SIME DARBY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V.

NLRC, 510
SCRA 204 (2006)
DOCTRINE: A request for admission is a remedy provided
by Rule 26 ROC, which allows a party to file and serve upon
any other party a written request for the admission of:
(a) the genuineness of any material and relevant
document described in and exhibited with the
request; or
(b) the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact
set forth in the request.
Rule 26 as a mode of discovery contemplates of
interrogatories that would clarify and tend to shed light on
the truth or falsity of the allegations in a pleading. That is its
primary function. It does not refer to a mere reiteration of
what has already been alleged in the pleadings.
FACTS: Sime Darby implemented lockout as result of a
deadlock in the CBA negotiations with Sime Darby
Employees Association (Union)
1. Sime Darby approved the sale of the companys
assets and business operations to Good Year. As
such, the company filed with DOLE a notice of
closure and served notices of termination to all its
employees
2. Petitioners, who were member of the Union, filed an
illegal dismissal case before DOLE
3. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint after
finding that the lockout was valid and legal, and
justified by the incidents of continued work
slowdown, mass absences, etc. NLRC affirmed the
Labor Arbiters decision
4. Petitioners argued that the Labor Arbiter erred when
it failed to consider as admitted the matters
contained in their Request for Admission after
respondents failed to file a sworn answer
ISSUE: WON petitioners Request for Admission should have
been deemed admitted in their favor after Sime Darby failed
to file an objection or sworn reply

HELD: No. A request for admission is a remedy provided by

Rule 26 ROC, which allows a party to file and serve upon any
other party a written request for the admission of:
(c) the genuineness of any material and relevant
document described in and exhibited with the
request; or
(d) the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact
set forth in the request.
Said request must be answered under oath within the period
indicated in the request, otherwise the matters of which
admission were requested should be deemed admitted.
Petitioners claim that respondents, instead of filing an
answer under oath, filed an unsworn reply/objection thereto.
Thus, the admissions should be deemed admitted in their
favor.
Petitioners' Request for Admission does not fall under Rule
26 of the Rules of Court. A review of said Request for
Admission shows that it contained matters which are
precisely the issues in the consolidated cases, and/or
irrelevant matters; for example, the reasons behind the
lockout, the company's motive in the CBA negotiations, lack
of notice of dismissal, the validity of the release and
quitclaim, etc. Rule 26 as a mode of discovery contemplates
of interrogatories that would clarify and tend to shed light
on the truth or falsity of the allegations in a pleading. That is
its primary function. It does not refer to a mere reiteration of
what has already been alleged in the pleadings.
Otherwise stated, petitioner's request constitutes "an utter
redundancy and a useless, pointless process which the
respondent should not be subjected to." The rule on
admission as a mode of discovery is intended "to expedite
trial and to relieve parties of the costs of proving facts which
will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be
ascertained by reasonable inquiry." Thus, if the request for
admission only serves to delay the proceedings by abetting

redundancy in the pleadings, the intended purpose for the

rule will certainly be defeated.
SOLIDBANK CORP V. GATEWAY ELECTRONICS CORP,
G.R. NO. 164805 (2008)
DOCTRINE: Rule 27 ROC permits fishing for evidence, the
only limitation being that the documents, papers, etc.,
sought to be produced are not privileged, that they are in
the possession of the party ordered to produce them and
that they are material to any matter involved in the action.
Either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever
facts he has in his possession.
FACTS: Gateway Electronics obtained a loan from
Solidbank; said loans were covered by promissory notes. To
secure its loan, Gateway assigned to Solidbank the proceeds
of its Bank-end Services agreement with Alliance
Semiconductor Corp
1. Gateway defaulted on its obligation. Despite several
demands, Gateway failed to pay its loan. As such,
Solidbank filed a collection suit against Gateway
2. Solidbank filed a motion for production and
inspection of documents on the basis of an
information received from the CFO of Alliance that
Gateway had already received that proceeds of the
Back-end Services agreement. The trial court granted
the motion
3. Gateway presented invoices representing the present
billings sent by Gateway to Alliance in relation to the
Back-end Services agreement
4. Not satisfied with the documents produced by
Gateway, Solidbank filed a motion to cite Gateway
and its officers in contempt

the possession of the party ordered to produce them and

that they are material to any matter involved in the action.
Either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever
facts he has in his possession. However, fishing for evidence
that is allowed under the rules is not with exceptions. In
Security Bank v. Court of Appeals, the Court enumerated the
requisites in order that a party may compel the other to
produce or allow the inspection of documents or things:
(1) The party must file a motion for the production or
inspection of documents, or things, showing good
cause therefor
(2) Notice of the motion must be served to all other
parties of the case
(3) The motion must designate the documents, papers,
books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or
tangible things which the party wishes to be
produced and inspected
(4) Such documents, etc., are not privileged
(5) Such documents, etc., constitute or contain evidence
material to any matter involved in the action; and
(6) Such documents, etc., are in the possession, custody
or control of the other party.

and

CAB: Solidbank was able to show good cause for the

production of the documents. It had also shown that the said
documents are material or contain evidence relevant to an
issue involved in the action. However, Solidbank's motion
was fatally defective and must be struck down because of
its failure to specify with particularity the documents it
required Gateway to produce. Solidbank's motion for
production and inspection of documents called for a blanket
inspection. Solidbank's request for inspection of "all
documents pertaining to, arising from, in connection with or
involving the Back-end Services Agreement" was simply too
broad and too generalized in scope.

HELD: Yes. Rule 27 ROC permits fishing for evidence, the

only limitation being that the documents, papers, etc.,
sought to be produced are not privileged, that they are in

A motion for production and inspection of documents should

not demand a roving inspection of a promiscuous mass of
documents. The inspection should be limited to those
documents designated with sufficient particularity in the

ISSUE: WON Solidbanks motion for production

inspection failed to comply with Sec 1, Rule 27 ROC

motion, such that the adverse party can easily identify the
documents he is required to produce.