Can the court take judicial notice on bank practices?

While a court is not mandated to take judicial notice of

this practice under Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court,
it nevertheless may do so under Section 2 of the same Rule on
discretionary judicial notice. Sec. 2 of Rule 129 provides that a
court may take judicial notice of "matters which are of public
knowledge, or ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions." Thus, the Court has taken judicial notice
of the practices of banks and other financial institutions. Precisely,
it has noted that it is their uniform practice, before
approving a loan, to investigate, examine and assess would-be
borrowers' credit standing or real estate offered as security
for the loan applied for (Solidbank Corporation v. Mindanao
Ferroalloy Corporation, 464 SCRA 409).

What are judicial admissions?

Under Sec. 4 of Rule 129, judicial admissions are described

and defined as follows:

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. (4a)

What are the elements of judicial admissions?

To be a judicial admission under Sec. 4 of Rule 129, certain

elements must be considered:

First, the same must be made by a party to the case. Admissions

of a non-party do not fall within the definition of Sec.
4 of Rule 129.

Second, the admission to be judicial, must be made in the

course of the proceedings in the same case. Thus, an admission
made in another judicial proceeding will not be deemed
a judicial admission in another case where the admission was
not made. Instead, it will be considered an extrajudicial admission
for purposes of the other proceeding where such admission
is offered.

It has been held that " . . . To be considered as a judicial

admission, the same must be made in the same case in which
it is offered (Programme Incorporated v. Province ofBataan,
G.R. No. 144635, June 26, 2006; Camitan v. Fidelity Insurance
Corporation, G.R. No. 163684, April 16, 2008).

Third, Sec. 4 of Rule 129 does not require a particular

form for an admission. Such form is immaterial because the
provision recognizes either a verbal or a written admission.

When can a party make judicial admissions

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 (Sps. Binarao v. Plus Builders, Inc., G.R. No.
154430, June 16,2006).

Silot, Jr. vs. De La Rosa, G.R. No. 159240, February 04, 2008

Constantino vs. Constantino, G.R. No. 181508, October 02, 2013

Study Rule 26 Sec. 1, Sec. 2, Sec.3 , Sec. 4 of the new Rules on Civil Procedure

Diman vs. Lacalle, G.R. No. 131466, November 27, 1998

When a pleading is amended, what is the effect on the admissions in a superseded

pleading?

When a pleading is amended, the amended pleading supersedes

the pleading that it amends and the admissions jn
the superseded pleading may be received in evidence against
the pleader (Sec. 8, Rule 10, Rules of Court).

When a pleading is dismissed, what is the effect on the admissions made therein?

Rule 10. Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. — An amended pleading supersedes the
pleading that it amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be offered in
evidence against the pleader, and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the
amended pleading shall be deemed waived.

Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 643

Bon vs. People, G.R. No. 152160, January 13, 2004

What is the exception to the rule that admissions by counsel are conclusive upon a
client?

General Rule: Admissions by a counsel are generally conclusive

upon a client (De Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA 129).
Even the negligence of counsel binds the client (Sarraga v.
Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, 393 SCRA 566).

Exception: In cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of
due process of law, or when its application will result in outright
deprivation of the client's liberty or property, or when
the interests of justice so require, relief is accorded the client
who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake
or negligence (Salazar v. Court of Appeals, 376 SCRA
459; Silot v. De la Rosa, G.R. No. 159240, February 4, 2008).

What are the consequences of judicial admissions?

1. A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later

challenge that fact, as judicial admissions are a waiver of
proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission
removes the admitted fact from the field of controversy.
Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings cannot
be controverted by the party making such admission and are
conclusive to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent
therewith should be ignored, whether objection is
interposed or not. The allegations, statements or admissions
contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader.
A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to or
inconsistent with what was pleaded (Alfelor v. Halasan, G.R.
No. 165987, March 31, 2006).

2. No evidence is needed to prove a judicial admission

and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to have been
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission
was made (Arroyo, Jr. v. Taduran, 421 SCRA 423) but despite
the presence of judicial admissions in a party's pleading, the
trial court is still given leeway to consider other evidence
presented (Santos v. Lumbao, G.R. No. 169129, March 28,
2007 citing Atillo v. CA, 266 SCRA 596; Philippine Health-
Care Providers, Inc. v. Estrada I Cara Health Services, G.R. No.
171052, January 28, 2008) because said admissions may not
necessarily prevail over documentary evidence (Asian Pacific
Planners v. City ofUrdaneta, G.R. No. 162525, September 23
2008).

What are the effects of judicial admissions?

Specifically, under Sec. 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of

Court, the following are the effects of judicial admissions:

(a) They do not require proof; and

(b) They cannot be contradicted because they are
conclusive upon the party making it.

The above rule however, admits of two exceptions, namely:

(1) upon showing that the admission was made

through palpable mistake, or
(2) when it is shown that no such admission was
made

Atillo v CA, G.R. No. 119053

Distinguish judicial admissions from extrajudicial admissions

While a judicial confession may sustain a conviction,

an extrajudicial confession is not sufficient for conviction. The
rule requires that the confession be corroborated by evidence
of corpus delicti.

While an extrajudicial confession will not be sufficient

for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti (Sec. 3, Rule 133, Rules of Court), a judicial confession
will support conviction without proof of corpus delicti independent of the judicial confession.

The Supreme Court also held in one case that a distinction

must be made between an extrajudicial and judicial
confession. An extrajudicial confession may be given in evidence
against the confessant but not against his co-accused
since the latter are not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine
him. A judicial confession is admissible against the declarant's
co-accused since the latter are afforded the opportunity
to cross-examine the former. Sec. 30 of Rule 130 applies only to
extrajudicial admissions and not to testimonies at trial where
the party adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-examine
the declarant (People v. Palijon, 343 SCRA 486). When
the extrajudicial admission of a conspirator is confirmed at
the trial, it ceases to be hearsay. It becomes instead a judicial
admission, being a testimony of an eyewitness admissible in
evidence against those it implicates. Here, the extrajudicial
confession was affirmed by him in open court during the trial.
Thus, such confession already partook of judicial admission.

When is extrajudicial admission admissible?

The oral confession is not admissible as evidence of

guilt. The confession is in the nature of an extrajudicial
confession before an investigator while under custodial
investigation. Hence, the statutory provisions under R.A.
No. 7438 (Sec. 2[d]) will have to be complied with. Under
said law, any extrajudicial confession made by a person
arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation shall
be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of
his counsel. An oral confession does not comply with the
mandatory provisions of the law. Under R.A. No. 7438,
the confession is inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding
(Sec. 2[d], R.A. No. 7438).

What are the requirements in order that an admission

of guilt of an accused during a custodial investigation
be admitted in evidence?

Suggested answer:

(1) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person

arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation shall
be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of
his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver,
and in the presence of any of the parents, older brothers
and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal
judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister
of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial
confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any
proceeding (Sec. 2[d], RA. No. 7438).

(2) The confession must be corroborated by evidence

of corpus delicti (Sec. 3, Rule 133, Rules of Court).

Jurisprudence holds that the general rule is that the extrajudicial

confession or admission of one accused is admissible
only against the said accused but is inadmissible against
the other accused. However, if the declarant/admitter repeats
in court his extrajudicial confession during trial and the other
accused is accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the
admitter, such confession or admission is admissible against
both accused. The erstwhile extrajudicial confession or admission
when repeated during the trial is transposed into judicial
admissions (People v. Buntag, 427 SCRA 180).