Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Doque Vs Valenzuela
Doque Vs Valenzuela
Facts:
Petitioner Duque filed a complaint in RTC Valenzuela alleging
that: (1) respondents negotiated with her checks in exchange
for cash for P270K; (2) they represented themselves as
holders in due course and for value and claimed that the
checks were funded; (3) upon presentation of the checks on
maturity, they were dishonored; despite notice of dishonor
and repeated demands, respondents refused to honor the
checks or replace it with cash. Petitioner Valenzuela alleged
same circumstances in her complaint where the the amount
involved is P432K.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the failure of respondents to respond to the
request for admission tantamount to an implied admission
under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 26. [NO. They were already
specifically denied in the Answer]
2. Whether or not there was personal service of the request
on respondents. [NO]
Ruling:
I.
Parties Arguments
As to the first issue, petitioners claim that the Court of Appeals
erred when it totally disregarded Sections 1 and 2, Rule 26
because the RTC correctly held that there was an implied
admission by the private respondents of the allegations in the
request for admission upon their failure to admit or deny the
matters in the request;[16] that respondents cannot ignore
their request for admission since it contained relevant
evidentiary matters of facts for the purpose of establishing
their cause of action or defense;[17] and that the answer of
respondents did not deny under oath the truth and
genuineness of the actionable documents attached to the
complaint.[18]
The prevailing rule in 1988 at the time when the request for
admission was made is Rule 26 of the Revised Rules of Court,
which provides:
Sec. 1. Request for admission --- At any time after issues have been
joined, a party may serve upon any other party[20] a written request for
the 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 in the request. Copies of the
documents shall be delivered with the request unless copies have
already been furnished.
The general rule as provided for under Section 2 of Rule 27 (now Section
2, Rule 13) of the Rules of Court is that all notices must be served upon
counsel and not upon the party. This is so because the attorney of a party
is the agent of the party and is the one responsible for the conduct of the
case in all its procedural aspects; hence, notice to counsel is notice to
party. The purpose of the rule is obviously to maintain a uniform
procedure calculated to place in competent hands the orderly
prosecution of a partys case (Chainani vs. Judge Tancinco, G.R. No.
L-4782, Feb. 29, 1952; Capili v. Badelles, G.R. No. L-17786, Sept. 29,
1962). However, the general rule cannot apply where the law expressly
provides that notice must be served upon a definite person. In such
cases, service must be made directly upon the person mentioned in the
law and upon no other in order that the notice be valid. [30]