The general rule is that all notices must be served upon counsel and not upon the party. However, the general rule cannot apply where the law expressly provides that notice must be served upon a definite person. In such cases, service must be made directly upon the person mentioned in the law and upon no other in order that the notice be valid.
Request for admission should be served on the party to whom the request is directed.
Facts:
On November 22, 1988, Duque filed a Request for Admission and furnished Spouses Bonifacio's counsel.
Issue:
Was there a valid service of the request for admission?
Held:
There was no valid service. "The general rule is that all notices must be served upon counsel and not upon the party. However, the general rule cannot apply where the law expressly provides that notice must be served upon a definite person. In such cases, service must be made directly upon the person mentioned in the law and upon no other in order that the notice be valid."
Section 1 of Rule 26 provides that the request for admission should be served on the party to whom the request is directed. Hence, the request for admission made by Duque was not validly served and therefore, Spouses Bonifacio cannot be deemed to have admitted the truth of the matters upon which admissions were requested. (Duque vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125383, July 2, 2002)
0
Comments
