You are on page 1of 6

G.R. No.


February 4, 2008

GREGORIO SILOT, JR., petitioner,
ESTRELLA DE LA ROSA, respondent.

Petitioner Silot contends that his counsel Atty. San Jose merely admitted that
the subject of Goingos testimony was that stated in the offer of testimony, but he
did not admit the truth or veracity of the testimony. Silot adds that Atty. San Jose
could not and should not have admitted the testimony because he had no special
power of attorney to enter into such stipulations or to compromise his clients right
without the latters direct intervention.[8]
Respondent de la Rosa counters that clients are bound by the admissions as
well as the negligence of their counsel. She enumerates several Court decisions to
support her contention, among them the following cases:
(1) Ongson v. People,[9] where petitioner was held bound by his unqualified
admission that he received private complainants demand letter with notice of
dishonor. The admission binds him considering that he never denied receipt of the
notice of dishonor.
(2) Republic v. Sarabia,[10] where the Court held that an admission made in
the pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are
conclusive as to him.
(3) People v. Genosa,[11] Arroyo, Jr. v. Taduran,[12] Carandang v. Court of
Appeals,[13] in which cases the Court held that judicial admissions are conclusive
upon the party making it and may not be contradicted in the absence of prior
showing that the admission had been made through palpable mistake, or no
admission was in fact made.
(4) People v. Razul[14] and Lim v. Jabalde,[15] where it was held that
stipulations are recognized as declarations constituting judicial admissions, hence,
binding upon the parties.

When such admissions are made [] for the .[19] we held that admissions made for the purpose of dispensing with proof of some facts are in the nature of judicial admissions. (Italics supplied. by oral or written stipulation. Silot was not deprived of his day in court. and Atty. As the records would plainly show. Silots counsel clearly made admissions of the content of the testimony of witness Goingo. Said the appellate court: As gleaned from the records.00. [] which unless allowed to be withdrawn are conclusive. as the appellate court observed. well-entrenched is the rule that the client is bound by the mistakes arising from negligence of his own counsel. in order to controvert or correct the admission made by his counsel.Also. [18] More importantly. defendant-appellant Silot was not deprived of his day in court. Terbio. when the negligence is so gross that the client is deprived of his day in court. testimonial or otherwise. to wit: A stipulation of facts entered into by the prosecution and defense counsel during trial in open court is automatically reduced into writing and contained in the official transcript of the proceedings had in court.[17] In our considered view. He was also presented in open court to testify. judicial admissions are frequently those of counsel or of the attorney of record. The conformity of the accused in the form of his signature affixed thereto is unnecessary in view of the fact that: [] an attorney who is employed to manage a partys conduct of a lawsuit [] has prima facie authority to make relevant admissions by pleadings.) In fact. counsel for plaintiff-appellee de la Rosa. Hernandez. He was given every opportunity to be heard through his pleadings and manifestations. who is. that exception does not find any application in this case. In People v. And when asked by the judge if he will admit it. for the purpose of the trial. whose presentation was dispensed with. he answered that they will admit P2. however. even repeatedly asked Atty. Atty. as the Court of Appeals itself cited in its decision. defendant-appellant Silots counsel. the agent of his client. he could have introduced evidence. if he would admit the purpose for which the witness Ariel Goingo will testify to dispense with his testimony. [16] The only exception to this rule is. San Jose repeatedly answered that We will admit that. San Jose.Moreover.000. As quoted earlier.504.

and that the sum total of which is P2.00.474. there is an excess payment of P191.) Worth stressing. all the material supplies during the making of the additional works mentioned were all considered.[22] this Court emphasized the consequence of admitting and dispensing with the testimony of the proposed witness.[20] (Emphasis supplied. he will testify that Silot was paid of all works that was performed as well as all materials supplied were considered. TERBIO The purpose for which this witness will testify are the following: If admitted. the testimony of said witness is uncontroverted and even admitted as fact by opposing counsel.504.872. and that De la Rosa paid the total amount of P1. [] they bind the client.65 and 33% of which is P826.525.[21] Furthermore. Court of Appeals.[24] Without the labors provided by Silot.[25] However. and that de la Rosa has benefited and profited from these labors. He will testify that in consideration of the 33% as mentioned in the contract.98. provided with electrical works and other works which were additional works on the building. Silot avers that he has rendered or provided labor for the total amount of P1. the constructed building would not have been painted.000. he will testify that De la Rosa never received the demand or was . the trial. this claim has been belied by the admission made by his own counsel.469. or even after. we are willing to dispense the testimony.281.[23] On the issue of insufficient payment. whether made during.018. in the case of Toh v. and that to sanction de la Rosas claim would be to allow unjust enrichment on the part of de la Rosa. thus: The Court sees no cogent reason why the said witness should be examined any further since his testimony as summarized in the offer made by counsel was expressly admitted by opposing counsel.40. as plainly manifest in the transcript: ATTY. in this connection. and therefore. With the said admission.00. judicial admissions do not require proof and may not be contradicted in the absence of a prior showing that the admissions had been made through palpable mistake.purpose of dispensing with proof of some fact.

in the eyes of the law. however.[3] A recognized exception to the rule is when the reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law. the Court of Appeals did not err in ordering petitioner to return to respondent the amount of P191. WHEREFORE. given the circumstances of this case. is hereby ordered to return the amount of P191. if the counsel wish to admit this.[26] (Emphasis supplied.525. ATTY.00 as attorneys fees.000. SAN JOSE We admit that. ATTY. For the exception to apply. incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client. once retained. such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded. SAN JOSE We will admit that. Costs against petitioner.[2] The rationale for the rule is that a counsel. Jr. 68062 is AFFIRMED.02 to respondent Estrella de la Rosa. CV No. the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.525. holds the implied authority to do all acts necessary or. TERBIO Because these are all evidentiary and this has not been adequately covered.R. now.Petitioner Gregorio Silot. ________________________________________________________________- The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsels acts. ATTY.confronted by Silot regarding an alleged balance. The Decision dated July 9. and to pay P20.02 overpayment. the gross negligence should not be accompanied by the clients own . 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. as the act or omission of the client himself.) Clearly. including even mistakes in the realm of procedural technique. at least.

The time difference tells the GPS receiver how far away the satellite is. Department of Defense. February 2.versus - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. the client should suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against him. . 181508 October 2. No. Petitioner. GPS receivers take this information and use trilateration to calculate the user's exact location. MAXIMA CONSTANTINO and CASIMIRA MATURINGAN.. How it works GPS satellites circle the earth twice a day in a very precise orbit and transmit signal information to earth. with . 24 hours a day. BRION. No. 159781 Present: CARPIO MORALES. and SERENO. Essentially. but in the 1980s. represented by ASUNCION LAQUINDANUM. Respondents. HEIRS OF PEDRO CONSTANTINO. BERSAMIN. Now. G. 2011 x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x G.. the GPS receiver compares the time a signal was transmitted by a satellite with the time it was received. VILLARAMA. anywhere in the world.. There are no subscription fees or setup charges to use GPS. ETER BEJARASCO. JR. Chairperson.S. JR. considering that the client has the duty to be vigilant in respect of his interests by keeping himself up-to-date on the status of the case. 2013 OSCAR CONSTANTINO. the government made the system available for civilian use.negligence or malice. gps The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a satellite-based navigation system made up of a network of 24 satellites placed into orbit by the U.R. GPS works in any weather conditions. Promulgated: Respondent. JJ. vs. JR.R. GPS was originally intended for military applications.Failing in this duty. Petitioners.

the receiver can determine the user's position and display it on the unit's electronic map. .distance measurements from a few more satellites.