CAMITAN V. FIDELITY INVESTMENT (REMEDIAL)

The records show that counsel for petitioners made a judicial admission and failed to refute that admission during the said proceedings despite the opportunity to do so. A JUDICIAL ADMISSION is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with the need for proof with respect to the matter or fact admitted. It may be contradicted only by a showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

Petitioners explicate that the wrong admission was an honest mistake and negligence attributable to the counsel's nervousness and excitement in appearing for the first time before the CA. However, as correctly pointed out by the CA, such an admission may only be refuted upon a proper showing of palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Thus, the claim of honest mistake and negligence on the part of the counsel did not suffice.

There was ample opportunity for petitioners; counsel to examine the document, retract his admission, and point out the alleged discrepancies. But he chose not to contest the document. Thus, it cannot be said that the admission of the counsel was made through palpable mistake.

Every counsel has the implied authority to do all acts which are necessary or incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf on his client Any act performed by counsel within the scope of his general and implied authority is, in the eyes of law, regarded as the act of the client himself.

Consequently, the mistake or negligence of the counsel, which may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment, generally binds the client. To rule otherwise would encourage every defeated party, in order to salvage his case, to claim neglect or mistake on the part of his counsel. Then, there would be no end to litigation, as every shortcoming of counsel could be the subject of challenge by his client through another counsel who, is he is also found wanting, would likewise be disowned by the same client through another counsel ans so on, as infinitum.

This rule admits of exceptions, i.e., where the counsel's mistake is so great and serious that the client is deprived of his day in court or of his property without due process of law. In these cases, the client is not bound by his counsel's mistakes and the case may even be reopened in order to give the client another chance to present his case. In the case at bar, however, these exceptional circumstances do not obtain.