Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    311 Insular Life V CA

    Uploaded by

    Ton Rivera
    This case involved a request for admission of facts related to a written claim for tax refund filed by petitioners against the City of Manila. The City Treasurer assessed local business taxes that were paid under protest. Petitioners filed a case arguing the taxes were unconstitutional. In response, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss and Answer alleging no written claim was filed. Petitioners then requested the City admit a written claim was filed. The Court held the fact was not deemed admitted because the City had already addressed it in prior pleadings, making the request redundant. Admission by failure to respond does not apply when the matter was already controverted in earlier pleadings. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    311 Insular Life V CA

    Uploaded by

    Ton Rivera
    17 views2 pages
    This case involved a request for admission of facts related to a written claim for tax refund filed by petitioners against the City of Manila. The City Treasurer assessed local business taxes that were paid under protest. Petitioners filed a case arguing the taxes were unconstitutional. In response, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss and Answer alleging no written claim was filed. Petitioners then requested the City admit a written claim was filed. The Court held the fact was not deemed admitted because the City had already addressed it in prior pleadings, making the request redundant. Admission by failure to respond does not apply when the matter was already controverted in earlier pleadings. The petition was denied.

    Original Description:

    daD

    Original Title

    311 Insular Life v CA (125)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a request for admission of facts related to a written claim for tax refund filed by petitioners against the City of Manila. The City Treasurer assessed local business taxes that were paid under protest. Petitioners filed a case arguing the taxes were unconstitutional. In response, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss and Answer alleging no written claim was filed. Petitioners then requested the City admit a written claim was filed. The Court held the fact was not deemed admitted because the City had already addressed it in prior pleadings, making the request redundant. Admission by failure to respond does not apply when the matter was already controverted in earlier pleadings. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    17 views2 pages

    311 Insular Life V CA

    Uploaded by

    Ton Rivera
    This case involved a request for admission of facts related to a written claim for tax refund filed by petitioners against the City of Manila. The City Treasurer assessed local business taxes that were paid under protest. Petitioners filed a case arguing the taxes were unconstitutional. In response, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss and Answer alleging no written claim was filed. Petitioners then requested the City admit a written claim was filed. The Court held the fact was not deemed admitted because the City had already addressed it in prior pleadings, making the request redundant. Admission by failure to respond does not apply when the matter was already controverted in earlier pleadings. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Metro Manila Shopping Mecca Corp.

    v Toledo 306
    GR No. 190818, 05 Jun. 2013, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
    Digested by Janelle Gomedoza • Law 125 – Civil Procedure
    Topic: Admission by adverse party

    Petitioners: MMSMC, SM, SMPH, etc.


    Respondent: City Treasurer Toledo
    Nature of the case: Request for admission of truth of facts set forth in complaint

    Local government provided for local tax in Manila. Payors were assessed who paid under protest but
    question constitutionality. City filed a Motion to Dismiss and Answer alleging that there was no written
    claim. Petitioners then requested for admission of the fact that they submitted a written claim. City did
    not respond. Court held fact is not admitted because already previously answered.

    FACTS
     Toledo as City Treasurer assessed petitioners for 4th Q local business tax pursuant to City
    Ordinance (Revenue Code of Manila)
     Taxes were paid under protest. Subsequently, a case was filed alleging unconstitutionality
    of Sec. 21 of Revenue Code and sought refund
     City filed a Motion to Dismiss and answer. Both averred the lack of a written claim for
    refund which should be filed with Office of City Treasurer
     Petitioners sent a request for admissions to have City admit the fact that a written claim
    was made. City did not respond w/in the period.
     Petitioners argue that the fact should already be deemed admitted.

    ISSUES & HOLDING


    1. WON the fact of a written claim is deemed admitted? NO. already answered in a prior
    pleading. No need to make the same denial again.

    RATIO
    1. The written claim contention was already controverted in the MTD and Answer previously
    filed
     GR: once a party serves a request for admission, the party to whom such is served is
    given 15 days to file a sworn statement answering the same. Should the latter fail to file
    and serve, each of the matters shall be deemed admitted
     XPN: When party to whom such request served had already controverted the matters
    subject of request in an earlier pleading. Cannot be compelled to admit or deny anew.
    Implied admission rule not applicable.
     Concrete Aggregates Corp v CA: not refer to a mere reiteration of what has already been
    alleged, otherwise it constitutes redundancy and will be useless and pointless process.
     Limos v Odones: should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact whose purpose is to
    establish party’s cause of action or defense. Unless it serves that purpose, it is pointless,
    useless, and a mere redundancy
     Applied: fact requested already stated in MTD and Answer. Not deemed to have admitted
    truth and veracity of requested fact

    DISPOSITIVE
    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

    You might also like