Spouses Villuga v. Kelly Hardware, G.R. No.

176570, July 18, 2012

Facts:
On March 3, 1995, herein respondent filed with the RTC of Bacoor, Cavite a Complaint for a Sum of Money
and Damages against herein petitioners alleging as follows:
xxxx
(3) During the period of November 19, 1992 to January 5, 1993, defendants [herein petitioners] made purchases
of various construction materials from plaintiff corporation [herein respondent] in the sum of P259,809.50,
which has not been paid up to the present time, both principal and stipulated interests due thereon.
(4) Plaintiff made several demands, oral and written, for the same defendants to pay all their obligations due
plaintiff herein, but defendants fail and refuse to comply with, despite demands made upon them, to the damage
and prejudice of plaintiff.
In their Answer to Complaint, petitioners admitted having made purchases from respondent, but alleged that
they do not remember the exact amount thereof as no copy of the documents evidencing the purchases were
attached to the complaint. Petitioners, nonetheless, claimed that they have made payments to the respondent on
March 4, 1994 and August 9, 1994 in the amounts of P110,301.80 and P20,000.00, respectively, and they are
willing to pay the balance of their indebtedness after deducting the payments made and after verification of their
account.
In a Manifestation dated July 18, 1995, petitioners stated that in order to buy peace, they were willing to pay
respondent the principal sum of P259,809.50, but without interests and costs, and on installment basis. In its
Counter Manifestation,6 respondent signified that it was amenable to petitioners' offer to pay the principal
amount of P259,809.50. However, respondent insisted that petitioners should also pay interests, as well as
litigation expenses and attorney's fees, and all incidental expenses.
Subsequently, on August 11, 1995, respondent filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings contending
that petitioners were deemed to have admitted in their Answer that they owed respondent the amount of
P259,809.50 when they claimed that they made partial payments amounting to P130,301.80. Based on this
premise, respondent prayed that it be awarded the remaining balance of P129,507.70. Petitioners filed their
Opposition8 to the said Motion.
On September 11, 1995, the RTC issued an Order deferring resolution of respondent's Motion for Partial
Judgment on the ground that there is no clear and specific admission on the part of petitioners as to the actual
amount that they owe respondent. On January 30, 1996, respondent filed an Amended Complaint, with leave of
court, alleging that between October 1992 until January 5, 1993, petitioners purchased from it (respondent)
various construction materials and supplies, the aggregate value of which is P279,809.50; that only P20,000.00
had been paid leaving a balance of P259,809.50.
In their Answer to Amended Complaint, petitioners reiterated their allegations in their Answer to Complaint.
On January 24, 1997, respondent filed its Second Amended Complaint, again with leave of court. The
amendment modified the period covered by the complaint. Instead of October 1992 to January 5, 1993, it was
changed to July 29, 1992 until August 10, 1994. The amendment also confirmed petitioners' partial payment in
the sum of P110,301.80 but alleged that this payment was applied to other obligations which petitioners owe
respondent. Respondent reiterated its allegation that, despite petitioners' partial payment, the principal amount
which petitioners owe remains P259,809.50.

