Section 4. Judicial admissions. An
admission, oral or written, made by the 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 the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.
CHANGES
and COMMENTS
FIRST. From
“verbal or written” to “oral or written” o With
“verbal”, it means relating to or in the form of words. “Verbal” can therefore
be also “written.” It might also be interpreted to mean actions
as the root word is “verb.” o With “oral”, it
means “by word of mouth or spoken rather than written.” o
Thus, with the amendment, admissions are now clearly either
spoken (by testimonies or by open court declarations) or written (by pleadings
or other submissions in writing).
SECOND. From “no such admission was made” to “the imputed admission was not, in
fact, made” o This
amendment takes into consideration applicable jurisprudence such as:
Admission
was taken out of context or not in the sense in which the admission is made to
appear (Atillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119053, January 23, 1997) Remember,
when you say imputed admission, you will not impute something against yourself.
Who is
imputing the admission against you? It will be the
adverse party who will “impute” an admission against the other party.
Definition
Under the
case law, judicial admission or an ADMISSION IN JUDICIO is a deliberate, clear,
unequivocal statement by a party about a concrete fact within that
party’s knowledge.
Under the law on pleadings, a judicial admission is a formal concession in the
pleadings or stipulations by a party or counsel that is binding on the party
making them. Although a judicial admission is not itself evidence, it has the
effect of withdrawing a fact from contention.
SPOUSES
BINARAO vs. PLUS BUILDERS, INC. G.R. No. 154430, June 16, 2006 A
party may make judicial admissions in (a) the pleadings, (b) during the trial,
either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, or (c) in other
stages of the judicial proceeding. NOTE also that admissions can be express or
implied, verbal or written. You can trace it already that from verbal or
written, it now becomes oral or written. The phraseology before is verbal or
written.
ADOLFO
vs. ADOLFO G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015 Judicial
admissions may be made in (a) the pleadings filed by the parties, (b) in the
course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations,
or (c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in the pre-trial of the
case. Admissions obtained through depositions, written interrogatories or
requests for admission are also considered judicial admissions. The facts of
this case are very interesting for it allow us to review some concepts that we
have previously learned in remedial law.
What
happened in the case of Adolfo vs. Adolfo? Note: the
names of the parties are changed.
ADOLFO
vs. ADOLFO G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015
FACTS:
Rrramon
is married to Maja. In 2004, Rrramon filed a petition for judicial separation
of property against his estranged wife. Maja answered that one of the
properties is her exclusive property and therefore should not be made part of
any judicial separation. Rrramon filed a Request for Admission asking Maja to
admit that, in another case decided by the same court, Maja alleged in her
answer that the same property is conjugal. Maja
did not respond to the Request. This other case was pending appeal before the
Court of Appeals. If there’s an admission that such is a conjugal
property, then it will be
included in the judicial separation. If it is a paraphernal property, then it
is really an exclusive property of Maja. Hence, not included in the judicial
separation.
What is the effect if you do not
respond to the Request for Admission? (Take note: This is one of the modes of
discovery)
Under
Section 2, Rule 26, each of the matter of which an admission is requested shall
be deemed admitted unless you deny it.
Section
2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed
admitted unless, within a period designated in
the request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service
thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion, the
party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party
requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the
matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the
reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
What was the Request for Admission
about? It’s about
whether you state in your pleadings in that other case that the property
subject of this case is conjugal and not paraphernal. Maja did not answer so
there is now an implied admission based on Rule 26.
What did Rrramon do now? …continuation…
Rrramon filed a
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, stating that since Maja failed to answer
his request for admission, the matters contained in the request are deemed
admitted pursuant to Rule 26, Section 2 and that, as a consequence of the
application of the rule, Maja is in effect considered to have admitted that the
subject property is a conjugal asset of their subsisting
marriage which may thus be the subject of his petition for judicial separation
of property. The court a quo treated Maja’s failure to respond as an admission as to
the nature of the property, took judicial notice of its own judgment and
records in the other case, treated the prayer for judgment on the pleadings as
one for summary judgment and rendered summary judgment in favor of Rrramon.
There was
a mistake on the part of the lawyer because what he asked was Judgment on the
Pleadings, but in view of the Court, it should be for Summary Judgment.
When is it permissible for the court
to take judicial notice of its own judgment or records in a case that is
pending before it?
Courts
may take judicial notice of a decision or the facts prevailing in another case
sitting in the same court if: 1) The parties present them in evidence, absent
any opposition from the other party; or 2) The court, in its discretion,
resolves to do so.
ISSUE: Was the court a quo correct in rendering
judgment in favor of Rrramon on the basis of judicial notice and the judicial admission
attributable to Maja’s failure to respond to the request for admission?
