Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 112 views

    Priscilla Susan Po v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Judge Julian Lustre and Jose P. Mananzan

    Uploaded by

    Jong Perraren
    Petitioner Priscilla Susan Po filed a lawsuit against Respondent Jose P. Mananzan for damages from an accidental boat capsizing at Pagsanjan Falls. Po served a Request for Admission on Mananzan after he filed his answer denying the allegations. The trial court denied Po's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Request for Admission restated what was already answered in Mananzan's response. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision, agreeing that a party should not have to re-admit or re-deny matters already addressed in their initial pleading.

    Copyright:

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

    Priscilla Susan Po v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Judge Julian Lustre and Jose P. Mananzan

    Uploaded by

    Jong Perraren
    112 views2 pages
    Petitioner Priscilla Susan Po filed a lawsuit against Respondent Jose P. Mananzan for damages from an accidental boat capsizing at Pagsanjan Falls. Po served a Request for Admission on Mananzan after he filed his answer denying the allegations. The trial court denied Po's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Request for Admission restated what was already answered in Mananzan's response. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision, agreeing that a party should not have to re-admit or re-deny matters already addressed in their initial pleading.

    Original Description:

    CIVPRO

    Original Title

    case 3

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner Priscilla Susan Po filed a lawsuit against Respondent Jose P. Mananzan for damages from an accidental boat capsizing at Pagsanjan Falls. Po served a Request for Admission on Mananzan after he filed his answer denying the allegations. The trial court denied Po's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Request for Admission restated what was already answered in Mananzan's response. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision, agreeing that a party should not have to re-admit or re-deny matters already addressed in their initial pleading.

    Copyright:

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

    Priscilla Susan Po v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Judge Julian Lustre and Jose P. Mananzan

    Uploaded by

    Jong Perraren
    Petitioner Priscilla Susan Po filed a lawsuit against Respondent Jose P. Mananzan for damages from an accidental boat capsizing at Pagsanjan Falls. Po served a Request for Admission on Mananzan after he filed his answer denying the allegations. The trial court denied Po's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Request for Admission restated what was already answered in Mananzan's response. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision, agreeing that a party should not have to re-admit or re-deny matters already addressed in their initial pleading.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    PRISCILLA SUSAN PO

    v.
    HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
    HON. JUDGE JULIAN
    LUSTRE and JOSE P.
    MANANZAN

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Priscilla Susan Po (Po) filed a complaint for damages against


    Respondent Jose P. Mananzan (Mananzan), the operator of a banca service at
    Pagsanjan Falls, for the accidental capsizing of the banca. Petitioner Po and
    her friend was riding on the way back to town. Upon the filing of Respondent
    Mananzan’s answer, Petitioner Po served a Request for Admission and upon
    delay in answering such, the latter moved for summary judgment. Respondent
    Mananzan opposed the summary judgment and subsequently answered the
    Request for Admission. The trial court denied the Motion for Summary
    Judgment on the ground that the interrogatories are reiterations of the
    allegations in the complaint which were already answered and denied by
    Respondent Mananzan, hence, the present petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that Respondent Mananzan need
    not answer the Request for Admission served upon him by Petitioner Po

    HELD:

    Petition DENIED.

    An examination of Petitioner Po's complaint and her request for admission


    confirms the trial court's finding (which the Court of Appeals upheld) that the
    "fact" set forth in the request for admission, including the amount of damages
    claimed, are the same factual allegations set forth in her complaint which the
    defendant either admitted or denied in his answer.

    A party should not be compelled to admit matters of fact already admitted by


    his pleading and concerning which there is no issue, nor should he be required
    to make a second denial of those already denied in his answer to the complaint.
    A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the
    allegations of the requesting party's pleading but should set forth relevant
    evidentiary matters of fact, or documents described in and exhibited with the
    request, whose purpose is to establish said party's cause of action or defense.
    Unless it serves that purpose, it is, as correctly observed by the Court of
    Appeals, "pointless, useless," and "a mere redundancy."

    You might also like