July 11, 2018
HEIRS OF CONSTANTINO
55:01
Who in the blue hell is the plaintiff?
So now it’s complete denial.
So what happens to the defenses that he made?
The admissions that he made in his original answer
are also superseded. But, take note of this effect,
“admissions made in superseded pleadings may be
received in evidence against the pleader.
So they may no longer be considered as judicial
admissions but they are now, extra-judicial
admissions that can be admitted in court, provided,
they are properly pleaded and proved by the
adverse party. Kinahanglan nimo iplead and iprove
siya.
VERBAL OR WRITTEN ADMISSIONS
Now what about during trial?
It could be verbal or written.
A verbal judicial admission could take the form of
a manifestation or testimony in court.
A written judicial admission could be in the form
of motions, written manifestations, briefs,
memoranda, affidavits, and even in the submission
in answer to a request for admission.
ADMISSIONS IN OTHER STAGES OF THE CASE
1. Pre-trial where admissions and stipulations of
facts are mandatory subjects of pre trial
2. Availment of discovery procedures before trial,
or pending appeal such as:
•Depositions
•Request for admission
•Physical or Mental examination of persons
(modes of discovery)
Depositions cannot serve as a substitute for
testimony in court. The deponent must be actually
brought again in court, as a general rule, for his
testimony to be admitted. In effect, he has to re-
testify. But be mindful of the instances where the
deposition itself is considered as testimony.
CONSTANTINO VS.
Judicial admissions are legally binding on the
party making the admissions. Pre-trial
admission in civil cases is one of the instances of
judicial admissions explicitly provided for under
Section 7, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, which
mandates that the contents of the pre-trial order
shall control the subsequent course of the action,
thereby, defining and limiting the issues to be
tried.
So if you make confessions during pre-trial, that’s
very good. Why? Because the court doesn’t have to
expect proof of a matter that has already been
admitted. And remember the effect as well that –
Admissions made are binding upon the parties who
made them.
Now take note that, a party who makes a judicial
admission, you cannot later on challenge that cause
that constitutes as a waiver of proof. Your ability to
prove or disprove something is waived. Production
of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission
also removes an admitted fact from the field of
controversy.
In other words, what’s the effect of the rule?
Judicial admissions are conclusive on the party
making them. When you make an admission, you
cannot refute that admission anymore,
Let’s look at an example here:
A plaintiff sued the defendant for collection of sum
of money. The defendant denies the existence of the
debt and counters that it was her deceased parents
who owed the plaintiff money when they were
alive. Therefore, according to the defendant, what
the plaintiff should have done is to sue the estate of
her parents rather than sue her in her personal
capacity as heir.
However, during the trial, the following cross
examine took place:
Lawyer: you also know that the respondent was
into lending?
Accused: Yes, madame.
Lawyer: Because she is in lending, you have
borrowed money also?
Accused: Yes, madame.
 Lawyer: Separate from your father?
Accused: Yes, madame.
Lawyer: You borrowed money from the
respondent separate from your father prior to
his death?
Accused: Yes, madame.
Unsa gani iyang defense? Wala siya nangutang. Ang
nangutang kay iyang parents. Nut what do youcall
that? That is an admission and therefore you are
not allowed to contradict.
ODIAMAR VS VALENCIA
Having admitted that she obtained loans from
respondent without showing that the same had
already been paid or otherwise extinguished,
petitioner cannot now aver otherwise.
It is settled that judicial admissions made by the
parties in the pleadings or in the course of the
trial or other proceedings in the same case are
conclusive and do not require further evidence
to prove them. They are legally binding on the
party making it, except when it is shown that
they have been made through palpable mistake
or that no such admission was actually made.
SANTIAGO VS DELOS SANTOS
An admission cannot be controverted by the
party making such admission and are conclusive
as to him and that all proofs submitted by him
contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith shall
be ignored whether objection is interposed.
That is why I told you, admission during trial is
stronger than all proofs.
Take note of the requirement that for it to qualify
as a judicial admission, it must be made in the same
case.
REPUBLIC GLASS VS QUA
To constitute a judicial admission, it must be
made in the same case in which it is offered. If
made in another case or 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.
Let’s say for example:
In Branch 1, you have a case between A and B. In
Branch 2, you also have another case also between
A & B. In the case in Branch 1, A made an admission
against his interest to favour B. Can B use that in his
case in Branch 2?
He can use it in Branch 2 but not in the concept of
judicial admission.
What will you do if you are the lawyer of B in
Branch 2 and you want to use the admission of A in
Branch 1?
Secure a copy of the transcripts of stenographic
notes where your opponent made the admission.
Plead it and prove it before Branch 2. It is an
extrajudicial admission in so far as Branch 2 is
concerned. It can only be considered as judicial
admission if you are talking about Branch 1. Get a
piece and prove it.
Do you need to present the staff who made the
stenographic notes?
No. Because of presumption in the regularity of
transcripts of stenographic notes. In effect, it’s self-
authenticating. It is also strong proof that it was
made in a judicial proceeding.
EXCEPTIONS:
Admissions may be contradicted only by showing
that it was made through palpable mistake or that
no such admission was made.
“MADE THROUGH PALPABLE MISTAKE”
What do you mean by palpable? It means it is
obvious to everybody, to both sides. Like the
plaintiff would not concede it as an admission, the
defendant would not concede it as an admission,
the judge too could see that there was really no
judicial admission made.
Take note that under the OLD RULES OF
