Philippine Health-Care Providers vs.

Estrada
G.R. No. 171052
28 Januar 2008
Na!hura" J.
#a!ts$
Philippine Health-Care Providers, Inc. (Maxicare) engaged Carmela Estrada
(Estrada)
1
as an Independent cco!nt Exec!tive" to promote and sell the prepaid
gro!p practice health care deliver# program called Maxicare Plan".
Maxicare $ormall# appointed Estrada as a %&eneral gent% thro!gh a letter-
agreement dated 1' (e)r!ar# 1**1 +hich provides $or Estrada,s compensation in
the $orm o$ commissions.
Estrada s!)mitted proposals and made representations to the Manila Electric
Compan# (Meralco) regarding the Maxicare Plan, )!t +hen Meralco decided to
s!)scri)e to the said plan, Maxicare directl# negotiated +ith Meralco regarding the
terms and conditions o$ the agreement and le$t Estrada o!t.
-n ./ 0ovem)er 1**1, Meralco s!)scri)ed to the Maxicare Plan and signed a
1ervice greement directl# +ith Maxicare $or medical coverage o$ its 2!ali3ed
mem)ers, the contract )eing rene+ed t+ice $or a term o$ three (4) #ears each.
-n .5 March 1**., Estrada demanded $rom Maxicare that she )e paid
commissions $or the Meralco acco!nt and nine (*) other acco!nts, +hich +ent
!nheeded.
-n 1/ March 1**4, Estrada 3led a complaint against Maxicare and its o6cers +ith
the 7egional 8rial Co!rt (78C) o$ Ma9ati Cit#.
:oth the 78C and the Co!rt o$ ppeals (C) held that Estrada +as the e6cient
proc!ring ca!se in the exec!tion o$ the service agreement )et+een Meralco and
Maxicare.
Maxicare 3led )e$ore the 1!preme Co!rt a petition $or revie+ on certiorari o$ the
78C ;ecision as a6rmed )# the C.
%ssue$ <hether or not the C committed serio!s error in a6rming Estrada,s
entitlement to commissions $or the exec!tion o$ the service agreement )et+een
Meralco and Maxicare.
Held$ 0o. 8he r!ling o$ the C is a6rmed. Petition denied.
Ratio$
nnex (", alleged )# Maxicare to )e Estrada,s admission that her negotiations
+ith Meralco $ailed, is, in $act, a letter )# Maxicare,s co!nsel dated 1= pril 1**.
containing a !nilateral declaration )# Maxicare that Estrada,s negotiations +ith
Meralco $ailed.
In Atillo III v. CA, the 1!preme Co!rt held that in spite o$ the presence o$ >!dicial
admissions in a part#,s pleading, the trial co!rt is still given lee+a# to consider
other evidence presented.
In the same case, the 1!preme Co!rt r!led that, as provided $or in 1ection 5, 7!le
1.* o$ the 7!les o$ Co!rt, the general r!le that a >!dicial admission is concl!sive
!pon the part# ma9ing it and does not re2!ire proo$ admits o$ t+o exceptions? (1)
1
8hen doing )!siness !nder the name o$ Cara Health 1ervices
+hen it is sho+n that the admission +as made thro!gh palpa)le mista9e, and (.)
+hen it is sho+n that no s!ch admission +as in $act made.
8he second exception allo+s the part# to +hom the admission is imp!ted to claim
that s!ch admission +as ta9en o!t o$ context.
In the present case, the letter, altho!gh part o$ Estrada,s Complaint, is not, ipso
facto, an admission o$ the statements contained therein, especiall# since the )one
o$ contention relates to Estrada,s entitlement to commissions $or the sale o$ health
plans she claims to have )ro9ered.
8he entiret# o$ the records sho+ that Estrada has !ne2!ivocall# and consistentl#
declared that her involvement as )ro9er is the proximate ca!se +hich
cons!mmated the sale )et+een Meralco and Maxicare.
1ection 45, 7!le 14. o$ the 7!les o$ Co!rt re2!ires the p!rpose $or +hich the
evidence is o@ered to )e speci3ed.
8he letter +as attached to the Complaint, and o@ered in evidence, to demonstrate
Maxicare,s )ad $aith and ill +ill to+ards Estrada.
Even a c!rsor# reading o$ the Complaint and all the pleadings 3led therea$ter
)e$ore the 78C, C, and this Co!rt, readil# sho+ that Estrada does not concede, at
an# point, that her negotiations +ith Meralco $ailed.
Note: Counsel for Maxicare was admonished for citing Annex F out of context in
violation of !ule "#.#$ of the Code of %rofessional !esponsi&ilit'.
A;igest prepared )# Basper llen :. :arrientos.