REPUBLIC GLASS

VS.
LAWRENCE QUA

RULE 129 | SECTION 4 | JULY 30, 2004

 FACTS:
 Republic Glass Corporation ("RGC") and Gervel, Inc.
("Gervel") together with Lawrence C. Qua ("Qua") were
stockholders of Ladtek, Inc. ("Ladtek").
 Ladtek obtained loans from Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company ("Metrobank“) and Private Development
Corporation of the Philippines ("PDCP") with RGC, Gervel
and Qua as sureties.
 Among themselves, RGC, Gervel and Qua executed
Agreements for Contribution, Indemnity and Pledge of
Shares of Stocks ("Agreements").
 FACTS:

 The Agreements all state that in  Qua pledged 1,892,360 common  Ladtek defaulted on its loan
case of default in the payment of shares of stock of General Milling obligations to Metrobank
Ladtek’s loans, the parties would Corporation ("GMC") in favor of and PDCP. Hence, Metrobank
reimburse each other the RGC and Gervel. The pledged filed a collection case against
proportionate share of any sum shares of stock served as security Ladtek, RGC, Gervel and
that any might pay to the creditors. for the payment of any sum which Qua.
RGC and Gervel may be held liable
under the Agreements.
 FACTS:

 During the pendency of Collection  RGC and Gervel’s counsel, Atty.  Subsequently, RGC and
Case No. 8364, RGC and Gervel Pastelero, demanded that Qua Gervel furnished Qua with
paid Metrobank P7 million. The pay P3,860,646 as notices of foreclosure of
Qua’s pledged shares.
collection case was dismissed. reimbursement of the total
amount RGC and Gervel paid to
Metrobank and PDCP. Qua
refused to reimburse the
amount to RGC and Gervel.

COLLECTION CASE 8364
 QUA’S MOTION TO DISMISS:
“The foregoing facts show that the
payment of Republic Glass Corporation
and Gervel, Inc. was for the entire
obligation”
FACTS:
FORECLOSURE CASE 88-2643
 RGC and Gervel offered Qua’s Motion
to Dismiss in Collection Case 8364 as
basis for the foreclosure of Qua’s
pledged shares.
 WHETHER RULE 129,
SECTION 4 APPLIES TO
THE CASE AT BAR.

ISSUE
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 showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was made.

 The elements of judicial admissions are absent in this

case. Qua made conflicting statements in Collection Case
No. 8364 and in Foreclosure Case No. 88-2643, and not in
the "same case" as required in Section 4 of Rule 129.
 To constitute judicial admission, the admission must be
made in the same case in which it is offered. If made in
another case or in another court, the fact of such
admission must be proved as in the case of any other fact,
although if made in a judicial proceeding it is entitled to
greater weight.