Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Allied Agri

Allied Agri

Ratings: (0)|Views: 16|Likes:
Published by cmv mendoza

More info:

Published by: cmv mendoza on Dec 31, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/31/2011

pdf

text

original

 
ALLIED AGRI-BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CO.,INC V CA (CHERRY VALLEY FARMS LIMITED)
G.R. No. 118438BELLOSILLO; December 4, 1998
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA
FACTS
-On 14 October 1986, Cherry Valley Farms Limited (CHERRYVALLEY), a foreign company based in England, filed againstAllied Agri-Business Development Co. Inc. (ALLIED) acomplaint with the RTC of Makati for the collection of sum of money alleging, among others that: 1. On 1 September 1982up to 16 February 1983, ALLIED purchased in ten (10)separate orders and received from respondent CHERRYVALLEY several duck hatching eggs and ducklings which invalue totalled £.51,245.12; 2. ALLIED did not pay despiterepeated demands; 3. Instead of paying its obligation, ALLIED,through its president, invited CHERRY VALLEY to be astockholder in a new corporation to be formed by it, whichinvitation however was rejected; and 4. ALLIED's presidentRicardo Quintos expressly acknowledged through a letter, theobligation of his corporation to CHERRY VALLEY.-On 27 February 1986, ALLIED filed an answer denying thematerial allegations of the complaint and contended that: 1.Private respondent CHERRY VALLEY lacked the capacity tosue; 2. the letter of Quintos to CHERRY VALLEY was neverauthorized by the board of petitioner ALLIED, thus anyadmission made in that letter could not bind ALLIED; 3. thealleged amount of £.51,245.12 did not represent the true andreal obligation, if any, of petitioner; 4. to the best of theknowledge of ALLIED, not all ducks and ducklings covered andrepresented by CHERRY VALLEY's invoices were actuallyordered by the former; and 5. private respondent had nocause of action against petitioner.-On 19 July 1988, CHERRY VALLEY served on ALLIED's counsel,a Request for Admission (
of the matters mentioned above inthe complaint 1-4
)-ALLIED filed its
Comments/Objections
alleging that theadmissions requested were matters which the privaterespondent had the burden to prove-In its
Reply to Comments/Objections to Request for  Admission,
CHERRY VALLEY maintained that there was noneed on its part to produce a witness to testify on the mattersrequested for admission, for these pertained to incidentspersonal to and within the knowledge of petitioner alone.-On 2 August 1998, CHERRY VALLEY filed a motion with thetrial court to resolve the objections of ALLIED to the requestfor admission.-On 11 August 1988 the trial court issued an Orderdisregarding ALLIED's
Comments/Objections to Request for  Admission
in view of its non-compliance with Sec. 2, Rule 26,of the Rules of Court and directing ALLIED to answer therequest for admission within ten (10) days from receipt of theorder, otherwise, the matters contained in the request wouldbe deemed admitted.-ALLIED’s MFR was denied, and it was directed to answer therequest for admission within a nonextendible period of five (5)days from receipt of the order.-ALLIED failed to submit a sworn answer to the request foradmission within the additional period of five (5) days grantedby the trial court, hence,
CHERRY VALLEY filed a motionfor summary judgment,
alleging that there was already animplied admission on the matters requested for admissionpursuant to Rule 26 of the Rules of Court.-On 23 October 1990, the trial court rendered judgmentagainst petitioner-ALLIED appealed to the Court of Appeals.- Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming the summary judgment rendered by the trial court, hence, the instantpetition
ISSUES
1. WON the complaint should have been instantly dismissedon the ground of lack of personality to sue on the part of respondent CHERRY VALLEY2. WON the motion for summary judgment was properlygranted based on the implied admissions of petitioner
HELD
1. No.-Petitioner is estopped from challenging or questioning thepersonality of a corporation after having acknowledged thesame by entering into a contract with it. The doctrine of lackof capacity to sue or failure of a foreign corporation to acquirea local license was never intended to favor domesticcorporations who enter into solitary transactions with unwaryforeign firms and then repudiate their obligations simplybecause the latter are not licensed to do business in thiscountry.2. Yes.-Sec. 1 of Rule 26 provides: Request for admission. At anytime after issues have been joined, a party may file and serveupon any other party a written request for the admission bythe latter of the genuineness of any material and relevantdocument described in and exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forthin the request. Copies of the documents shall be deliveredwith the request unless copies have already been furnished.-The purpose of the rule governing requests for admission of facts and genuineness of documents is to expedite trial and torelieve parties of the costs of proving facts which will not bedisputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained byreasonable inquiry.Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shallbe deemed admitted unless within a period designated in therequest which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days afterservice thereof, or within such further time as the court mayallow on motion, the party to whom the request is directedfiles and serves upon the party requesting the admission asworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail thereasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny thosematters.-Upon service of request for admission, the party served maydo any of the following acts: (a) he may admit each of thematters of which an admission is requested, in which case, heneed not file an answer; (b) he may admit the truth of thematters of which admission is requested by serving upon theparty requesting a written admission of such matters withinthe period stated in the request, which must not be less thanten (10) days after service, or within such further time as thecourt may allow on motion and notice; (c) he may file a swornstatement denying specifically the matter of which anadmission is requested; or, (d) he may file a sworn statementsetting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfullyeither admit or deny the matters of which an admission isrequested.-The records show that although petitioner filed with the trialcourt its comments and objections to the request foradmission served on it by private respondent, the trial courtdisregarded the objections and directed petitioner afterdenying its motion for reconsideration, to answer the requestwithin five (5) days from receipt of the directive; otherwise,the matters of which the admission was requested would bedeemed admitted.-Petitioner failed to submit the required answer within theperiod. The matters set forth in the request were thereforedeemed admitted by petitioner-This Court finds that the motion for summary judgment filedby respondent CHERRY VALLEY on the ground that there wereno questions of fact in issue since the material allegations of the complaint were not disputed was correctly granted by thetrial court.-It is a settled rule that summary judgment may be granted if the facts which stand admitted by reason of a party's failureto deny statements contained in a request for admission showthat no material issue of fact exists.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->