Rule 26

ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY

Rule 26 is also known as REQUEST FOR ADMISSION. Admission by adverse party or request for
admission is similar to interrogatories. You send questions to your opponent and he’s bound to answer in writing
within 15 days under oath but the framing of the questions are different.

In a request for admission, you are requiring the opposing party to admit the truth or authenticity of certain
documents. For example: “Do you admit the genuineness of the documents marked as Annex A?” We are talking
here of DOCUMENTS which are NOT ACTIONABLE because if the document is actionable then it has to be
pleaded properly.

In other words, if I have 20 documents, to find out whether you will admit them or not, I will send you a
copy and ask, “Do you admit the genuineness of this? Do you admit the truth?” [secreeet!]

So, the main difference between Rule 26 and Rule 25 is in the framing of the question. If the question is
framed in such a way that the premise is laid down and I ask you whether or not you admit, then the question is
proper under Rule 26. BUT if the question if framed in such a way that it is not answerable by yes or no, then
apply Rule 25.

Example: Suppose my question is like this – “who was with you?” That is proper under Rule 25. Pero sabi
ko, “A and B were with you, admitted?” That is Rule 26. Kaya nga the way the questions were framed
determines what kind of mode of discover are you going to apply.

Section 1. Request for admission. At any time after issues have

been joined, a party may file and serve upon any other party a
written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness
of any material and relevant document described in and exhibited
with the request or of the truth of any material and relevant
matter of fact set forth in the request. Copies of the documents
shall be delivered with the request unless copies have already
been furnished. (1a)

Q: So, what will you request the other party to admit?

A: The genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the
request or of the truth in the request.

Q: When do you apply this mode of discovery?

A: “At anytime after issues have been joined.” Meaning, there is already an answer.

Q: Is LEAVE OF COURT required under Rule 26?

A: It is totally UNNECESSARY but a request for admission under Rule 26 can only be started according to
Section 1, “At any time after issues have been joined.” So it presupposes that there is already an answer. Unlike
in interrogatories, you can do it even before an answer is served provided there is leave of court. This is the
second difference between Rule 25 and Rule 26.

Sec. 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.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to
the court by the party requested within the period for and prior
to the filing of his sworn statement as contemplated in the
preceding paragraph and his compliance therewith shall be deferred
until such objections are resolved, which resolution shall be made
as early as practicable.(2a)

Q: So, if I send to you a request for admission, what is your duty?

A: Within 15 days, you must answer my request under oath, whether admitting or denying my request. Take
note, ‘under oath’ also, parang interrogatories.

Q: Suppose you ignore my request within 15 days. You did not do anything. You did not bother to file any
answer to my request for admission. What is the effect of failure to answer the request?
A: You are deemed to have admitted. There is an implied admission of all the things that I asked you to admit.
Section 2 says, each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed unless you file your
answer to the request. Meaning, if you will not answer my request, under the law, all the matters which I request
you to admit are deemed impliedly admitted. That is the penalty for not bothering to file your reply under Rule
26.

BAR QUESTION : A sends a request for admission to B and B made an admission. However, during the
trial, A did not offer in evidence the answers to the request. Can the court take judicial notice of the answers?
A: Based on THE OLD RULES, it would seem NO because a request for admission is purely an
extrajudicial matter between the parties. But if the same question is asked,
NOW, the answer would be YES, because under the NEW RULES, you are already required to file and
serve. Therefore the court may now take judicial notice because it already forms part of the record.

B A R Q U E S T I O N :

Suppose, I will file a case against you and I will attach to my complaint a Promissory Note – actionable
document. In your answer, you deny the genuineness and due execution of the Promissory Note. Meaning, as a
defense you allege that your signature is forged. There was a proper denial because it was under oath.
After a week, I will now send to you a request for admission under rule 26, where I attach the same
promissory note, and I will ask you, “Do you admit the genuineness and due execution of this promissory
note?” Now, when you receive the request, you ignore it because you already denied the promissory note under
oath in your answer. So you argue, “Why do I have to deny it again under Rule 26 when I already denied it
under Rule 8? There is no need for me to deny it all over again.” I can also argue, “Even if you denied it under
Rule 8, under Rule 26 you are obliged to deny it all over again. Otherwise, you are deemed to have admitted the
genuineness and due execution of the document.” Who is right between the two of us?
ANSWER: There was an old decided case where the SC seemed to imply that even if the matter is already
denied in your pleading, if it is reiterated under Rule 26 (request for admission) it has to be denied all over again
otherwise you’re impliedly admitting it. To my mind, that is already answered in the 1988 case of:

PO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

164 SCRA 668

FACTS: There was an allegation made by the plaintiff in his complaint which allegation was
specifically denied in the answer. Plaintiff asked the same question in a request for admission. Inulit
niya ang tanong and this time the defendant did not answer the request for admission.
Now, under Section 2, if the party as requested to make an admission does not make so within 15
days, the matter requested is deemed admitted - impliedly admitted - that is the penalty.
If you do not want to respond to my request, everything that I requested will be impliedly
admitted. Now, you already denied the allegation in my complaint specifically in your answer, I
repeated it in a request for admission and this time, you failed to respond.
 Now, under Rule 26, the plaintiff can claim, “Well, since you did not respond, then it is already
deemed admitted.” Suppose the other party would say, “No, I already denied that in my answer.
There is no obligation for me to the deny the same all over again under Rule 26.”

ISSUE: Is there a need for another denial in the request for admission?

HELD: NO NEED. When a matter is already effectively denied in the pleading, then there is no
need to ask it all over again. In other words, what has already been denied is denied and therefore you
cannot say that for failure to deny it is already deemed admitted.
“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 pointless, useless, and a mere redundancy.”

