Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Atillo III vs. CA
Atillo III vs. CA
Dispositive Portion:
Issue:
Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED and this petition is DENIED.
WoN Lhuillier made an admission of personal liability in his answer. NO.
Held:
As provided for in Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, the general
rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it and
does not require proof admits of two exceptions:
1. when it is shown that the admission was made through palpable
mistake, and
2. when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made.
The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that
he made such an admission. Wherein the one making the admission may
show that he made no such admission, or that his admission was taken out
of context.
o This may be interpreted as to mean not in the sense in which the
admission is made to appear.
In this case, petitioner appears to have taken the admissions made by
Lhuillier in paragraph 3.11 of his Answer out of context.
Paragraph 3.11 has reference to the fact that in all investments made with
AMANCOR through stock purchases, only petitioner and Lhuillier deal with
each other.
Moreover, contrary to petitioner’s allegations, Lhuillier had categorically
denied personal liability for AMANCOR’s corporate debts in his answer.
Petitioner was well aware that Lhuillier had never admitted personal liability
for the said obligation. In fact, in the trial court, both parties submitted for
the determination of the court, the question of whether or not Lhuillier is
personally liable for the obligation of AMANCOR to petitioner.