RULING: The Supreme Court said in
the matter of Judicial Notice that while there is nothing irregular with the taking of judicial
notice, the trial court disregarded the fact that its decision was then the
subject of a pending appeal before the Court of Appeals. It
should have known that until the appeal is resolved by the appellate court, it
would be premature to render judgment on petitioner’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings; that it
would be presumptuous to assume that its own decision would be affirmed on
appeal. One of
the issues raised in the appeal is precisely whether the subject property is
conjugal, or a paraphernal asset of the respondent. Thus,
instead of resolving petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings,
the trial court should have denied it or held it in abeyance.
First,
what is the general rule?
General Rule: A court cannot take judicial
notice of the records of a different case even if it is pending before it, or
even if the court has knowledge that it is one handling the case previously.
Exception: In the absence of objection, the
court may treat it as read into the record of the present case.
The court
may treat it as read into the records of the present case, just like what we
reviewed earlier.
But as an exception to the exception: If that case that the court wants
to take judicial notice of, is still pending appeal, the court should not take
judicial notice of this. Because it has no right to presume that it will be
upheld on appeal. After the appeal you can still file a Petition for Review
(MTC to RTC; RTC to CA; CA to SC). It’s a long way to go if
it’s initially cognizable by the MTC. But here it’s the CA to SC.
Section 3.
Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. – During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu
proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking
judicial notice of any matter.
Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu
proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear
the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.
- During Pre-Trial and Trial:
- The court,
either on its own initiative (motu proprio) or upon a party's
motion, is required to hear the parties on the propriety of taking
judicial notice of any matter. This ensures that both parties have the
opportunity to discuss and contest the court's intention to acknowledge a
fact without formal evidence.
- Before Judgment or on Appeal:
- The court may,
again motu proprio or upon a party's motion, take judicial notice
of any matter. However, if the matter is decisive of a material issue
in the case, the court must conduct a hearing to allow the parties to be
heard. This provision safeguards the parties' rights by ensuring that any
fact recognized judicially, which could significantly impact the case's
outcome, is subject to scrutiny and discussion.
Purpose of the Hearing:
The hearing is not intended for the presentation of new evidence but to
provide the parties with a reasonable opportunity to:
- Present Information: Offer relevant
information concerning the propriety of taking judicial notice.
- Discuss the Matter: Deliberate on the
accuracy and relevance of the fact the court intends to acknowledge.
This process ensures transparency and fairness, allowing both parties to
express their positions regarding the judicially noticed fact.
Example Scenario:
Consider a civil case where the court intends to take judicial notice of
a recent legislative enactment that could affect the legal standards applicable
to the case.
- During Trial: The court announces
its intention to recognize the new law without formal evidence. A hearing
is conducted where both parties can discuss the applicability and
implications of this law on the current proceedings.
- Before Judgment: If, after the trial,
the court identifies a fact (e.g., a Supreme Court ruling) that is
decisive of a material issue, it may take judicial notice of this ruling.
However, it must first hold a hearing to allow the parties to discuss the
relevance and impact of this ruling on the case.
Section 3, Rule 129 ensures that
when a court considers taking judicial notice of a fact, especially one that
could significantly influence the case's outcome, the parties involved are
given a fair opportunity to be heard. This provision upholds the principles of
due process and fair play in judicial proceedings.
Example No. 1 In
an action for a collection of sum of money, the plaintiff alleges that the
defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff and there was a prior demand to pay
and the defendant did not pay. The defendant admitted all the allegations in
the complaint and simply prayed to the court for leniency. Take note, because
of the admissions, no need for evidence. No need for trial, because judicial
admission require no proof under
Rule 129 Section 4: Sec.
4 Judicial admissions. An admission, or or written, made by the party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case, does
not require proof.
Example No. 2 In
an action for collection of sum of money, the plaintiff alleges that the
defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff and there was a prior demand to pay
and the defendant did not pay. The defendant specifically denied all the
allegations in the complaint. How will he make a specific denial?
Specific Denial Defendant
specifically denies the allegations in the complaint insofar as it alleges that
the defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff, that there was a prior demand
to pay and that defendant has not paid yet. The truth of the matter is that the
defendant did not secure a loan from the Plaintiff and, assuming that there was
a loan, defendant has already paid it.
Question:
Do you
notice something here? Do you notice something about the specific denial of the
defendant? What do you notice from his defense?
Answer: The specific denial of the defendant is
wholly inconsistent. You cannot deny a loan and at the same time allege that
you have already paid it. Thus, the issue raised, even if there is a specific
denial, is not genuine. At least one of them is clearly a sham issue. In that
sham issue, what would be the effect? You can move for summary judgment, because
that is a sham, either one of them is sham.
Example No. 3 In an action for collection of sum
of money, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant secured a loan from the
plaintiff and the defendant did not pay. The defendant specifically denied all
the allegations in the complaint. How will he make a specific denial?
Specific Denial Defendant specifically denies the
allegations in the complaint insofar as it alleges that the defendant secured a
loan from the plaintiff, that there was a prior demand to pay and that
defendant has not paid yet. The truth of the matter is that, while defendant
did indeed secure a loan from the plaintiff, defendant has already paid it. The
denial is very clear, I have a loan but I have already paid it. It is an Affirmative
Defense, a
defense of confession and avoidance. Oo, I admit that I have a debt. But, I am
avoiding payment because I already paid it. That is affirmative defense under
the rule on pleadings.
