Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

49. CUENCO VS.

TALISAY TOURIST SPORTS COMPLEX A party may make judicial admissions in (1) the pleadings, (2) during the
G.R. No. 174154. July 30, 2009 trial, by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, or (3) in other
stages of the judicial proceeding. The stipulation of facts at the pre-trial
Topic: What Need Not Be Proved of a case constitutes judicial admissions. The veracity of judicial
admissions require no further proof and may be controverted only upon
Facts: a clear showing that the admissions were made through palpable
 Petitioner leased from respondent a property to be operated as a cockpit. mistake or that no admissions were made. Thus, the admissions of
Upon expiration of the contract, respondent company conducted a public parties during the pre-trial, as embodied in the pre-trial order, are
bidding for the lease of the property. Petitioner participated in the bidding. binding and conclusive upon them.
The lease was eventually awarded to another bidder. Thereafter,
petitioner formally demanded, through several demand letters, for the Respondents did not deny the admission made by their counsel, neither
return of his deposit in the sum of P500, 000.00. It, however, all remained did they claim that the same was made through palpable mistake. As
unheeded. such, the stipulation of facts is incontrovertible and may be relied upon
 Thus, petitioner filed a Complaint for sum of money maintaining that by the courts. The pre-trial forms part of the proceedings and matters
respondents acted in bad faith in withholding the amount of the deposit dealt therein may not be brushed aside in the process of decision-making.
without any justifiable reason. In their Answer, respondents countered Otherwise, the real essence of compulsory pre-trial would be rendered
that petitioner caused physical damage to the leased premises and the cost inconsequential and worthless. Furthermore, an act performed by
of repair and replacement of materials amounted to more than counsel within the scope of a "general or implied authority" is regarded
P500,000.00. as an act of the client which renders respondents in estoppel. By estoppel
 The RTC issued a Pre-trial Order in which respondent admitted that there is meant that an admission or representation is conclusive upon the
is no inventory of damages. The respondents later offered an inventory person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the
which was admitted by the said trial court. The RTC ruled favorably for the person relying thereon.
petitioner. The CA reversed said decision.
Thus, respondents are bound by the admissions made by their counsel
Issue: Whether a judicial admission is conclusive and binding upon a party making at the pre-trial. Accordingly, the CA committed an error when it gave
the admission. ample evidentiary weight to respondents' evidence contradictory to the
judicial admission.
Held: Yes. Obviously, it was on Coronado's testimony, as well as on the documentary
evidence of an alleged property inventory conducted on June 4, 1998, that the CA WHEREFORE, the Partial Motion for Reconsideration of Petitioner dated November
based its conclusion that the amount of damage sustained by the leased premises 26, 2008 and the Motion for Reconsideration of Respondents dated November 25,
while in the possession of petitioner exceeded the amount of petitioner's deposit. 2008 of the Decision of the Court dated October 17, 20078 are hereby DENIED.
This contradicts the judicial admission made by respondents' counsel which should
have been binding on the respondents.

Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. - An admission, verbal or written,


made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case, does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by a showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.