Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50650:gr-159240-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:22:00+00:00

Document:
GREGORIO SILOT, JR., Petitioner, v. ESTRELLA DE LA ROSA, Respondent.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Joint Decision dated May 24, 2000 of the RTC, Branch 61, Naga City in Civil Cases Nos. 97-3736 and 97-3750 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION, deleting the award for nominal damages and reducing the award of attorney's fees to Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos.
Other awards not otherwise modified or deleted stand.
On January 19, 1996, petitioner Gregorio Silot, Jr. and respondent Estrella de la Rosa entered into a contract for the construction of a dormitory-apartment building on Lot 1-A-9-D, Bagumbayan Sur, Naga City. They expressly agreed that Silot shall supply the labor and de la Rosa shall pay 33% of the total value of the materials purchased for the project. Upon turnover in February 1997 of the completed structure, the total cost of materials actually purchased was P2,504,469.65, 33% of which is P826,474.98. Silot required de la Rosa to pay a total of P1,018,000.00, or P191,525.02 more than the amount due. Through her son-in-law, de la Rosa confronted Silot about the overpayment but the latter refused to return the overpayment. After her repeated demands fell on deaf ears, de la Rosa filed a suit against Silot.
Silot, in retaliation, sued de la Rosa for insufficient payment, claiming that he was supposed to receive P1,281,872.404 but was only paid P1,008,000.00, thus still leaving a balance of P273,872.40.
The two cases were consolidated by the trial court.
Wherefore, premises considered, Civil Case No. 3736 is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of merit; while in Civil Case No. 97-3750, defendant Gregorio Silot is hereby ordered to return the amount of P191,525.02 to the plaintiff, Estrella de la Rosa; to pay P100,000.00 for [a]ttorney's fees and P50,000.00 as nominal damages.
The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in construing the admission ma[d]e by Atty. San Jose on the purpose for the testimony of witness Ariel [Goingo] as admission of evidence.
Simply stated, petitioner is raising the following issues to be resolved: (1) whether the admission by Atty. San Jose, counsel of petitioner Silot, constituted judicial admission of respondent's evidence; and (2) whether the appellate court erred in ruling that Silot should return the claimed amount of P191,525.02 to de la Rosa.
(1) Ongson v. People,9 where petitioner was held bound by his unqualified admission that he received private complainant's demand letter with notice of dishonor. The admission binds him considering that he never denied receipt of the notice of dishonor.
(2) Republic v. Sarabia,10 where the Court held that an admission made in the pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to him.
(3) People v. Genosa,11 Arroyo, Jr. v. Taduran,12 Carandang v. Court of Appeals,13 in which cases the Court held that judicial admissions are conclusive upon the party making it and may not be contradicted in the absence of prior showing that the admission had been made through palpable mistake, or no admission was in fact made.
(4) People v. Razul14 and Lim v. Jabalde,15 where it was held that stipulations are recognized as declarations constituting judicial admissions, hence, binding upon the parties.
The purpose for which this witness will testify are the following: If admitted, we are willing to dispense the testimony. He will testify that in consideration of the 33% as mentioned in the contract, all the material supplies during the making of the additional works mentioned were all considered; he will testify that Silot was paid of all works that was performed as well as all materials supplied were considered, and that the sum total of which is P2,504,469.65 and 33% of which is P826,474.98, and that De la Rosa paid the total amount of P1,018,000.00, and therefore, there is an excess payment of P191,525.00; he will testify that De la Rosa never received the demand or was confronted by Silot regarding an alleged balance, now, if the counsel wish to admit this.
Because these are all evidentiary and this has not been adequately covered.
Clearly, given the circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeals did not err in ordering petitioner to return to respondent the amount of P191,525.02 overpayment.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated July 9, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68062 is AFFIRMED. Petitioner Gregorio Silot, Jr. is hereby ordered to return the amount of P191,525.02 to respondent Estrella de la Rosa, and to pay P20,000.00 as attorney's fees. Costs against petitioner.
1 Rollo, pp. 31-45. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Edgardo F. Sundiam concurring.
2 Id. at 25-30. Penned by Judge Andres B. Rarsaga, Jr.
9 G.R. No. 156169, August 12, 2005, 466 SCRA 656, 677.
10 G.R. No. 157847, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 142, 150.
11 G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004, 419 SCRA 537, 562.
12 G.R. No. 147012, January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 423, 427.
13 G.R. No. 85718, April 16, 1991, 195 SCRA 771, 776.
14 G.R. No. 146470, November 22, 2002, 392 SCRA 553, 578.
15 G.R. No. 36786, April 17, 1989, 172 SCRA 211, 222.
16 Juani v. Alarcon, G.R. No. 166849, September 5, 2006, 501 SCRA 135, 153; Uy v. Adriano, G.R. No. 159098, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 625, 648-649.
19 G.R. No. 108028, July 30, 1996, 260 SCRA 25.
21 Rules of Court, Rule 129, Section 4.
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 showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
22 G.R. No. 140274, November 15, 2000, 344 SCRA 831.
26 Id. at 36; TSN, January 21, 2000, pp. 2-3.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.