Cuenco V Talisay - Digest

JESUS CUENCO, - versus -TALISAY TOURIST SPORTS COMPLEX,
INCORPORATED AND MATIAS B. AZNAR III, On August 1999, the RTC rendered a Decision[20] in favor of petitioner.
G.R. No. 174154 On appeal, the CA rendered a Decision[23] reversing and setting aside the
October 17, 2008 decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Digest by RJARuiz Petitioner questions the CAs finding that there was damage caused to
the premises while the lease was still in force. Such finding was based on
FACTS: alleged inventory of the property conducted by the
On May 1992, petitioner leased from respondents for a period of two (2) respondents. Petitioner takes exception to this evidence because of the
years the Talisay Tourist Sports Complex, to be operated as a earlier judicial admission made by respondents counsel during pretrial
cockpit. The lease was later extended until May 8, 1998. that no inventory was conducted and, accordingly, any evidence adduced
by the respondents inconsistent with the judicial admission should be
Under the Contract [1] it was stipulated that petitioner shall maintain in rejected.
good condition the furniture and equipment and shall keep the leased
premises clean and sanitary. Furthermore, petitioner would give a ISSUE:
deposit equivalent to six (6) months rental to answer for whatever WON petitioner entitled to the return of the deposit. YES
damages may be caused to the premises during the period of the lease. [4]
HELD / RATIO:
Upon expiration of the contract, respondent company conducted a public WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court
bidding for the lease of the property. Petitioner participated in the of Appeals is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
bidding. The lease was awarded to another bidder. Thereafter, petitioner
wrote four (4) demand letters for the return of his deposit amounting Respondents failed to present sufficient proof to warrant the retention
P500,000.00. of the full amount of the deposit given by petitioner.
As all of his demand letters remained unheeded, petitioner filed a The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and as a rule, does not weigh
Complaint for sum of money, damages and attorneys fees. anew the evidence presented by the parties. However, the instant case is
one of the exceptions to the rule because of the conflicting decisions of
Respondents countered that petitioner caused physical damage to some the RTC and the CA based on contradictory factual findings. Thus, we
portions of the leased premises and the cost of which amounted to more have reviewed the records in order to arrive at a judicious resolution of
than P500,000.00. the case at bench.
After pretrial, the RTC issued a Pre-trial Order which reads: Indeed, at the pre-trial conference, respondents counsel made an
The following facts were admitted by the [respondents]: admission that no inventory was made on the leased premises, at least
1. There is no inventory of damages up to this time;
up to that time. This admission was confirmed in the Pre-Trial Order
2. [Petitioner] deposited the amount of P500,000.00;
3. [Petitioner] sends (sic) several letters of demand to [respondents]
issued by the trial court on March 8, 1999 after the lease expired on May
but said letters were not answered. 8, 1998.
Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not
require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by a showing
that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission
was made.

A party may make judicial admissions in (1) the pleadings, (2) during the
trial, by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, or (3) in other
stages of the judicial proceeding. [30] The stipulation of facts at the pre-
trial of a case constitutes judicial admissions. The veracity of judicial
admissions require no further proof and may be controverted only upon
a clear showing that the admissions were made through palpable
mistake or that no admissions were made. Thus, the admissions of
parties during the pre-trial, as embodied in the pre-trial order, are
binding and conclusive upon them.

Respondents did not deny the admission made by their counsel, neither
did they claim that the same was made through palpable mistake. As
such, the stipulation of facts is incontrovertible and may be relied upon
by the courts. The pre-trial forms part of the proceedings and matters
dealt therein may not be brushed aside in the process of decision-
making. Otherwise, the real essence of compulsory pre-trial would be
rendered inconsequential and worthless. [31] Furthermore, an act
performed by counsel within the scope of a general or implied authority
is regarded as an act of the client which renders respondents in estoppel.
By estoppel is meant that an admission or representation is conclusive
upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against
the person relying thereon.[32]

Cuenco V Talisay - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cuenco V Talisay - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cuenco V Talisay - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JESUS CUENCO, - versus -TALISAY TOURIST SPORTS COMPLEX,

You might also like