Yu vs. Mapayo

Judicial admissions in a pleading relieve the opposing party of the need to prove the admitted facts and entitle that party to insist that the pleader first prove his special defenses; a dismissal for lack of prosecution is improper where the plaintiff declines to present evidence on facts already admitted by the defendant.

Vicente Yu sold a Gray Marine Engine to Emilio Mapayo, leaving an unpaid balance of P2,800. Yu filed suit in the City Court of Davao, Branch II, to recover that balance plus attorney’s fees. Mapayo’s answer admitted the transaction and the balance due but contended that hidden defects in the engine forced him to spend P2,800 for repairs and labor, and that Yu had agreed to waive the balance; he counterclaimed for damages and attorney’s fees. Mapayo appealed to the CFI, where his answer was a virtual reproduction of his original defenses.

After several continuances, the case was called for hearing on March 13, 1968. Mapayo and his counsel failed to appear. The CFI scheduled the case for hearing ex parte on the same day and ordered Yu to present his evidence. Yu’s counsel told the CFI that all the allegations of the complaint were admitted and that it should be Mapayo who presented evidence on the hidden-defect defense; counsel said he was not presenting evidence yet and reserved the right to present rebuttal evidence after Mapayo’s evidence. The CFI repeatedly asked whether Yu would present evidence, and counsel maintained that he would submit on the pleadings until after Mapayo presented evidence. The CFI then recorded that Yu’s counsel refused to present evidence, either oral or documentary, when required, and submitted the case for consideration.

On March 21, 1968, the CFI denied Yu’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed the case for lack of prosecution. Further motions for reconsideration proved futile, and Yu appealed to the SC.

• Judicial Admissions / Order of Trial: Petitioner argued, through counsel, that the answer admitted the transaction and the P2,800 balance, so he did not need to present evidence on those matters; it was respondent who should first present evidence on his special defenses of hidden defects and waiver, and petitioner reserved the right to present rebuttal evidence.

• Hidden Defects and Waiver: Respondent’s answer asserted that the engine had hidden defects; that he was forced to spend P2,800 for repairs and labor; that petitioner had agreed to waive the balance due; and he counterclaimed for damages and attorney’s fees.

• Judicial Admissions and Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution: Whether the CFI erred in dismissing the action for lack of prosecution after petitioner’s counsel declined to present evidence first, given that respondent’s answer admitted the transaction and the P2,800 balance and pleaded only special defenses.

• Judicial Admissions and Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution: Yes. The CFI erred. Respondent’s answer admitted the obligation and the P2,800 balance, so those facts required no proof under Section 2, Rule 129; it was for respondent to support his special defenses, and the dismissal for lack of prosecution was untenable.

• Judicial Admissions and Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution: Section 2 of Revised Rule 129 provides that admissions in pleadings do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake. Mapayo’s answer admitted the transaction and the P2,800 balance due, even as it pleaded special defenses. Those admitted facts therefore needed no evidence from Yu, and Yu had every right to insist that Mapayo first come forward with evidence on his special defenses. Mapayo did not support those defenses. The CFI’s dismissal for lack of prosecution was thus manifestly untenable and contrary to law. The SC also observed that the trial judge’s insistence that Yu prove admitted allegations was unwarranted and that his continual interruption of counsel violated the rules of Judicial Ethics.

• Judicial Admissions — Admissions made by parties in pleadings or during trial do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake. In this case, Mapayo’s answer admitted the sale and the P2,800 balance, so Yu did not have to prove them; the burden was on Mapayo to prove his special defenses.
• Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution — A plaintiff may rely on the defendant’s judicial admissions and insist that the defendant first prove his special defenses; dismissing the case for lack of prosecution when the plaintiff declines to present evidence on admitted facts is untenable and contrary to law. Applied: the CFI’s dismissal was reversed because Yu’s refusal to go first was justified by Mapayo’s admissions.

• "Admissions made by the parties in the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings do not require proof and can not be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake." — The SC quotes Section 2, Rule 129 as the basis for holding that Yu need not prove the obligation admitted in Mapayo’s answer.
• "Since the answer admitted defendant's obligation as stated in the complaint, albeit special defenses were pleaded, plaintiff had every right to insist that it was for defendant to come forward with evidence in support of his special defenses." — This is the ratio: the admitted obligation shifted the immediate burden to Mapayo to prove his special defenses.
• "Defendant not having supported his special defenses, the dismissal of the case was manifestly untenable and contrary to law." — The SC concludes that the CFI’s dismissal for lack of prosecution could not stand.

• Section 2, Revised Rule 129 — Judicial admissions: 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. Applied: Mapayo’s answer admitted the transaction and the P2,800 balance, so Yu did not need to prove them.
• Civil Code, Article 2208, paragraph 11 — Attorney’s fees may be awarded when just and reasonable. Applied: the SC awarded attorney’s fees to Yu.