This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-08 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court notes that while petitioners impute error upon the CA in declaring Pastor's illness as osteoarthritis, it is extant on the records that they themselves, in the numerous pleadings they filed before the labor tribunals, consistently referred to his diagnosed ailment as osteoarthritis. It was only after the CA rendered its assailed Decision that petitioners contradicted this and now claim that Pastor's illness is actually spinal disc degeneration which, according to them, is a completely different illness from osteoarthritis. Suffice it to state, however, that petitioners cannot now take a contrary view as to Pastor's actual illness in view of their previous admission that he was suffering from osteoarthritis. It is settled that statements made in the pleadings in the course of judicial proceedings are considered judicial admissions.[30] Judicial admissions cannot be controverted by the party making the admissions.[31] They are conclusive and legally binding as against the pleader who cannot subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with what was pleaded.[32] | |||||
|
2012-06-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We highlight the fact that when UCCP filed the original complaint before the SEC, only individual respondents were impleaded. UCCP then amended the complaint to include BUCCI, only to drop it as respondent after the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision, purportedly to show that it was merely going after individual respondents. We agree with respondents that failure to implead BUCCI as respondent in the instant case constitutes a blatant disregard of Section 4(a), Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,[54] but also renders the assailed decision final and executory and all subsequent actions on the petition are void considering that BUCCI is an indispensable party.[55] We cannot countenance this disingenuous practice of shifting to a new theory on appeal in the hope of obtaining a favorable result.[56] | |||||