There are
three (3) possible situations there:
Possibility No. 1 Defendant has already paid the
plaintiff (payment) If defendant has already paid the plaintiff, he will plead
the existence of an actionable document, a receipt (or that promissory note
that has been returned). Thus, under Rule 8, Section 7, the substance of such
document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof
shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a
part of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the
pleading. (at least under the 1997 Rules). In this situation, there is a need
to proceed to trial because reception of evidence (receipt) must be had. The
plaintiff cannot move for judgment on the pleadings because there is a specific
denial. In fact, the plaintiff has to file a reply under oath. Otherwise, the
existence and due execution of the receipt would be deemed admitted (Rule 8,
Section 8). In the same situation, the plaintiff cannot move for summary
judgment because the existence of a receipt for payment tenders a genuine
issue. The only time that that receipt will not tender a genuine issue is when,
if that receipt is forged. It is Forgery, it was faked. In order for the
plaintiff to properly argue that it is fake, and therefore it’s a
sham issue, he needs to move affidavits, depositions or admissions. So, if there
really is a genuine receipt, there is a need to go to trial to receive evidence
as to their respective claims and defense of the parties.
Possibility No. 2 Defendant has really paid the
plaintiff but has no proof (payment, no proof) Defendant really paid the
plaintiff but he was never issued a receipt or maybe he lost his receipt. What
will happen? Defendant will prove by testimony the circumstances that show that
he has already has paid. What is the ultimate effect? Reception of evidence is
still required. Hence, the plaintiff cannot move for summary judgment.
IMPORTANT: Summary Judgment and Judgment of
the Pleadings, none of them are viable if there is still a requirement to
present evidence. If there is anything that needs to be presented to the court,
to determine a particular issue, if there are still evidence, we don’t accelerate
the judgment.
Possibility No. 3 Defendant never really paid the
plaintiff (no payment) In other words, he is inventing a defense. He is just
kidding. He is lying. Even if he specifically denied the allegations in the
complaint and attempted to make an issue, everything is a SHAM. This time, the plaintiff can
move for summary judgment on the ground that the answer fails to raise a
genuine issue. What will the plaintiff do? The plaintiff will move with
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his
favor. In other words, he will attach his proof that the defendant has never
really paid. He will tell the Court that the defendant is
lying. That’s the simplest I can explain, Rule 35 for you.
Take
note, the defendant has the option to oppose the motion together with his
affidavits, depositions or admissions. But if he never really paid the
plaintiff, he would not have any proof. Take note also that if he never paid
the plaintiff, what proof does he have?
Example No. 4 Plaintiff filed an action to
collect a loan based on a promissory note, claiming that the defendant has not
paid him yet. In his answer, defendant admitted that the plaintiff’s
pleading states no cause
of action as the promissory note is not yet due. That’s an
affirmative defense, that’s allowed. Can the plaintiff move for summary judgment? Can the
defendant, for that matter, move for summary judgment also?
Analysis Q: How will the court determine the
maturity date of the promissory note?
A: By looking at the complaint. The promissory
note and its maturity date are there. The attachments, the promissory note
being an actionable document should be there.
Q: Would the court require reception of evidence
to determine if the note is due or not?
A: No. Everything is stated in the pleadings.
Q: If the plaintiff moves for summary judgment,
what will happen?
A: If the court determines that the promissory
note is already due by examining the pleadings only, there is no more need for
trial. The Court will simply order the defendant to pay. Anyway, the defendant
already admitted the existence of the loan. In effect, the defendant did not
raise a genuine issue. That is when sometimes the Judgment on the Pleadings can
become confusing with Summary Judgment. What is the basis of the court? The
pleadings, but it’s not summary judgment. Why? Because the defendant tried to make issue, he
denied. Except that, it is not a genuine issue. Because when he says that the
note is not yet mature but it is clear, you can see in the pleadings by
pleading an actionable document that it’s already matured.
Q: Can the defendant move for summary judgment?
A: Yes. In effect, he is telling the court to
simply look at the attached promissory note and see that the debt is not yet
due. If the debt is not yet due, the court will dismiss the case on the ground
of prematurity. It is still Premature, your cause of action is still not
ripened. The complaint did not raise a genuine issue. In fact, there is still
no cause of action yet because there is no violation.
I hope
that clarifies Rule 34 in relation to Rule 35. The point that I just want to
raise here, the point I want you to remember: You need to know the subtle
differences between judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment (Rule 35).
You need to remember that is a favorite in Bar Examinations. Not to mention the
fact that Rule 34 and Rule 35 would be proper if the resolution of the issue,
whether it is not a genuine issue or whether all admitted but would require
still the presentation of evidence. Rule 34 and Rule 35 is not proper if it will
still require a presentation of evidence. Why? I asked my student last year.
Nobody got the question.
Comments
Post a Comment