G.R. No. L-7063; March 29, 1955
MOTOR SERVICE CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Motor Service Co., Inc., filed a complaint to recover from the defendants, Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc. and Felipe Monserrat, the sum of P1,842.55, plus 12% interest per annum and 25% of the amount as attorney’s fees. The complaint alleged that the defendant company maintained an open account with the plaintiff for the purchase of automobile spare parts on credit, that an outstanding balance was due and long overdue, and that defendant Monserrat had jointly and severally assumed the obligation. The defendants, in their answer, admitted the corporate existence of the parties and the purchase of parts, but specifically denied the correctness of the itemized statement and invoices, alleging they were still checking their correctness, and denied that the account was overdue or that they refused to pay. The plaintiff then served a request for admission, asking the defendants to admit the truth and correctness of the itemized statement, the invoices, and the stipulation regarding 12% interest and 25% attorney’s fees. The defendants failed to serve any sworn statement in response to this request within the ten-day period. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the defendants’ silence on the request for admission amounted to an implied acceptance of the facts, making the claim undisputed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment based on the defendants’ failure to respond to the request for admission under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, the trial court’s decision is affirmed. Under Section 2 of Rule 23, each matter in a request for admission is deemed admitted unless the party served serves a sworn statement specifically denying the matters or detailing why they cannot truthfully admit or deny them within the designated period. This rule applies even if an answer has already been filed. The defendants’ failure to respond to the request for admission resulted in a deemed admission of all material facts therein, including the correctness of the account and the stipulation for interest and attorney’s fees. The denials in the defendants’ answer were not absolute but conditional on their checking the records, and a reasonable time had elapsed between the filing of the answer and the service of the request. Furthermore, the motion for summary judgment was not fatally defective for lack of supporting affidavits, as the defendants’ deemed admissions from the request constituted a matter of record that could properly support the motion. The purpose of the rule on requests for admission is to shorten litigation by defining the genuine issues.