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