Edith and Rudy were sued by Dominga and Mila for recovery of the sum of P270,000 and P 432,000, respectively. In their respective complaints, Dominga and Mila alleged that: (1) Edith and Rudy conspiring, confederating, aiding and helping each other negotiated with them certain checks in exchange for cash making representations that they were holders in due course and for value and that the attached 25 checks totaling P270,000.00 for Dominga and 40 checks totaling P432,000.00 for Mila were sufficiently funded; (2) Upon presentation of the checks on their respective dates of maturity, the same were dishonored; (3) They gave notice of dishonor to the spouses, but this notwithstanding, and in spite of repeated demands, the spouses refused and failed and continue to refuse and fail to honor said check or replace them with cash.
In their answers to the complaints, Edith and Rudy specifically denied for being devoid of truth: (1) that they personally negotiated with Dominga and Mila the checks annexed in the complaints; (2) that they represented that they are holders in due course and for value of said checks or claimed that the same have sufficient funds; and (3) that all the checks alluded to by Dominga and Mila were drawn or issued by them; and (4) that they refused to honor or replace them with cash after being informed of the dishonor thereof. Furthermore, Edith and Rudy answered that upon learning that the checks were dishonored, they made arrangements for settlement but only for the checks duly issued by them. Finally, the spouses also claimed that "they do not owe that much to either Dominga or Mila.
Prior to the trial on the merits, Dominga and Mila filed in Court a "Request for Admission" asking the spouses to admit three things: first, that the latter negotiated with them for valuable consideration the checks annexed to their respective complaints; second, that Edith signed separate promissory notes acknowledging that she is indebted to Dominga in the sum of P270,000.00 and to Mila in the sum of P432,000.00; and third that they sent letters of demands which were duly received by the couple.
The request for admission was served upon the counsel of the spouses and not to the spouses themselves, and the copies of the promissory notes were not attached to the request despite the fact that the couple were not yet furnished copies of the same.
Edith and Rudy failed to submit a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which the admission was requested or the reasons why they cannot truthfully either deny or admit them. So the lower court, upon motion of Mila and Dominga, considered those matters to have been admitted by the couple, and rendered judgment in favor Dominga and Mila awarding the respective amount of their claims plus legal rate of interest from the filing of their complaints until fully paid.
Was the lower court correct?
No.
The first and third matters sought to be admitted regarding the negotiation of the checks and the sending of the letters of demand were already denied in the answer of the spouses. To require admissions on these points even though they were already denied in the answer would be superfluous. A party should not be compelled to admit matter 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. A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting party’s pleadings but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of facts or documents described in and exhibited in the request whose purpose is to establish said party’s cause of action or defense. Unless it serves that purpose, it is pointless, useless and a mere redundancy.
On the second matter about the promissory notes signed by Edith, the request for admission is defective for failure of Mila and Dominga to attach copies of said notes to the request considering that the couple were not previously furnished copies of the same. A party may 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; and that copies of the document should be delivered with the request unless copies thereof have already been furnished. The request of Mila and Dominga in this case do not show that there was indeed such previous or simultaneous service of said documents on the couple.
So the case should be remanded to the lower court for trial on the merits and for resolution of the case with dispatch (Duque vs. Spouses Bonifacio, Valenzuela vs. Spouses Bonifacio, G.R. 125383, July 2,2002)