G.R. No. 106094 December 28, 1992
PSCFC FINANCIAL CORPORATION (NEW PSCFC BUSINESS CORPORATION), petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. HERMINIO I. BENITO, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 132, Makati, Metro Manila, NOTARY PUBLIC ENRIQUE I. QUIASON, and BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS & MORTGAGE BANK, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner PSCFC filed a complaint against respondent Banco Filipino for annulment of foreclosure proceedings and damages. PSCFC alleged it obtained a “developer loan” under Banco Filipino’s Home Financing Plan, secured by a mortgage on several lots. The loan was to mature only after the lots were subdivided, improved, and sold to third parties who would then be substituted as mortgagors. However, Banco Filipino extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage on September 25, 1987, before any lots were sold. In its answer, Banco Filipino admitted the loan but denied the loan was under the Home Financing Plan, asserting it fell due one year from date and was properly foreclosed upon default. Petitioner served a written request for admission on Banco Filipino. The response was signed by its counsel, Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun. Petitioner made a second request for admission, objecting that the first reply was made by counsel who lacked personal knowledge of the matters. Petitioner moved the trial court to deem the matters in the second request impliedly admitted because the answer was made by a lawyer not qualified to do so. The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled against petitioner.
ISSUE
Whether a request for admission directed to an adverse party under Sec. 1, Rule 26, of the Rules of Court may be answered only by his counsel.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the argument that only the party himself, and not his lawyer, may answer a request for admission is untenable. An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears under Section 21, Rule 138. Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure under Section 23, Rule 138. Thus, Rule 26 should not be restrictively construed to mean a party may not engage counsel to make the response on his behalf. To hold otherwise would negate principles of agency and the rules on an attorney’s authority. Furthermore, even assuming counsel overstepped his authority, only his client has the prerogative to impugn his acts, not the adverse party. The Court also required petitioner’s counsel to show cause for misquoting a decision to support her position.