l\.epuhlic of tbe !

lbilippinei
~upreme QCourt
. ;!fmanila
'?,.

THIRD DIVISION

SPOUSES RAMON VILLUGA and

MERCEDITA VILLUGA,
Petitioners,

-versus-

~'.

KELLY
HARDWARE
AND
CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC.,
represented by ERNESTO V. YU,
Executive
Vice-President and
General Manager,
Respondent.

GR. No. 176570

Present:

VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,

PERALTA,
ABAD,
MENDOZA, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

.
1

Promulgated:
18 July 2012

x-------------------,-----------------------------------------------------------------~~
DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 and
2

Resolution dated November 30, 2006 and February 8, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 69001. The CA Decision affirmed the
Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacoor, Cavite, Branch 89,
dated September 28, 1998 and May 6, 1999, while theCA Resolution denied
petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.

Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Emico
A. Lanzanas, concurring; Annex "A" to Petition, rolla, pp. 31-53.
2
Annex "B" to Petition, rolla, pp. 54-56."

/111

Decision

-2-

G.R. No. 176570

The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:

On March 3, 1995, herein respondent filed with the RTC of Bacoor,

Cavite a Complaint for a Sum of Money and Damages against herein
petitioners alleging as follows:
xxxx
(3) During the period of November 19, 1992 to January 5, 1993,
defendants [herein petitioners] made purchases of various construction
materials from plaintiff corporation [herein respondent] in the sum of
P259,809.50, which has not been paid up to the present time, both
principal and stipulated interests due thereon.
(4) Plaintiff made several demands, oral and written, for the same
defendants to pay all their obligations due plaintiff herein, but defendants
fail and refuse to comply with, despite demands made upon them, to the
damage and prejudice of plaintiff.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff and
against defendants by ordering defendants to pay the sum of:
(1) P259,809.50 as principal obligation due plaintiff,
plus interest due thereon at 14% interest per annum, until
all sums due are paid in full.
(2) P64,952.38 by way of reimbursements of
attorney's fees plus P500.00 appearance fee in court.
(3) P26,000.00 for litigation and other related
expenses.
And to pay the cost of suit.3

In their Answer to Complaint,4 petitioners admitted having made

purchases from respondent, but alleged that they do not remember the exact
amount thereof as no copy of the documents evidencing the purchases were
attached to the complaint. Petitioners, nonetheless, claimed that they have
made payments to the respondent on March 4, 1994 and August 9, 1994 in
the amounts of P110,301.80 and P20,000.00, respectively, and they are
3
4

Records, pp. 1-2.

Id. at 9-10.

Decision

-3-

G.R. No. 176570

willing to pay the balance of their indebtedness after deducting the payments
made and after verification of their account.
In a Manifestation5 dated July 18, 1995, petitioners stated that in
order to buy peace, they were willing to pay respondent the principal sum of
P259,809.50, but without interests and costs, and on installment basis.
In its Counter Manifestation,6 respondent signified that it was
amenable to petitioners' offer to pay the principal amount of P259,809.50.
However, respondent insisted that petitioners should also pay interests, as
well as litigation expenses and attorney's fees, and all incidental expenses.

Subsequently, on August 11, 1995, respondent filed a Motion for

Partial Judgment on the Pleadings7 contending that petitioners were deemed
to have admitted in their Answer that they owed respondent the amount of
P259,809.50 when they claimed that they made partial payments amounting
to P130,301.80. Based on this premise, respondent prayed that it be awarded
the remaining balance of P129,507.70. Petitioners filed their Opposition8 to
the said Motion.
On September 11, 1995, the RTC issued an Order9 deferring
resolution of respondent's Motion for Partial Judgment on the ground that
there is no clear and specific admission on the part of petitioners as to the
actual amount that they owe respondent.
On January 30, 1996, respondent filed an Amended Complaint,10 with
leave of court, alleging that between October 1992 until January 5, 1993,
petitioners purchased from it (respondent) various construction materials and
5
6
7
8
9
10

Id. at 49.
Id. at 47-48.
Id. at 51-52.
Id. at 57-58.
Id. at 60.
Id. at 83-86.