If we have to answer the same question under the ruling in PO, it would seem that the defendant is correct.
Why do I have to deny, if I have already denied it? So, there is no implied admission.

Sec. 3. Effect of admission. Any admission made by a party

pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the pending action
only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other
purpose nor may the same be used against him in any other
proceeding.(3)

Section 3 is for the purpose of evidence. An admission made by a party pursuant to a request for admission
in only good for that case. It cannot be used in any other case or proceeding. It limits therefore the effectivity of
an admission. It is only valid for the pending case.

Sec. 4. Withdrawal. The court may allow the party making an

admission under this Rule, whether express or implied, to withdraw
or amend it upon such terms as may be just. (4)

Admissions made, expressly or impliedly (failure or refusal to respond) are nevertheless binding.

Q: Is the party admitting allowed to withdraw, change or amend his previous admissions?
A: YES, but with leave of court.

Sec. 5. Effect of failure to file and serve request for

admission. Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good cause
shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party who fails to
file and serve a request for admission on the adverse party of
material and relevant facts at issue which are, or ought to be,
within the personal knowledge of the latter, shall not be
permitted to present evidence on such facts. (n)

This is one of the more controversial sections in the new Rules. This is a mandatory mode of discovery. “A
party who FAILS to FILE and SERVE a request for admission on the adverse party of material and relevant
facts in issue which are or ought to be within the personal knowledge of the latter shall not be permitted to
present evidence on such facts.” This is A VERY HARSH RULE – a new rule which again shows the intention
of the law to compel the lawyers to avail of the modes of discovery.

An example of the section: Let’s assume that there is a fact which I want to prove and I know that you know
but I do not know whether you’ll admit it or not. Under the rules, I have to send you a request for admission to
confirm it.

Suppose I do not send you a request because anyway there are very few lawyers who do that. So, I did not
send a request and then during the trial, I will just try to prove it. Then the adverse party says, “Teka muna, what
are you trying to prove? You should have sent me a request for admission.” And then you say that you forgot to
send one.

So, the adverse party here objects because he argues that I cannot present evidence to prove something which
he could have admitted in a request for admission. This is something which the party could have admitted had I
resorted to a request for admission under Rule 26, and since I did not, then he can now prevent me from proving
it.

Hence, this is a very dangerous provision. Though, we still have to see a judge applying this rule because it is
practically placing the other party in estoppel. Basically the argument will go like this:

NASTY MACK: “Why did you not send me a request for admission? Had you sent me, I would
have easily admitted that but since you did not, then I will bar you form proving
it.” (practically every fact aimed to be proved can be objected to
BEN-DEATHA: “How could I have known what facts you will admit and not admit?”
NASTY MACK: “Precisely, that is why you should have sent me a copy, STUPID!”

See how dangerous this provision is? I can bar you from proving anything simply because you failed to avail
of the modes of discovery. This was not found in the Old Rules.

Generally, matters which are objectionable should be pushed by the party concerned or affected. That is
because it is for his benefit. I do not think it involves public policy that’s why even if you invoke it, the court may
still refuse to apply it. Look at the opening of the first paragraph: “Unless otherwise allowed by the court for
good cause and to prevent a failure of justice.” So that’s an exception.

So, even if you are correct, the judge may say that it’s too much. Even if you invoke it, the judge may still say
that there will be failure of justice if he will apply it. With more reason, no judge will use it if you will not invoke
it. It is practically barring the party from proving his case. That is why even if you invoke this, judges are very
careful not to apply this. So, you have to invoke this at least, to call the attention of the judge though the judge
may still refuse because there might be a failure of justice.

The only purpose I see for these is to compel the parties and lawyers to avail of the Modes of Discovery.

Let’s go to some interesting cases on request for admission.

REBONERIA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

216 SCRA 627 [1992]

FACTS: A request for admission was sent by a party (Plaintiff) to the lawyer of the defendant
(because anyway, under Rule 13, the general rule is that everything should be coursed through the
lawyer) So, the request was sent to the lawyer. Since there was no response, can there be an implied
admission?

HELD: NONE. In a request for admission, since we are questioning the party, we should address
it to him, and not to the lawyer. A request for admission should be served upon the party, not his
counsel. The general rule under Rule 13 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 for the notice to be valid.

But the case of REBONIA should not be confused with the case of

PSCFC FINANCING CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

 216 SCRA 838 [1992]

FACTS : A request for admission was sent to a party. The party told his lawyer to answer the
request. So, it was the lawyer who answered the request for admission under oath.

ISSUE: Was there an effective answer or reply to the request for admission as it was the lawyer
who made the reply ?

HELD : YES, because under the Rules, a client can always act through the lawyer and he is
bound by the actuations of his lawyer. This is practically the rule on Agency. If we will say that the
lawyer has no authority even if ordered by the client , then we are altering the Rules on Agency and
also the rule that the lawyer can always act in behalf of his client.
And assuming that a lawyer is not authorized to make the complaint, then why is the adverse party
the one complaining? It is the client who has the authority to impugn the acts of his lawyer and not the
adverse party. Timang!!

Principles to remember in the case of REBONERIA and PSCFC:

A request must be directed to the party whose admission is sought. Service of request to any other person is
not a valid request at all.

A request must always be directed to the party whose admission is sought, but the latter may delegate to his
lawyer the right to answer the request. Such is valid so long as there is a valid authorization.

<

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 26 – Admission by

2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for Adverse Party
errors>

PAGE

PAGE 27
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law