Anda di halaman 1dari 2

PRISCILLA SUSAN PO

v.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
HON. JUDGE JULIAN
LUSTRE and JOSE P.
MANANZAN

FACTS:

Petitioner Priscilla Susan Po (Po) filed a complaint for damages against


Respondent Jose P. Mananzan (Mananzan), the operator of a banca service at
Pagsanjan Falls, for the accidental capsizing of the banca. Petitioner Po and
her friend was riding on the way back to town. Upon the filing of Respondent
Mananzan’s answer, Petitioner Po served a Request for Admission and upon
delay in answering such, the latter moved for summary judgment. Respondent
Mananzan opposed the summary judgment and subsequently answered the
Request for Admission. The trial court denied the Motion for Summary
Judgment on the ground that the interrogatories are reiterations of the
allegations in the complaint which were already answered and denied by
Respondent Mananzan, hence, the present petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that Respondent Mananzan need
not answer the Request for Admission served upon him by Petitioner Po

HELD:

Petition DENIED.

An examination of Petitioner Po's complaint and her request for admission


confirms the trial court's finding (which the Court of Appeals upheld) that the
"fact" 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."