“There are judicial admissions made during the trial, such as admissions in the judicial affidavits of witnesses or those elicited while cross-examining them”
A judicial admission is a formal statement, either by the party or by his or her attorney, during a judicial proceeding which removes an admitted fact from a field of controversy.
It is a voluntary concession of a fact by a party or a party’s attorney during judicial proceedings (Agbayani v. Lupa Realty, G.R. 201193, June 10, 2019).
What is the value of a judicial admission in a court proceeding?
The act, declaration, or omission of a party with regard to a relevant fact requires no proof.
“[I]t is used as a substitute for legal evidence at trial,” which means that proof of genuineness and due execution of documents is not required (see Rule 132, Sections 19 to 33, 2019 Rules on Evidence).
A judicial admission is one made by the parties in the pleadings such as a Complaint, Answer, or Reply.
The failure of the defendant in an Answer to specifically deny under oath an actionable document (basis of a plaintiff’s claim) amounts to a judicial admission.
Facts alleged in the complaint are deemed admissions by the plaintiff and are binding upon him.
Facts alleged in the answer are deemed admissions of the defendant and are binding upon him.
Facts stipulated in an agreement (stipulation) of facts are deemed admissions of both parties and are binding upon them (Francisco, Evidence).
There are judicial admissions made during the trial, such as admissions in the judicial affidavits of witnesses or those elicited while cross-examining them.
The opportunities for eliciting judicial admissions extend to modes of discovery, such as depositions pending action, perpetuations of testimony, or requests for admissions.
During pre-trial in civil cases, the parties are required to enumerate a summary of admitted facts and facts for stipulation (to be admitted) in their pre-trial briefs (Rule 18, Section 6, 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure).
Strictly speaking however, the latter is not a judicial admission until admitted (or stipulated upon) by the parties.
“And well-settled is the rule that an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof” (Republic v. Sarabia, et al., G.R. 157847 August 25, 2005).
In criminal cases, “[A]ll agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be produced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel; otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused (Rule 118, Section 2, Rules on Criminal Procedure).
A plea of guilty (or confession) to a lesser offense shall be approved by the court.
“In order to constitute a judicial admission, the statement must be one of fact, not [an] opinion [or matter of law]. [It]… must be contrary to an essential fact or defense asserted by the person giving the testimony; it must be deliberate, clear and unequivocal…” (G.R. 201193, June 10, 2019).
“Judicial admissions are evidence against the party who made them, and are considered conclusive and binding as to the party making the judicial admission.
A judicial admission bars the admitting party from disputing it…” (G.R. 201193, June 10, 2019).
“While it is true that a party making a judicial admission cannot subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with what was pleaded…[t]o constitute a judicial admission, the admission must be made in the same case in which it is offered” (Social Justice Society v. Atienza, G.R. 156052, February 13, 2008).
Generally stated, an admission in a pleading on which a party goes to trial is conclusive against him unless the court in its reasonable discretion allows the pleader to withdraw, explain or modify it if it appears to have been made by improvidence or mistake, or that no such admission was made (Francisco, Evidence citing Kanopka v. Kanopka, 31 C.J.S. 1171).
Hence, no admission is made if it is “not in the sense in which the admission was made to appear” or if “the admission was taken out of context” (Francisco, Evidence citing the Minutes of the Revision Committee [1989]).
In the 2019 Rules on Evidence, the phrase “that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made” was incorporated into Rule 129, Section 4.
In cases of failure to file an Answer leading to the defendant being declared in default, “such a failure does not amount to an admission of the facts alleged in the complaint” (Francisco, Evidence citing Lopez v. Medezona, 11 Phil. 209).
However, allegations in the complaint being left uncontroverted may be considered in rendering a judgment.
Superseded or amended pleadings, on the other hand, disappear from the record as judicial admissions.
For these to be considered as extra-judicial (out-of-court) admissions, the said pleadings should be offered formally in evidence.
If not offered in evidence the admission contained therein will not be considered (Francisco, Evidence citing Buenaventura v. Villar, 53 O.G. 3100).
Judicial admissions of attorneys, being agents of their clients, apply to the latter.
A party is bound by the admission contained on the pleading prepared by his attorney, although he did not swear to or know of the statements therein, and even though he had no actual knowledge of the existence of the pleading (Francisco, Evidence citing 31 C.J.S. 1078).
In the case of Agbayani v. Lupa Realty, “[T]he admission by Nonito’s counsel during the pre-trial proceedings… that there was no sale between Tranquilino and Nonito qualifies as a judicial admission because [it] is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement… [made] during judicial proceedings in open court… (G.R. No. 201193, June 10, 2019).
“The admission by Nonito himself, on cross-examination by Tranquilino’s counsel, that Tranquilino was in the United States at the time of the purported transaction supports the statement of the counsel of Nonito that there was no sale between Tranquilino and Nonito…” (G.R. 201193, June 10, 2019).