so as to do substantial justice. Fourth, summary judgment is proper only when there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact; where the facts pleaded are disputed or contested, a trial on the merits is necessary.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, and remanded the records to the court of origin for further proceedings, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a request for admission cannot be used to compel a party to admit what is already admitted in the pleadings or to deny what is already denied, and that an unsworn response is a mere formal defect excusable in the interest of substantial justice. Examiners like to use this case to test the scope of Rule 26 discovery and the liberal construction of procedural rules.