Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., vs BPI/MS Insurance Corporation
G.R. No. 182864, January 12, 2015
Facts: A complaint for actual damages amounting to US$17,560.48 was filed by herein respondents against Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., (ESLI) covering steel subject to its shipment. Petitioner insisted that it was through the management of the stevedore where the damages have been incurred. For failure to reach settlement on the legal issues it was submitted to trial and during the pre-trial several stipulations of facts were admitted. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents. ESLI appealed disputing its liability as to the damaged goods and invoking further the validity of the contents of the bill of lading.
Issue: Whether or not admissions made during the pre-trial as to the validity of the bills of lading are binding.
Ruling: Yes. Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the admissions. Pre-trial admission in civil cases is one of the instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided for under Section 7, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that the contents of the pre-trial order shall control the subsequent course of the action, thereby, defining and limiting the issues to be tried. In Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, this Court emphasized that:
Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by the parties and their counsels, they become binding on the parties who made them. They become judicial admissions of the fact or facts stipulated. Even if placed at a disadvantageous position, a party may not be allowed to rescind them unilaterally, it must assume the consequences of the disadvantage.
Moreover, in Alfelor v. Halasan, this Court declared that:
A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy. Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or not. The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary of or inconsistent with what was pleaded. (Citations omitted)
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.
Risos-Vidal vs Commission on Elections
G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015
Facts: Former President Estrada was impeached and removed from presidency. He was convicted of the crime of plunder. During the term of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, she extended an absolute pardon to herein private respondent. Estrada filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of City Mayor of Manila which was questioned by petitioner Atty. Risos-Vidal alleging that his conviction disqualified him from running for public office. The COMELEC took discretionary judicial notice on Estrada’s pardon.
Issue: Whether or not the court properly took judicial notice on the pardon of former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada.
Ruling: Yes. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for public respondent COMELEC, maintains that “the issue of whether or not the pardon extended to [former President Estrada] restored his right to run for public office had already been passed upon by public respondent COMELEC way back in 2010 via its rulings in SPA Nos. 09-024, 09-028 and 09-104, there is no cogent reason for it to reverse its standing pronouncement and declare [former President Estrada] disqualified to run and be voted as mayor of the City of Manila in the absence of any new argument that would warrant its reversal. To be sure, public respondent COMELEC correctly exercised its discretion in taking judicial cognizance of the aforesaid rulings which are known toit and which can be verified from its own records, in accordance with Section 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court on the courts’ discretionary power to take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to them because of their judicial functions.”
Further, the OSG contends that “[w]hile at first glance, it is apparent that [former President Estrada’s] conviction for plunder disqualifies him from running as mayor of Manila under Section 40 of the [LGC], the subsequent grant of pardon to him, however, effectively restored his right to run for any public office.” The restoration of his right to run for any public office is the exception to the prohibition under Section 40 of the LGC, as provided under Section 12 of the OEC. As to the seeming requirement of Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., the express restoration/remission of a particular right to be stated in the pardon, the OSG asserts that “an airtight and rigid interpretation of Article 36 and Article 41 of the [RPC] x x x would be stretching too much the clear and plain meaning of the aforesaid provisions.” Lastly, taking into consideration the third Whereas Clause of the pardon granted to former President Estrada, the OSG supports the position that it “is not an integral part of the decree of the pardon and cannot therefore serve to restrict its effectivity.”
*In a restaurant/food place*
Q: Table for?
or *sitting in the table, ordering for food or eating already all by him/herself*
Q: Are you waiting for someone?
*In line at a ticket center*
Q: How many?
It has been a common situation, a stigma in this world that whenever a person eats out alone or goes to a concert, movie or anywhere without anyone with him/her, people asks that person (if they are brave enough) or have a mini discussion amongst themselves as to why that person is without anybody with him/her. Common reaction.
Some would say – maybe he/she doesn’t have friends, that person is probably an emo, he/she is a bad person that’s why people don’t want to make friends with him/her, or people hate him/her.
Some prefer spending their quality (ME) time. Some don’t have anyone to share that moment with. Whichever the case is, R E S P E C T.
Sipping your cup of coffee on a weekend afternoon at your favorite coffee shop while reading a can’t-get-your-hands-off-that-book is precious.
Having no one beside you or with you does not always mean you are sad.
Yes, it is nice to be with someone especially if that person is one that’s special. However, you have to treasure every moment you can spend your time on your own. It will make you stronger. You will be more independent. There will be realizations that will come here and there. You will appreciate life more. You’ll even discover how beautiful the world is. You will meet new people you can develop a special relationship with.
There is nothing wrong with being alone BUT do not enjoy it that much (might sound contrary eh?) Haha. Anyway, it must be in moderation like everything else. You might enjoy it a little too much that people will have a hard time to penetrate in your life. Never shut yourself from the world…
Take away: As long as you enjoy it, do it.
What you’re going through is real. It is not all in your head, it’s real. Your problems are not smaller than the others. Each individual’s problem is unique. Do not compare your struggle from that of another.
You can make it. I know you will. You are way stronger than what you think you are. You got this!