MANZANO v.

DESPABILADERAS (IC) made additional payments to petitioner via two checks (one in the amount
December 16,2004 | Carpio Morales, J. | Deposition of P43,069.00 and the other in the amount of P14,000.00).
Flow of the case: (RTC - CA - SC), if not applicable, write n/a 5. Petitioner filed his Reply and Answer to Counterclaim alleging, inter alia,
that the two checks represented payment for past obligations other than that
PETITIONER: Roger Manzano subject of the case.
RESPONDENTS: Luz Despabiladeras 6. Branch 36 of the Iriga Regional Trial Court (the trial court) later granted
petitioner’s "Motion to Establish and Enforce Plaintiff’s Supplier’s Lien"
SUMMARY: Despabiladeras obtained a credit from Manzano to fund her and accordingly ordered the President of the CSPC "to retain the sum
construction project at Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges. Manzano delivered of P201,711.74 from the final payment due to the defendant . . . pending
around P300k worth of construction materials payable with 8% monthly interest. final resolution of this case
Since Despabiladeras was only able to pay P130k, Manzano filed a collection suit in 7. As required by the trial court, petitioner filed a bond in the amount
RTC Iriga City. At the pretrial, the parties AGREED that Manzano will submit an of P50,000.00 to answer for any damages arising from the grant and
OFFER TO STIPULATE, which will contain an itemized list of construction enforcement of supplier’s lien
materials delivered to Despabiladeras and for the latter to comment and object 8. Issues having been joined, the case was set for pre-trial
thereto. Instead of submitting an offer to stipulate, Manzano filed a request for 9. After the pre-trial, the trial judge issued the following order
admission on Oct 24 1990, requesting that Despabiladeras admit that Manzano 1. At this pre-trial conference, there is no dispute that the plaintiff
delivered construction materials as itemized in Annex A and that only P130k was delivered and defendant received certain construction materials but
paid. Despabiladeras did not respond to the request for admission. The RTC granted the defendant does not agree on the cost claimed by the
the motion for partial summary judgment of Manzano, ruling in favor of the latter plaintiff. Wherefore, it is mutually agreed that the plaintiff
and finding that Despabiladeras’s failure to respond to the request for admission shall submit an offer to stipulate showing an itemized list of
resulted in admission of such matters. The CA reversed the RTC and ruled in favor construction materials delivered to the defendant together with the
of Despabiladeras, finding that the failure of the latter to respond to the request for cost claimed by the plaintiff within fifteen (15) days furnishing
admission was due to the agreement of the parties during the pretrial to submit an copy thereof to the defendant who will state her objections if
offer to stipulate. Issue: WON Despabiladeras’s failure to respond to the request for any, or comment therein within the same period of time.
admission resulted inadmission of such matters. Held: YES. Request for admission is 10. Instead of submitting "an offer to stipulate," petitioner filed on October 24,
a remedy available to the parties after the issues have been joined. Thus, Manzano 1990 a "Request for Admission" asking respondent to admit within 15 days
may avail of this remedy notwithstanding the fact that there was an agreement to from receipt the following
submit an offer to stipulate. Failure to respond to a request for admission will result 1. That on the specific dates set forth in Annexes A, A-1 and A-2
in the admission of matters requested therein. hereof, plaintiff delivered to and defendant received the various
items particularly described in said annexes duly covered by the
invoices respectively set forth therein;
FACTS: 2. That of the total amount of P314,610.50 representing the value of
1. In 1989, during the months of August and September, respondent Luz the goods described in Annexes A, A-1 and A-2, plaintiff has paid
Despabiladeras obtained on credit from petitioner Roger Manzano various only P130,000.00. (Underscoring supplied)
construction materials which she used in her construction project at the 11. No response to the Request for Admission was proffered by respondent
Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges (CSPC). until in the course of the trial of the case or on April 8, 1991, respondent
2. By petitioner’s claim, he delivered to respondent during above-said period a filed a list of items admitted to have been delivered and those not admitted,
total of P307,140.50 worth of construction materials payable upon noting therein that "Deliveries admitted do not bear the actual price agreed
respondent’s initial collection from CSPC, to bear 8% monthly interest until [upon] or the specifications requested," which filing the trial court noted in
fully paid. its order of even date.
3. Respondent having paid the amount of only P130,000.00 exclusive of 12. Petitioner later filed a Motion for Partial Judgment and Execution alleging
interest, despite receipt of payments from CSPC, petitioner filed on April 6, that "substantial justice would be served if partial judgment would issue (on
1990 a complaint against her for sum of money with damages before the the pleadings) in respect to those items admitted to have been received by
Regional Trial Court of Iriga City [respondent]" and attaching as Annex "A" a list prepared by petitioner
4. In her Answer with Counterclaim, respondent alleged that petitioner had containing the items (with the corresponding prices) admitted to have been
substantially altered the prices of the construction materials delivered to received by the respondent.
her; and that in addition to the P130,000.00 she had paid petitioner, she had
13. At the hearing conducted on August 2, 1991, petitioner’s wife, Ederlinda K. appellant should have been prevented by the Court from presenting
Manzano, testified that in addition to the P130,000.00, she and petitioner evidence contradicting such admissions.
also received P97,000.00 which came, upon agreement of the parties, from 18. Hence, petitioner’s present petition for review on certiorari.
the "retention lien" of the CSPC.
