Maxicare vs Estrada (GR No.

171052 January 28,2008)

Facts: Maxicare is a domestic corporation engaged in selling health insurance plans

whose Chairman Dr. Roberto K. Macasaet, Chief Operating Officer Virgilio del Valle,
and Sales/Marketing Manager Josephine Cabrera were impleaded as defendants-
appellants. On September 15, 1990, Maxicare allegedly engaged the services of
Carmela Estrada who was doing business under the name of CARA HEALTH
SERVICES.to promote and sell the prepaid group practice health care delivery program
called MAXICARE Plan with the position of Independent Account Executive. Maxicare
formally appointed Estrada as its General Agent, evidenced by a letter-agreement
dated February 16, 1991. The letter agreement provided for plaintiff-appellees
Estradas compensation in the form of commission. Maxicare alleged that it followed a
franchising system in dealing with its agents whereby an agent had to first secure
permission from Maxicare to list a prospective company as client. Estrada alleged that it
did apply with Maxicare for the MERALCO account and other accounts, and in fact, its
franchise to solicit corporate accounts, MERALCO account included, was renewed on
February 11, 1991. Plaintiff-appellee Estrada submitted proposals and made
representations to the officers of MERALCO regarding the MAXICARE Plan but when
MERALCO decided to subscribe to the MAXICARE Plan, Maxicare directly negotiated
with MERALCO regarding the terms and conditions of the agreement and left plaintiff-
appellee Estrada out of the discussions on the terms and conditions.

Issue: Whether or not Estrada is entitled to the commission despite her admission that
the negotiation between her and MERALCO failed.

Held: Yes. The statement in Annex F amounted to an admission, provides a contrary

answer to Maxicares ridiculous contention. We intoned therein that in spite of the
presence of judicial admissions in a partys pleading, the trial court is still given leeway
to consider other evidence presented.

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.

For instance, if a party invokes an admission by an adverse party, but cites the
admission out of context, then the one making the admission may show that he made
no such admission, or that his admission was taken out of context.

This may be interpreted as to mean not in the sense in which the admission is made to
appear. That is the reason for the modifier such.

In this case, the letter, although part of Estradas Complaint, is not, ipso facto, an
admission of the statements contained therein, especially since the bone of contention
relates to Estradas entitlement to commissions for the sale of health plans she claims
to have brokered. It is more than obvious from the entirety of the records that Estrada
has unequivocally and consistently declared that her involvement as broker is the
proximate cause which consummated the sale between Meralco and Maxicare.

Moreover, Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court requires the purpose for which the
evidence is offered to be specified. Undeniably, the letter was attached to the
Complaint, and offered in evidence, to demonstrate Maxicares bad faith and ill will
towards Estrada.

MERCADO VS. UBAY

GR No. L-35830 July 24, 1990
First Division, Medialdea

FACTS:
(1) CIVIL CASE NO. TM-223: Herein petitioners - The MERCADO (siblings) filed an
action for partition with the Court of First Instance (CFI) Cavite Br. 1 against the
SAMONTE siblings. The defendants filed their answer to the complaint thru their
counsel, Atty. Danilo Pine.
(2) CFI rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. Since no appeal was made by any of
the defendants, the decision became final and executory, then the trial court issued the
corresponding writ of execution.
(3) Before the writ of execution could be carried out, the defendants filed a petition for
certiorari and mandamus seeking to annul the writ of execution. The Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
(4) CIVIL CASE NO. C-2442: Respondent Lucina and Trinidad Samonte filed an action
before the CFI of Rizal for the annulment of the judgment rendered by the trial court on
CIVIL CASE NO. TM-223, alleging that they did not authorize anyone including Atty.
Pine to represent them in said case. Petitioners motion to dismiss was denied.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not a CFI or a branch thereof has the authority to annul a final and
executory judgment rendered by another branch of the same court?
(2) Whether or not Atty. Pine is duly authorized to represent petitioner in the case at
bar?

HELD:
Petition is granted and respondent judge of the CFI or Rizal is ordered to dismiss Civil
Case No. 2442.

RATIO:
(1) BP 129 enacted August 10, 1982, transferred jurisdiction over actions for annulment
of judgment to the Court of Appeals. Although the prevailing rule before the enactment
of BP 129 was that the CFI and their branches have jurisdiction to annul each others
final judgments. However fundamental principles still dictate that the better policy, as a
matter of comity or courteous interaction between courts of first instance and branches
thereof, the annulment of cases to be tried by the same court or branch which heard the
main action sought to be annulled, pursuant to judicial stability, the doctrine of non-
interference should be regarded as highly important in the administration of justice
whereby the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified
or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction.
(2) An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which
he appears, and no written power of attorney is required of him to appear in Court for
his client. (SEC 21, Rule 138, Rules of Court)