Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SCC CHEMICALS CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 182864 2015-01-12	EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. BPI PEREZ, J.
The admission having been made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties, it must be treated as a judicial admission. Under Section 4, of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a judicial admission requires no proof.[87]
	GR No. 176949 2012-06-27	ASIAN CONSTRUCTION v. LOURDES K. MENDOZA DEL CASTILLO, J.
the text of the RTC Decision but only in the dispositive portion.[34]
	GR No. 157594 2010-03-09	TOSHIBA INFORMATION EQUIPMENT v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The admission having been made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties, it must be treated as a judicial admission.[45] Under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a judicial admission requires no proof. The admission may be contradicted only by a showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. The Court cannot lightly set aside a judicial admission especially when the opposing party relied upon the same and accordingly dispensed with further proof of the fact already admitted. An admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings does not require proof.[46]
	GR No. 178255 2009-11-24	RICARDO C. SILVERIO v. EUFEMIA ALMEDA ABAD, J.
But, since it is Silverio alone who was in a position to say whether or not the "valuable consideration" mentioned in those grants spelt profit for the sellers, the call for truth nudges at him. His suppression of it gives rise to the assumption that its disclosure would hurt his interest,[43] that it would show him to have made a profit from the resale of the lots and so be liable to the Almedas for that profit. Since the agreement places a cap of $100,000.00 on the additional compensation arising from the resale, the CA was correct in ordering Silverio to pay the same.
	GR No. 162104 2009-09-15	R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. EDUARDO PANTE PERALTA, J.
The contention lacks merit. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the medical certificate is admissible since petitioner failed to object to the presentation of the evidence.[40]
	GR No. 121484 2005-01-31	MEA BUILDERS v. CA CORONA, J.
the case within the exception and justify the grant of the award.[26] All told, petitioner failed to establish the presence of any of the exceptions to justify this Court's review of the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. We find no reversible error committed by the CA in limiting private respondent's liability to the value of the
	GR No. 152492 2003-10-16	PALMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. MUNICIPALITY OF MALANGAS PANGANIBAN, J.
Judicial admissions made by parties in the pleadings, in the course of the trial, or in other proceedings in the same case are conclusive. No further evidence is required to prove them. Moreover, they cannot be contradicted unless it is shown that they have been made through palpable mistake, or that they have not been made at all.[17]