14. On February 21, 1994, the trial court issued the following order: ISSUE/s:
1. Considering that the defendant, up to this time ha[s]  not answered 1. WON an unanswered request for admission results in the matters in sucfh
under oath the request for admission, dated October 23, 1990, as request being deemed admitted? YES
prayed for by the counsel for the plaintiff, the facts requested to be
admitted are hereby confirmed. RULING: SC reversed the CA and reinstated the RTC. Petitioner won.
2. The plaintiff then presented the last witness, Ederlinda K.
Manzano, whose direct testimony was completed. x x x After the RATIO:
testimony of the witness, the counsel for the plaintiff formally 1. Petitioner contends that when respondent failed to deny under oath the truth
offered Exhibits A to E and submarkings which were all admitted. of the material facts subject of petitioner’s Request for Admission, she is
After the admission of the documentary exhibits, the plaintiff deemed to have admitted them that he delivered to her, and she received
rested his case. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) various construction materials costing a total of P314,610.50, P130,000.00
15. At the reception of evidence for the defense, respondent offered of which had been partially paid
documentary evidence including two cleared checks payable to petitioner, 2. Petitioner further contends:
one dated August 10, 1989 in the amount of P43,069.00, and another dated 1. That the appellate court committed a reversible error "when it
August 12, 1989 in the amount of P14,200.00. As reflected in petitioner’s considered that the agreement in the October 2, 1990 pre-trial and
Reply and Answer to Counterclaim, the receipt of the checks was admitted the request for admission dated October 23, 1990 refer to one and
but it was claimed that they represented payment for previous accounts, not the same thing;"
for respondent’s account subject of the present case. 2. that "even the trial court on November 15, 1990 20 required
16. By Decision13 of July 7, 1997, the trial court found for petitioner respondent to file her comment on the request for admission,
1. Despite receipt of said request for admission, defendant [which] comment is understood to mean the comment as required
did not answer the same, under oath, consequently, defendant is by Rule 26 which should be under oath even the same is not stated
deemed to have admitted that plaintiff delivered to her and she in the pre-trial order of November 15, 1990 because the trial court
received the goods delivered with the total value of  P314,610.50 does not have any discretion to amend or repeal Rule 26 and its
and that of the said total amount, she has paid only P130,000.00. effects;
17. By Decision16 of March 31, 2000, the Court of Appeals set aside that of the 3. that the list of items submitted by respondent "is not in keeping
trial court and dismissed petitioner’s complaint with what is required by Rule 26 and therefore cannot be
1. If at all there was failure by the appellant to file a sworn statement considered as compliance to said Rule;"
denying the request for admission, it was precisely because of the 4. and that "the fact that despite the admission by respondent of the
agreement by the parties during the pre-trial period that the matters contained in the request for admission, the trial court
appellant would only file a comment, which she did by submitting allowed said respondent to present her evidence that even tended to
a list of items, either admitting receipt of construction materials or contradict her previous admission does not deprive the trial court
denying receipt thereof. Necessarily, the appellant could not have in the appreciation of evidence submitted prior to the rendition of
impliedly admitted the facts mentioned in the request for the decision to disregard the evidence presented by respondent for
admission.  being inconsistent [with] and immaterial [to] her previous
2. The Court even required the appellee to present evidence on the admission by virtue of her failure to respond the request for
"matters" mentioned in the request for admission, or on the issue admission pursuant to Rule 26."
concerning payment and the balance of the indebtedness. Aside 3. Petitioner’s arguments are impressed with merit.
from that, the appellee was even allowed to present evidence on 4. At the commencement on April 6, 1990 of the action, the prevailing rule,
rebuttal. This is not to mention the fact that documents showing Rule 26 of the 1964 Rules of Court, Sections 1 and 2 of which were
payments, other than the P130,000.00, were admitted by the substantially reproduced in the present Rules, provides:
Court. If indeed the unpaid balance was admitted, supposedly 1. SECTION 1. Request for admission. – At any time after issues
because of denial of the request for admission, then, necessarily the have been joined, a party may serve upon any other party a written
 request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of 13.
relevant documents described in and exhibited with the request 1.
or of the truth of any material and 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.
2. 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 ten (10) days after service thereof, or within such
further time as the court may allow on motion and notice,
the party to whom the request is directed 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.
3. Objections on the ground of irrelevancy or impropriety of the
matter requested shall be promptly submitted to the court for
resolution.
5. The agreement of the parties during the pre-trial conference of October 2,
1990, as reflected in the pre-trial order of even date, was that "the
[petitioner] shall submit an offer to stipulate showing an itemized list of
construction materials delivered to the [respondent] together with the cost
claimed by the [petitioner] within fifteen (15) days[,] furnishing copy
thereof to the [respondent] who will state her objections if any, or comment
there[o]n within the same period of time." In substantial compliance with
said agreement, petitioner chose to instead file a request for admission, a
remedy afforded by a party under Rule 26.
6. The above-quoted Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 26 should not be disregarded, as
in fact the trial court did not, when it ordered respondent to file comment
thereon, just because the parties mutually agreed that petitioner submit "an
offer to stipulate." For, as stated earlier, the request for admission is a
remedy afforded any party after the issues had been joined.
7. Respondent having failed to discharge what is incumbent upon her under
Rule 26, that is, to deny under oath the facts bearing on the main issue
contained in the "Request for Admission," she was deemed to have admitted
that she received the construction materials, the cost of which was indicated
in the request and was indebted to petitioner in the amount of P184,610.50
(P314,610.50 less the partial payment of P130,000.00).
8. During the trial, however, petitioner admitted that aside from
the P130,000.00 partial payment, he had received a total of P122,000.00
(P97,000.00 plus P25,000.00). Respondent thus had a remaining balance
of P62,610.50.
9.
10.
11.
12.