Who Can Answer a Request for Admission? Rule 26 and Legal Representation

In litigation, the rules on discovery help parties narrow the issues and speed up trial. One common discovery tool is the request for admission, where a party asks another to admit or deny certain facts. A recurring question is whether the party must personally answer, or whether counsel may do so on the client's behalf. In Lañada v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 102390, February 1, 2002), the Supreme Court settled this point.

The Case Behind the Question

The case arose from a tragic accident during a strike at a Nestle Philippines factory in Laguna. A truck leaving the compound lost control, struck a car driven by Dr. Vied Vemir Garcia Hemedez, and dragged it until the car overturned. Dr. Hemedez was pinned underneath. Despite pleas from his family, the truck's cargo was not unloaded for about two hours. He died shortly after being extricated.

His parents, the spouses Hemedez, sued Nestle, its employee Francis Santos, truck owner Jesus Alimagno, driver Pacifico Galasao, and PC/Capt. Rey Lañada for damages. During the proceedings, the Hemedez spouses served the defendants a request for admission. The defendants, through their respective counsel, filed verified answers to the request.

The Hemedez spouses moved to strike out those answers, arguing that under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, the parties themselves—not their lawyers—must personally answer. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court then took up the consolidated petitions.

The Issue: Must the Party Personally Answer?

The sole question was whether a counsel may answer a request for admission addressed to a party under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative.

The Court interpreted the rule's reference to the party to whom the request is directed. It refused to construe this restrictively to mean only the party personally. Citing its earlier ruling in PSCFC Financial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Court noted that attorneys are presumed authorized to represent their clients, and they have authority to bind clients in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure under Section 23, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Why Counsel May Answer

The Court reasoned that requiring a party to personally answer would negate the principles of agency in the Civil Code and the rules on attorney authority. It also observed that, in that case, there was no showing that the defendants did not authorize their counsel to file the answers in their behalf.

The Court also noted a practical point: the matters in the request for admission were the same as the ultimate facts already alleged in the complaint, which the defendants had already answered. Citing Po v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that a party should not be compelled to admit matters already admitted in a pleading, nor be required to make a second denial of matters already denied. A request for admission is not meant to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of a pleading; otherwise, it becomes "pointless, useless," and "a mere redundancy."

The Timeliness of the Motion for Reconsideration

A collateral issue involved whether the Hemedez spouses' omnibus motion for reconsideration was filed out of time. The petitioners argued it should have been filed within 15 days under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. The Court disagreed, holding that the 15-day period applies only to "final orders," not interlocutory ones. The order denying the motion to strike out answers did not finally dispose of the case, so the motion was timely.

Practical Takeaways

• Counsel may answer a request for admission for a client. The party need not personally sign the response, as long as it is made through counsel in the ordinary course of representation.
• A request for admission should not merely repeat the complaint's allegations. It should seek relevant evidentiary matters that help establish a cause of action or defense, not force a party to re-admit what is already in the pleadings.
• Specific denials are required. A party who cannot admit or deny a matter must set forth in detail the reasons why, leaving the matter controverted for trial.
• Interlocutory orders are not subject to the 15-day appeal period. The period for appeal applies only to final orders that dispose of the case on the merits.
• Sanctions for non-compliance rest on judicial discretion. Courts examine the circumstances of each case to determine whether a response is a specific denial, always aiming for expeditious justice.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.