G.R. No.

L-29742 March 29, 1972

VICENTE YU, plaintiff-appellant, vs. EMILIO MAPAYO, defendant-appellee.

Facts:
Plaintiff Vicente Yu (Yu) filed a case for recovery of sum against defendant Emilio
Mapayo (Mapayo) for the unpaid balance of the sale between them. In his answer, Mapayo alleged
that the balance was due to a hidden defect which, in view of such defect, Yu allegedly waived.
The city court decided in favor of Yu, but on appeal, the court ordered plaintiff to submit his
evidence, which Yu’s counsel asked the court to let Mapayo prove his claim of the defect since it
was his allegation, which the court denied, causing the dismissal of the case. Motions for
reconsideration were also denied, hence this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the plaintiff should provide the evidence for the allegation of the defendant.

Ruling:
No, plaintiff’s counsel refused to comply with the order of the trial court requiring plaintiff
to present his evidence. Instead of calling his witnesses, he moved the court to present them after
the defendant had presented their evidence. Such a stand is supported by Section 2 of the Revised
Rule of Court 129. section 2 of Revised Rule of Court 129 provides that admissions 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.

While this appeal is not a complaint against the presiding judge, We cannot refrain from
observing that the trial judge's despotic and outrageous insistence that plaintiff should present
proof in support of allegations that were not denied but admitted by the adverse party was totally
unwarranted, and was made worse by the trial judge's continual interrupting of the explanations of
counsel, in violation of the rules of Judicial Ethics.

Defendant not having supported his special defenses, the dismissal of the case was
manifestly untenable and contrary to law.