Jimenez vs CA : 103883 : November 14, 1996 : J Vitug : First Division http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/103883.htm have its answers (to the Request for Admission sent by petitioner) duly verified. It is true that a matter of which a written request for admission is made shall be deemed impliedly admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall not be less than ten (10) days after service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion and notice, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting [14] forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters; however, the verification, like in most cases required by the rules of procedure, is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, and mainly intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are done in good faith or are true and correct and not of mere speculation. When circumstances warrant, the court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance with the rules in order that the ends of justice may thereby be [15] served. 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 [16] impliedly, to withdraw or amend it upon such terms as may be just. 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 plaintiffappellants 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. [17] The insurance policy expressly provided that to be compensable, the injury or death should be caused by violent accidental external and visible means. In attempting to prove the cause of her husbands death, all that petitioner could submit were a letter sent to her by her husbands co-worker, stating that Gabriel died when he tried to haul water out of a tank while its submerged [18] [19] motor was still functioning, and petitioners sinumpaang salaysay which merely confirmed the receipt and stated contents of the letter. Said the appellate court in this regard: x x x. It must be noted that the only evidence presented by her to prove the circumstances surrounding her husbands death were her purported affidavit and the letter allegedly written by the deceased co-worker in Iraq. The said affidavit however suffers from procedural infirmity as it was not even testified to or identified by the affiant (plaintiff-appellant) herself. This self-serving affidavit therefore is a mere hearsay under the rules, x x x. 3 of 5 1/20/2016 2:03 PM