Decision

-4-

G.R. No. 176570

supplies, the aggregate value of which is P279,809.50; that only P20,000.00

had been paid leaving a balance of P259,809.50.
In their Answer to Amended Complaint,11 petitioners reiterated their
allegations in their Answer to Complaint.
On March 8, 1996, respondent filed a Request for Admission12 asking
that petitioners admit the genuineness of various documents, such as
statements of accounts, delivery receipts, invoices and demand letter
attached thereto as well as the truth of the allegations set forth therein.
Respondent basically asked petitioners to admit that the latter's principal
obligation is P279,809.50 and that only P20,000.00 was paid.
On June 3, 1996, respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion13
before the RTC praying that since petitioners failed to timely file their
comment to the Request for Admission, they be considered to have admitted
the genuineness of the documents described in and exhibited with the said
Request as well as the truth of the matters of fact set forth therein, in
accordance with the Rules of Court.

On June 6, 1996, petitioners filed their Comments on the Request for

Admission14 stating their objections to the admission of the documents
attached to the Request.

On January 24, 1997, respondent filed its Second Amended

Complaint,15 again with leave of court. The amendment modified the period
covered by the complaint. Instead of October 1992 to January 5, 1993, it was
changed to July 29, 1992 until August 10, 1994. The amendment also
11
12
13
14
15

Id. at 87-88.
Id. at 91-92.
Id. at 108-109.
Id. at 112-113.
Id. at 138-142.

Decision

-5-

G.R. No. 176570

confirmed petitioners' partial payment in the sum of P110,301.80 but alleged

that this payment was applied to other obligations which petitioners owe
respondent. Respondent reiterated its allegation that, despite petitioners'
partial payment, the principal amount which petitioners owe remains
P259,809.50.
Petitioners filed their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint16
denying the allegations therein and insisting that they have made partial
payments.

On September 4, 1997, respondent filed a Motion to Expunge with

Motion for Summary Judgment17 claiming that petitioners' Comments on
respondent's Request for Admission is a mere scrap of paper as it was signed
by petitioners' counsel and not by petitioners themselves and that it was filed
beyond the period allowed by the Rules of Court. Respondent goes on to
assert that petitioners, in effect, were deemed to have impliedly admitted the
matters subject of the said request. Respondent also contended that it is
already entitled to the issuance of a summary judgment in its favor as
petitioners not only failed to tender a genuine issue as to any material fact
but also did not raise any special defenses, which could possibly relate to
any factual issue.

In their Opposition to Motion to Expunge with Motion for Summary

Judgment,18 petitioners argued that respondent's request for admission is
fatally defective, because it did not indicate or specify a period within which
to answer; that verification by petitioners' counsel is sufficient compliance
with the Rules of Court; that petitioners' request for admission should be
deemed dispensed with and no longer taken into account as it only relates to
the Amended Complaint, which was already abandoned when the Second
16
17
18

Id. at 152-153.
Id. at 195-206.
Id. at 209-214.

Decision

-6-

G.R. No. 176570

Amended Complaint was filed; and that summary judgment is improper and
without legal basis, as there exists a genuine controversy brought about by
petitioners' specific denials and defenses.

On September 28, 1998, the RTC issued an Order, the dispositive

portion of which reads as follows:
ACCORDINGLY, plaintiff's [herein respondent's] Motion to
Expunge with Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
Defendants' [Petitioners'] Comments on the Request for
Admission dated 04 June 1996 is hereby expunged from the record for
being contrary to the Rules of Court.
Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against
the defendants as follows:
Defendants are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and
severally, plaintiff the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTYNINE [THOUSAND] EIGHT HUNDRED NINE PESOS
and 50/100 (P259,809.50), with legal interest due thereon
until the whole amount is paid.
SO ORDERED.19

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by

the RTC in its Order dated May 6, 1999.

Unyielding, petitioners filed an appeal with the CA.

On November 30, 2006, the CA rendered its presently assailed

Decision, affirming the September 28, 1998 and May 6, 1999 Orders of the
RTC.

Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied by

the CA via its Resolution dated February 8, 2007.

19

Id. at 239.

Decision

-7-

G.R. No. 176570

Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari raising the

following issues:
THE HONORABLE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS' (PETITIONERS) COMMENT AND
RULED THAT THERE WAS IMPLIED ADMISSION CONTAINED IN
THE REQUEST.
THERE SHOULD NOT
JUDGMENT
AGAINST
20
(PETITIONERS).

