Case Digest (G.R. No. 159240)
Facts:
Gregorio Silot, Jr. v. Estrella de la Rosa, G.R. No. 159240, February 04, 2008, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Gregorio Silot, Jr. and respondent is Estrella de la Rosa; the dispute arose from a construction-contract transaction for a dormitory-apartment in Naga City.On January 19, 1996 petitioner and respondent contracted for the construction of a building on Lot 1-A-9-D, Bagumbayan Sur, Naga City, with Silot to supply labor and de la Rosa to pay 33% of the total value of materials purchased. Upon turnover in February 1997 the total cost of materials purchased was P2,504,469.65; 33% thereof amounted to P826,474.98. Silot demanded and received P1,018,000.00 from de la Rosa, which she claimed was an overpayment of P191,525.02; after unsuccessful demands, de la Rosa sued Silot for recovery of the overpayment (Civil Case No. 97-3750).
Silot answered by suing de la Rosa for alleged insufficient payment, claiming he was still owed P273,872.40, such that the two suits were consolidated (Civil Cases Nos. 97-3736 and 97-3750, RTC Branch 61, Naga City). At trial petitioner’s counsel, Atty. San Jose, orally admitted in open court the substance of respondent’s offer of proof concerning the witness Ariel Goingo and agreed to dispense with his testimony, expressly conceding that the materials totalled P2,504,469.65, 33% of which is P826,474.98, and that de la Rosa paid P1,018,000.00, leaving an excess of P191,525.02.
The RTC (Judge Andres B. Rarsaga, Jr.) rendered a Joint Decision dated May 24, 2000: it dismissed Civil Case No. 97-3736 and ordered Silot to return P191,525.02 to de la Rosa and to pay P100,000.00 attorneys’ fees and P50,000.00 nominal damages. On appeal the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68062 affirmed with modification in a Decision dated July 9, 2003, deleting the nominal damages award and reducing attorneys’ fees to P20,000.00. Petitioner sought review in this Court by a Rule 45 petition for review on ce...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Atty. San Jose’s oral admission in open court constitute a judicial admission binding on petitioner Silot?
- Did the appellate court err in ordering petitioner to return P191,525.02 to respondent and to pay P20,000.00 in a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)