Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 281 views

    Diman vs. Alumbres

    Uploaded by

    Russell
    Diman filed a request for admission to the other party, Lacalle, but Lacalle did not respond within the required 10 day period. Diman then filed a motion for summary judgment, but the judge denied it. Diman has now filed a petition for certiorari against the judge's ruling. The issue is whether the motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The ruling found that the motion should have been granted, as Lacalle's failure to respond to the request for admission within the required period resulted in an admission of all the facts listed in the request. The judge abused his discretion in not recognizing this and denying the motion for summary judgment.

    Copyright:

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

    Diman vs. Alumbres

    Uploaded by

    Russell
    281 views1 page
    Diman filed a request for admission to the other party, Lacalle, but Lacalle did not respond within the required 10 day period. Diman then filed a motion for summary judgment, but the judge denied it. Diman has now filed a petition for certiorari against the judge's ruling. The issue is whether the motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The ruling found that the motion should have been granted, as Lacalle's failure to respond to the request for admission within the required period resulted in an admission of all the facts listed in the request. The judge abused his discretion in not recognizing this and denying the motion for summary judgment.

    Original Description:

    ffnhgn

    Original Title

    73. Diman vs. Alumbres

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Diman filed a request for admission to the other party, Lacalle, but Lacalle did not respond within the required 10 day period. Diman then filed a motion for summary judgment, but the judge denied it. Diman has now filed a petition for certiorari against the judge's ruling. The issue is whether the motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The ruling found that the motion should have been granted, as Lacalle's failure to respond to the request for admission within the required period resulted in an admission of all the facts listed in the request. The judge abused his discretion in not recognizing this and denying the motion for summary judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    281 views1 page

    Diman vs. Alumbres

    Uploaded by

    Russell
    Diman filed a request for admission to the other party, Lacalle, but Lacalle did not respond within the required 10 day period. Diman then filed a motion for summary judgment, but the judge denied it. Diman has now filed a petition for certiorari against the judge's ruling. The issue is whether the motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The ruling found that the motion should have been granted, as Lacalle's failure to respond to the request for admission within the required period resulted in an admission of all the facts listed in the request. The judge abused his discretion in not recognizing this and denying the motion for summary judgment.

    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 1

    Diman vs.

    Alumbres

    Facts: Dimans availed of the Modes of Discovery by Requesting for Admission. Said Request
    was received by the other party (Lacalle’s) but despite the period fixed by Sec 2, Rule 26(not less
    than 10 days from service) to respond, none was made. Thus, the Dimans filed a Motion for
    Summary Judgment Judge Alumbres denied the same. Hence, this petition for Certiorari
    against the Judge.

    Issue: Should the Motion for Summary Judgment be granted?

    Ruling: The Motion should have been granted

    It is a grave abuse of discretion for the Court to refuse to recognize and observe the
    effects of that refusal as mandated by law. Particularly as regards request for admission under
    Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, the law ordains that when a party is served with a written request
    that he admits : (1) the genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and
    exhibited with the request, or (2) the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in
    the request, said party is bound within the period designated in the request, to file and serve on
    the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either (denying specifically the matters of
    which an admission is requested or (2) setting forth in details the reasons why he cannot
    truthfully either admit or deny those matters. If the party served does not respond with such
    sworn statement, each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted.

    In this case, the Dimans' request for admission was duly served by registered mail on
    the Lacalle’s and a copy thereof to his lawyers. Neither made any response whatever within the
    reglementary period. Nor did either of them do so even after receiving copy of the Dimans'
    "MANIFESTATION WITH MOTION TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO ANSWER REQUEST FOR
    ADMISSION." On this regard, the Heirs impliedly admitted all the facts listed in the request for
    admission. These plain and simple legal propositions were disregarded by His Honor and he
    should have had granted the Motion for Summary Judgment.

    You might also like