On September 4, 1997, respondent filed a Motion to Expunge with Motion for Summary Judgment17 claiming
that petitioners' Comments on respondent's Request for Admission is a mere scrap of paper as it was signed by
petitioners' counsel and not by petitioners themselves and that it was filed beyond the period allowed by the
Rules of Court. Respondent goes on to assert that petitioners, in effect, were deemed to have impliedly admitted
the matters subject of the said request. Respondent also contended that it is already entitled to the issuance of a
summary judgment in its favor as petitioners not only failed to tender a genuine issue as to any material fact but
also did not raise any special defenses, which could possibly relate to any factual issue.
In their Opposition to Motion to Expunge with Motion for Summary Judgment, petitioners argued that
respondent's request for admission is fatally defective, because it did not indicate or specify a period within
which to answer; that verification by petitioners' counsel is sufficient compliance with the Rules of Court; that
petitioners' request for admission should be deemed dispensed with and no longer taken into account as it only
relates to the Amended Complaint, which was already abandoned when the Second Amended Complaint was
filed; and that summary judgment is improper and without legal basis, as there exists a genuine controversy
brought about by petitioners' specific denials and defenses.
The RTC issued an Order granting the Motion to Expunge with Motion for Summary Judgment.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the RTC.
Petitioners filed an appeal with the CA.
On November 30, 2006, the CA rendered its presently assailed Decision, affirming the September 28, 1998 and
May 6, 1999 Orders of the RTC. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CA
via its Resolution dated February 8, 2007.
Issues:
THE HONORABLE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS'
(PETITIONERS) COMMENT AND RULED THAT THERE WAS IMPLIED ADMISSION CONTAINED IN
THE REQUEST.
THERE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTSAPPELLANTS (PETITIONERS).
Held:
In their first assigned error, petitioners insist in arguing that respondent waived its Request for Admission when
it filed its Second Amended Complaint; that all motions or requests based on the complaint, which was
amended, should no longer be considered. Petitioners also contend that the Request for Admission was not in
the form specified by the Rules of Court as it did not specify a period within which to reply as required by
Section 1, Rule 26 of the same Rules.
As to the second assignment of error, petitioners aver that the summary judgment issued by the RTC is improper
and without legal bases, considering that genuine issues were raised in the pleadings filed by petitioners.
The petition lacks merit.
The Court agrees with the CA in holding that respondent's Second Amended Complaint supersedes only its
Amended Complaint and nothing more.

Sec. 8. Effect of amended pleading. An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However,
admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader; and claims or defenses
alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived.
This Court has ruled that if the factual allegations in the complaint are the very same allegations set forth in the
request for admission and have already been specifically denied, the required party cannot be compelled to deny
them anew. A request for admission that merely reiterates the allegations in an earlier pleading is inappropriate
under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, which 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 the pleading. Rule 26 does not refer to a
mere reiteration of what has already been alleged in the pleadings. Nonetheless, consistent with the
abovementioned Rule, the party being requested should file an objection to the effect that the request for
admission is improper and that there is no longer any need to deny anew the allegations contained therein
considering that these matters have already been previously denied.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court finds that the CA was correct in sustaining the summary judgment
rendered by the RTC.
Sections 1 and 3, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court provide as follows: Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant.
A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at
any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or
admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof. Section 3. Motion and proceedings
thereon. The motion shall be served at least ten (10) days before the time specified for the hearing. The
adverse party may serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions at least three (3) days before the
hearing. After the hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting
affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless
delays.25 Such judgment is generally based on the facts proven summarily by affidavits, depositions, pleadings,
or admissions of the parties.
In this respect, the Court's ruling in Nocom v. Camerino, is instructive, to wit:
x x x When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules of Court
allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment, that is, when the facts are not in dispute,
the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the law to the material facts. Conversely, where
the pleadings tender a genuine issue, summary judgment is not proper. A genuine issue" is such issue of fact
which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim.
Section 3 of [Rule 35 of the Rules of Court] provides two (2) requisites for summary judgment to be proper: (1)
there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the amount of damages; and (2) the party
presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary
judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment is proper if, while the pleadings on their face appear to raise
issues, the affidavits, depositions, and admissions presented by the moving party show that such issues are not
genuine.
In the present case, it bears to note that in its original Complaint, as well as in its Amended Complaint,
respondent did not allege as to how petitioners' partial payments of P110,301.80 and P20,000.00 were applied to
the latter's obligations. In fact, there is no allegation or admission whatsoever in the said Complaint and
Amended Complaint that such partial payments were made. Petitioners, on the other hand, were consistent in
raising their affirmative defense of partial payment in their Answer to the Complaint and Answer to Amended

Complaint. Having pleaded a valid defense, petitioners, at this point, were deemed to have raised genuine issues
of fact.
On the basis of the foregoing, petitioners' defense of partial payment in their Answer to Second Amended
Complaint, in effect, no longer raised genuine issues of fact that require presentation of evidence in a full-blown
trial. Hence, the summary judgment of the RTC in favor of respondent is proper.