Section 2. Implied admission.

— 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, the party to whom the request is directed files and 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.

What is a request for admission?

It is a written request for admission of the

1. the genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and
exhibited with the request; or
2. the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request (Sec.
1, Rule 26, Rules of Court)

● The scope of matters that a party may request the adversary to admit are (1) the genuineness
of any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the request; and (2) the
truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. The rule authorizing a
party to call on the other party to make an admission implies the making of demands for
admission of relevant and material matters of facts and not for admission of matters of law,
conclusions, or opinions. (DBP vs. CA, G.R. No. 153034, September 20, 2005)

What is the purpose of the request for admission?

1. To allow one party to request the adverse in writing to admit certain material and
relevant matters which most likely will not be disputed during the trial.
2. To avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the parties in going through the rigors of
proof, before the trial.

To whom should the request be served?

● The request for admission MUST BE SERVED ON THE PARTY and NOT ON THE
COUNSEL. This is an exception to the general rule that notices shall be served upon counsel
and not upon the party.

● 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. 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. (Duque vs. CA, G.R. No. 125383. July 2, 2002)
What must the party to whom the request is directed do after receipt of the request?

The party to whom the request is directed must file and serve upon the party requesting the
admission a SWORN STATEMENT either -

1. denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested, or

2. setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny
those matters. (Sec. 2, Rule 26, Rules of Court)

When must the sworn statement be filed?

The sworn statement must be filed and served within a period designated in the request, which
shall not be less than 15 days after service thereof, or within such further time as the court may
allow on motion. (Sec. 2, Rule 26, Rules of Court)

What is the effect of non-compliance of the filing and service of the sworn statement?

If the party to whom the written request for admission does not file the required sworn
statement, each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed
admitted (Sec. 2, Rule 26, Rules of Court).

May a party be compelled to admit matters of fact already admitted in his pleading?

We have held in Po v. Court of Appealsthat [a] party should not be compelled to admit matters
of fact already admitted by his pleading and to make a second denial of those already denied in
his answer to the complaint.

The Po doctrine was brought a step further in Concrete Aggregates Co. v. Court of Appeals,
where we 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 or otherwise dealt
with in the answer, a response to the request is no longer required. (DBP vs. CA)

How may the compliance of the filing and service of the sworn statement be deferred?

To avoid the implied admission, the party requested may have the compliance of the filing and
service of the sworn statement deferred. This deferment may be effected by the filing with the
court objections to the request for admission. Compliance shall be deferred until such
objections are resolved by the court (Sec. 2, par. 2, Rule 26, Rules of Court).

PRISCILLA SUSAN PO v. CA
[ GR No. L-34341, Aug 22, 1988 ]

Facts:

17 years after the petitioner Priscilla Susan Po filed a motion for summary judgment In the
damage suit which she filed against the private respondent, her refusal to abide by the trial
court's order and the Appellate Court's resolution denying her motion, has kept her complaint
waiting in the wings to be called for pre-trial. Had she been less intransigent, the case might
have been finished long ago.

The petitioner filed in 1971 a complaint for P35,000 damages against the private respondent
Jose P. Mananzan as operator of a banca service for shooting the rapids at Pagsanjan Falls,
arising from an accidental spill into the water. After Mananzan had answered the complaint,
petitioner served upon him a request for admission.

On February 27, 1971, Mananzan asked for an extension of time to answer the request for
admission. The petitioner opposed the motion for extension of time on account of alleged
defects in the notice of hearing.

Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there exists no genuine or
substantial controversy on any issue of fact raised in the complaint because the defendant, by
failure to answer her request for admission within the reglementary period is deemed to have
admitted the facts set forth in the request.

Mananzan answered the request for admission and sent a copy of the answer to the petitioner.
He filed an opposition to the petitioner's motion for summary judgment.

Respondent Judge Lustre denied the motion for summary judgment, observing that "the
interrogatories x x x are nothing but a reiteration of a portion of the plaintiff's allegations in the
complaint, which have already been answered and denied by the defendant in his answer"
hence, they "need not be answered again if asked in the form of interrogatories."

Issue:

Whether or Not there exists no genuine or substantial controversy on any issue of fact raised in
the complaint by the defendant?
Ruling:

An examination of petitioner's complaint and her request for admission confirms Judge Lustre's
finding that the "facts" set forth in the request for admission, including the amount of damages
claimed, are the same factual allegations set forth in her complaint which the defendant either
admitted or denied in his answer.

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. 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 described in and exhibited with the request,
whose purpose is to establish said party's cause of action or defense. Unless it serves that
purpose, it is, as correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, "pointless, useless," and "a mere
redundancy."

As aptly stated by respondent Judge, Rule 26 contemplates interrogatories that would clarify
and tend to show light on the truth or falsity of the allegations of the complaint, and does not
refer to a mere reiteration of what has been alleged in the complaint and unconditionally denied
in the answer.