HAVE BEEN A SUMMARY

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

In their first assigned error, petitioners insist in arguing that

respondent waived its Request for Admission when it filed its Second
Amended Complaint; that all motions or requests based on the complaint,
which was amended, should no longer be considered. Petitioners also
contend that the Request for Admission was not in the form specified by the
Rules of Court as it did not specify a period within which to reply as
required by Section 1, Rule 26 of the same Rules.

As to the second assignment of error, petitioners aver that the

summary judgment issued by the RTC is improper and without legal bases,
considering that genuine issues were raised in the pleadings filed by
petitioners.

The petition lacks merit.

The Court agrees with the CA in holding that respondent's Second

Amended Complaint supersedes only its Amended Complaint and nothing
more.

Section 8, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court provides:

20

Rollo, p. 18.

Decision

-8-

G.R. No. 176570

Sec. 8. Effect of amended pleading. An amended pleading

supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in
superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader; and
claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended
pleading shall be deemed waived.

From the foregoing, it is clear that respondent's Request for Admission

is not deemed abandoned or withdrawn by the filing of the Second Amended
Complaint.

The Court also finds no error when the CA ruled that petitioners'
Comments on the Request for Admission was filed out of time, and quotes
with approval the disquisition of the appellate court on this matter, to wit:
x x x Pursuant to the above-quoted Section 2 of Rule 26 of the Rules of
Court, the party to whom the request is directed must respond to the
request within a period of not less than ten (10) days after the service
thereof, or upon such further time the Court may allow on motion. In the
instant case, the plaintiff-appellee's [herein respondent's] Request failed
to designate any period for the filing of the defendants-appellants' [herein
petitioners'] response. Neither did the trial court fix the period for the same
upon motion of the parties. However, such failure to designate does not
automatically mean that the filing or the service of an answer or comment
to the Request would be left to the whims and caprices of defendantsappellants. It must be reiterated that one of the main objectives of Rule 26
is [to] expedite the trial of the case (Duque vs. Court of Appeals, 383,
SCRA 520, 527 [2002]). Thus, it is also provided in the second paragraph
of Section 2 of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court that [o]bjections on the
ground of irrelevancy or impropriety of the matter requested shall be
promptly submitted to the court for resolution.21

Nonetheless, the Court takes exception to the ruling of the CA that by

reason of the belated filing of petitioners' Comments on the Request for
Admission, they are deemed to have impliedly admitted that they are
indebted to respondent in the amount of P259,809.50.

A careful examination of the said Request for Admission shows that

the matters of fact set forth therein are simply a reiteration of respondent's
main allegation in its Amended Complaint and that petitioners had already
21

See CA Decision, p. 16; rollo, p. 47.

Decision

-9-

G.R. No. 176570

set up the affirmative defense of partial payment with respect to the above
allegation in their previous pleadings.

This Court has 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, the required party cannot be compelled to
deny them anew.22 A request for admission that merely reiterates the
allegations in an earlier pleading is inappropriate under Rule 26 of the Rules
of Court, which as a mode of discovery, contemplates of interrogatories that
would clarify and tend to shed light on the truth or falsity of the allegations
in the pleading.23 Rule 26 does not refer to a mere reiteration of what has
already been alleged in the pleadings.24 Nonetheless, consistent with the
abovementioned Rule, the party being requested should file an objection to
the effect that the request for admission is improper and that there is no
longer any need to deny anew the allegations contained therein considering
that these matters have already been previously denied.

The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court finds that the CA was

correct in sustaining the summary judgment rendered by the RTC.

