Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A: A Judicial Admission Is A Formal Statement Made Either by A Party or His or Her Attorney
A: A Judicial Admission Is A Formal Statement Made Either by A Party or His or Her Attorney
A: A judicial admission is a formal statement made either by a party or his or her attorney,
in the course of judicial proceeding which removes an admitted fact from the field of
controversy. It is a voluntary concession of fact by a party or a party’s attorney during
such judicial proceedings including admissions in pleadings made by a party. It may occur
at any point during the litigation process. An admission in open court is a judicial
admission. A judicial admission binds the client even if made by his counsel.
Admission made by the parties in the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other
proceedings do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to
have been made through palpable mistake (Yu v. Magpayo, 44 SCRA 163). There is no
showing in this case of such fact. In another case, the Supreme Court ruled that an
admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such
admission and are conclusive as to him. All proofs submitted by him contrary thereto and
inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether or not objection is interposed (Elayda v.
Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 349).
XXXXXX
The foregoing find basis in the general rule that a client is bound by the acts of
his counsel who represents him. 26 For all intents and purposes, the acts of a
lawyer in the defense of a case are the acts of his client. The rule extends even
to the mistakes and negligence committed by the lawyer except only when
such mistakes would result in serious injustice to the client. 27 No cogent
reason exists to make such exception in this case. It is worth noting that Atty.
Ulep, appellant's counsel in the lower court, agreed to the stipulation of facts
proposed by the prosecution not out of mistake nor inadvertence, but
obviously because the said stipulation of facts was also in conformity of
defense's theory of the case. It may be recalled that
Anent the last assignment of error, suffice it to say that we do not find any
compelling reason to reverse the findings of the lower court that appellant's
bare denials cannot overthrow the positive testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses against her.
XXXXXX
Aguenza vs Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. : [G.R. No. 74336. April 7, 1997]
The principal reason for respondent appellate court's reversal of the trial
court's absolution of petitioner is its finding that the loan made by private
respondent Arrieta and Lilia Perez were admitted by Intertrade to be its own
obligation.
After a careful scrutiny of the records, however, we find and we so rule that
there is neither factual nor legal basis for such a finding by respondent
Appellate Court.
In the case at bench, we find that the respondent Court of Appeals committed
an error in appreciating the "Answer" filed by the lawyer of Intertrade as an
admission of corporate liability for the subject loan. A careful study of the
responsive pleading filed by Atty. Francisco Pangilinan, counsel for Intertrade,
would reveal that there was neither express nor implied admission of corporate
liability warranting the application of the general rule. Thus, the alleged
judicial admission may be contradicted and controverted because it was taken
out of context and no admission was made at all.
[5] Memorandum of Petitioner dated July 15, 1988, pp. 10-11, Rollo, pp.132-133.
[6] Cunanan v. Amparo, 80 Phil. 227 [1948].
[7] Gardner v. Court of Appeals, 131 SCRA 585 [1984], citing Granada v. Philippine National
Bank, 18 SCRA 1 [1966].
[8] Evidence of Francisco, 2nd edition [1994], p. 36.
XXXXXX