Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case 1
Case 1
DUQUE,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. ENRICO BONIFACIO and DRA. EDNA
BONIFACIO,
FACTS :
Petitioner Duque filed a complaint1 before the RTC of Valenzuela alleging
that: respondents spouses Enrico and Edna Bonifacio negotiated with her
certain checks in exchange for cash in the total amount of Two Hundred
Seventy Thousand Pesos (P270,000.00); respondents represented themselves
to be holders in due course and for value and claimed that the checks were
sufficiently funded; upon presentation of the checks on their respective dates
of maturity, the same were dishonored; petitioner Duque gave notice of
dishonor to the respondents; and this notwithstanding and despite repeated
demands, respondents refused and continued to refuse to honor said checks
or replace it with cash.2
xxx
ISSUE :
(1) whether or not the failure of the private respondents to respond to
the request for admission by the petitioners is tantamount to an
implied admission under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 26 of the Rules of
Court; and (2) whether or not there was personal service of the
request on private respondents.
HELD :
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 party20 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.
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 admissions 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.21However, if
the request for admission only serves to delay the proceeding by
abetting redundancy in the pleadings, the intended purpose for the rule
will certainly be defeated.22
SO ORDERED.