Vda. de Gabriel vs.
Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 103883 November 14, 1996
Facts of the case:
The petitioner for review on certiorari seeks the reversal of the decision of
the Court of Appeals setting aside the judgment of the Regional Trial Court which
ordered private respondent Fortune Insurance and Surety Company, Inc., to pay
petitioner Jacqueline Jimenez Vda. de Gabriel, the surviving spouse and
beneficiary in an accident (group) insurance of her dead husband, the amount
of ₱100,000.00, plus legal interest.
Marcelino Gabriel, the insured, was employed by Emerald Construction &
Development Corporation (“ECDC”) at its construction project in Iraq. He was
covered by a personal accident insurance in the amount of ₱100,000.00 under a
group policy procured from private respondent by ECDC for its overseas workers.
On May 22, 1982, within the life of the policy, Gabriel died in Iraq. A year
later, or on July 12, 1983, ECDC reported Gabriel’s death to private respondent by
telephone. Ultimately private respondent denied the claim of ECDC on the ground
of prescription. Petitioner went to court alleging that her husband died of
electrocution while working.
Issue:
Whether or not the court will allow the party answers to written requests for
admission expressed or implied.
Ruling:
Yes. In the case of answers to written requests for admission particularly, the
court can allow the party making the admission, whether made expressly or
deemed to have been made impliedly, "to withdraw or amend it upon such terms as
may be just." Sec. 4, Rule 26, Revised Rules of Court amended (A.M. No. 19-102-
SC)
The appellate court acted neither erroneously nor with grave abuse of discretion
when it seconded the court a quo and ruled:
As to the allegation of the plaintiff-appellant that the matters requested by her to be
admitted by the defendant-appellant under the Request for Admission were already
deemed admitted by the latter for its failure to answer it under oath, has already
been properly laid to rest when the lower court in its Order of May 28, 1987
correctly ruled:
At the outset, it must be stressed that the defendant indeed filed a written answer to
the request for admission, sans verification. The case of Motor Service
Co., Inc. vs. Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., et al. may not therefore be controlling, or
actually opposite. In said case, there was an absolute failure on the part of the
defendant to answer the request for admission, and thus the court was justified in
rendering a summary judgment. Here, however, as clearly intimated elsewhere
above, the defendant answered in writing practically every question posed in the
request for admission. The Court believes, under the peculiar circumstance, that the
more controlling jurisprudence on the mater would be those cited by the defendant
in its memorandum, particularly the case of Quimpo vs. de la Victoria, 46 SCRA
139.
Prescinding from the foregoing, there is absolutely no basis in fact and in law for
the lower court to hold that the appellant insurance company was deemed to have
waived the defense, that the death of plaintiff-appellant's husband was not caused
by violent accidental external and visible means' as contemplated in the insurance
policy. The Death Certificate (Exh. 9) and the Autopsy Report (Exh. 10), more than
controverted the allegation of the plaintiff-appellant as to the cause of death of her
husband.