Sections 1 and 3, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court provide as follows:

Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. A party seeking to
recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a
declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has
been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions
for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof.
Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. The motion shall be
served at least ten (10) days before the time specified for the hearing. The
adverse party may serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions at
least three (3) days before the hearing. After the hearing, the judgment
sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits,
22

See Limos v. Odones, G.R. No. 186979, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 288, 298.
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 153034, September 20, 2005,
470 SCRA 317, 323-324.
24
Id. Note that the subject Request for Admission was filed on March 8, 1996, prior to the
amendment of the Rules of Court which took effect on July 1, 1997.
23

Decision

- 10 -

G.R. No. 176570

depositions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of

damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid

long drawn out litigations and useless delays.25 Such judgment is generally
based on the facts proven summarily by affidavits, depositions, pleadings, or
admissions of the parties.26
In this respect, the Court's ruling in Nocom v. Camerino,27 is
instructive, to wit:
x x x When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of
fact to be tried, the Rules of Court allow a party to obtain immediate relief
by way of summary judgment, that is, when the facts are not in dispute,
the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the law to
the material facts. Conversely, where the pleadings tender a genuine issue,
summary judgment is not proper. A genuine issue" is such issue of fact
which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham,
fictitious, contrived or false claim. Section 3 of [Rule 35 of the Rules of
Court] provides two (2) requisites for summary judgment to be proper: (1)
there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the
amount of damages; and (2) the party presenting the motion for summary
judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary
judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and a moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A
summary judgment is proper if, while the pleadings on their face appear to
raise issues, the affidavits, depositions, and admissions presented by the
moving party show that such issues are not genuine.28

In the present case, it bears to note that in its original Complaint, as

well as in its Amended Complaint, respondent did not allege as to how
petitioners' partial payments of P110,301.80 and P20,000.00 were applied to
the latter's obligations. In fact, there is no allegation or admission
whatsoever in the said Complaint and Amended Complaint that such partial
payments were made. Petitioners, on the other hand, were consistent in
raising their affirmative defense of partial payment in their Answer to the
25

Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) v. Marc Properties Corporation, G.R. No. 173128,
February 15, 2012.
26
Gubat v. National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 167415, February 26, 2010, 613 SCRA 742, 756.
27
G.R. No. 182984, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 390.
28
Id. at 409-410.

Decision

- 11 -

G.R. No. 176570

Complaint and Answer to Amended Complaint. Having pleaded a valid

defense, petitioners, at this point, were deemed to have raised genuine issues
of fact.

The

situation

became

different,

however,

when

respondent

subsequently filed its Second Amended Complaint admitting therein that

petitioners, indeed, made partial payments of P110,301.80 and P20,000.00.
Nonetheless, respondent accounted for such payments by alleging that these
were applied to petitioners' obligations which are separate and distinct from
the sum of P259,809.50 being sought in the complaint. This allegation was
not refuted by petitioners in their Answer to Second Amended Complaint.
Rather, they simply insisted on their defense of partial payment while
claiming lack of knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of
respondent's allegation that they still owe the amount of P259,809.50 despite
their payments of P110,301.80 and P20,000.00. It is settled that the rule
authorizing an answer to the effect that the defendant has no knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an averment and
giving such answer the effect of a denial, does not apply where the fact as to
which want of knowledge is asserted, is so plainly and necessarily within the
defendants knowledge that his averment of ignorance must be palpably
untrue.29 In the instant case, it is difficult to believe that petitioners do not
know how their payment was applied. Instead of denying knowledge,
petitioners could have easily asserted that their payments of P110,301.80 and
P20,000.00 were applied to, and should have been deducted from, the sum
sought to be recovered by respondent, but they did not, leading the court to
no other conclusion than that these payments were indeed applied to their
other debts to respondent leaving an outstanding obligation of P259,809.50.

On the basis of the foregoing, petitioners' defense of partial payment

in their Answer to Second Amended Complaint, in effect, no longer raised
29

717.

Philippine Bank of Communications v. Go, G.R. No. 175514, February 14, 2011, 693 SCRA 642,

Decision

- 12-

GR. No. 176570

genuine issues of fact that require presentation of evidence in a full-blown

trial. Hence, the summary judgment of the RTC in favor of respondent is
proper.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition Is DENIED. The assailed

Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

J. VELASCO, JR.
A ociate Justice
Chairperson

ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice

JOSE

CA~NDOZA
As,:oWa~ f~~ice

lA~.,~~

ESTELA M: 'J}ERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

. PRESBITER J. VELASCO, JR.

As ciate Justice
Chairp son, Third Division

Decision

- 13 -

GR. No. 176570

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court's Division .
.

~.

'

Senior Associate Justice

(Per Section 12, R.A. 296,
Tlie Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)

~~r

..