EVIDENCE, this is the only exception to the rule
that a judicial admission binds the parties making
them.
ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING VS CIR
 In the present case, the supposed mistake made
by the counsel of petitioner corporation is one of
law, for it was grounded on his interpretation
and evaluation that Revenue Regulations No. 3-
88 and CTA Circular No. 1-95, as amended, did
not apply to his client's cases and that there was
no need to comply with the documentary
requirements set forth therein.
And although the counsel of petitioner
corporation advocated an erroneous legal
position, the effects thereof, which did not
amount to a deprivation of his client's right to be
heard, must bind petitioner corporation. The
question is not whether petitioner corporation
succeeded in establishing its interests, but
whether it had the opportunity to present its
side.
“NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS MADE”
Meaning it’s just that the other party is saying that
you have made an admission. Like my old case
before, the counsel kept saying “Thank you for
admitting…. Thank you for admitting…” when in
fact, I didn’t. So what doctrine is that? The buot
buot doctrine. LOL So what this is is that you are
now saying I did not make an admission or that the
statement was taken out of context or not in the
sense that the admission is made to appear as in the
case of…
ATILLO III VS CA
If a party invokes an admission of an adverse
party but cites the admission out of context, then
the one making the admission may show that he
made no show admission or that the admission
was taken out of context. This may be
interpreted to mean not in the sense in which the
admission is made to appear that is the reason
for the codifier “such”.
Take note that an admission made by the counsel is
binding upon the client. So like in my example
earlier, my fellow officemate, where to be safe, he
would not admit anything, even the name of his
client. Why is that? Because anything that you say
would bind the client. So you have to proceed with
caution every time. And when you make an
admission of something, consult your client first.
Ask him if it is okay if we admitted this because if
we do, these are the legal consequences.
This for me is an important case: FULE DOCTRINE
FULE VS CA
Pre-Trial is mandatory also in mandatory in
criminal cases. So in this case what happened
here was of course, stipulation of facts. Then
what if the accuse admits or stipulates as to the
existence of certain facts and the effect of that
would be for him to make a confession or an
admission of his guilt in the criminal case. Can he
be convicted based on confessions or admission?
Of course, you can. In fact, a mere extrajudicial
admission together with the corpus delicti
would be sufficient to warrant a conviction.
What happened here was, there was a pre-trial
agreement. In a criminal case, you are allowed to
secure from the accused a confession pursuant for
example to a Plea Bargaining Agreement. Let’s say
you committed serious physical injuries and ingon
ani ang penalty. But, if you plead guilty tp slight
physical injuries or maltreatment only then, ito
nalang. Plead guilty ka nalang para di na tayo mag
trial. That’s plea bargainin. Now if he agrees,
confess to the commission of slight physical
injuries, in effect, he is free to go if he is a first time
offender. Pwede ka ma place under probation or
ma-fine because it is a very light offense. Now, if
that was made durng the pre-trial conference in a
criminal case, it has to be signed by the accused and
his counsel because if there is no signature of the
accused and his counsel, the n the stipulation of
facts, the confession made by the accused, becomes
inadmissible. That’s the Fule Doctrine.
It has been articulated more properly in Rule 118
Section 2.
RULE 118, Section 2.Pre-trial agreement. —
All agreements or admissions made or entered
during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced
in writing and signed by the accused and
counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against
the accused. The agreements covering the
matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall
be approved by the court. (Sec. 4, cir. 38-98)
Precisely what happened in Fule. The Court has to
see if gipirmahan ba gyud o wala. And now the
court will have the ability to call for example, the
lawyer of the accused. Did you really mean to make beyond reasonable doubt even without the
that confession. That’s because of Fule. So when it unsigned confession.
reached the SC, the court said it is inadmissible.
Whatever he confessed to during the pre trial
conference which was reduced in the pre trial
agreement but was not signed by the accused and
his counsel, it is inadmissible. Therefore, accused
was acquitted despite the fact that during pre trial,
he actually made a confession. So what did the
prosecution do? Because nag confess, they rested
its case. Admission made in trial is greater than all
proofs. Ngano pa ko magpresent ug evidence. Sc
said: acquitted.

Here’s a similar case, King vs People. You have to

compare what happened in King and in Fule.

So what happened in King? It’s a BP 22 case. Same

thing happened here. They had a pre trial
conference. The accused admitted to the signing of
worthless checks. The pre trial again was not
signed by the accused and his counsel as required
in then Sec. 4 Rule 118. And so, citing Fule vs CA,
Betty King argues that there is no basis for
conviction. Inadmissible daw. The SC here ruled:
True. A pretrial agreement not signed by the
accused and counsel is inadmissible. However, the
conviction was based not on the agreement but on
the documents presented as evidence during the
trial, all of which was presented without any
objection from her counsel.

General Rule: Fule. Inadmissible because it was

unsigned,

But what the prosecution did was to submit the

documents for the consideration of the court. All
documents that would create fact of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. So these were admitted by the
court. And the counsel of the accused failed to
object. What happens if you fail to object? Your
client loses.

So what’s the difference between King and Fule?

InFule, that was all the evidence of the prosecution.

But in King, the documents that were presented

without any objection from the accused’s counsel
already sufficed to establish the guilt of the accused