ADMISSION BY A CO-PARTNER OR AGENT
(Philippine Rules on Evidence, Rule 130; Focus on Section 29 [Old Rules]/Section 26 [Revised Rules])

1. Overview and Definition

Under Philippine law on evidence, particularly Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, an admission by a co-partner or agent refers to an out-of-court statement made by a partner in a partnership or by an agent in the course of the agency relationship. Such a statement, when made within the scope and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be received in evidence as an admission against the principal or the partnership, provided certain foundational requirements are met.

This rule is grounded on the principle that a partner or an agent acts as an extension of the partnership or the principal. Hence, statements they make within the confines of their authority and while the relationship subsists are deemed to be, in legal effect, the statements of the party they represent.

2. Legal Basis

Old Rules (Pre-2019 Amendments)
- The pertinent provision was commonly cited as Section 29, Rule 130 of the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence:
  
  “The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by the party to make a statement or to do the act in question concerning the partnership or agency, and during its existence, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.”
Revised Rules on Evidence (Effective 2019)
- Under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, admissions by a co-partner or agent are generally found in Section 26, Rule 130, often stated together with rules on admission by conspirators. Although the precise numbering may differ, the substance remains:
  
  “The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by him or her, or of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the partner, principal, or conspirator after the conspiracy (or partnership/agency) is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.”

3. Nature and Purpose of the Rule

Exception to the Hearsay Rule
Ordinarily, out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted are hearsay and are inadmissible. Admissions by a co-partner or agent, however, are treated as non-hearsay (or as an exception to the hearsay prohibition) because the partner or agent is viewed as an alter ego or representative of the principal party.
Binding on the Principal or Partnership
Because the agent’s or co-partner’s statements made within the scope of their authority are treated as those of the principal or partnership, they can be used against such principal or partnership as direct evidence of admissions.

4. Elements and Foundational Requirements

To ensure that the statement or act of a co-partner or agent is admissible as an admission against the principal (or the partnership), the following must be established:

Existence of a Partnership or Agency
- There must be independent evidence (other than the statement itself) that a partnership or agency relationship actually exists.
- The rule explicitly requires that the relationship be shown by other proof. The statement alone cannot create or prove the relationship.
Authority
- The partner or agent making the statement must be authorized, either generally or specifically, to deal with or speak on the subject matter of the statement.
- In a partnership, each partner is generally considered an agent of the partnership for the usual scope of its business. In agency, it must be shown that the agent was acting within the bounds or scope of the authority conferred.
During the Existence of the Relationship
- The statement or act must be made while the partnership or agency exists. If the statement was made after dissolution of the partnership or after the agency was terminated, it will generally not be admissible as an admission against the co-parties or principal.
Relates to a Matter Within the Scope
- The declaration or act must concern the very matter for which the partnership or agency was created or the matter within the ordinary course of business or authority of such a partner or agent.

5. Illustrative Scenarios

Business Partners
- If Partner A, in a validly formed partnership with Partner B, admits during a business meeting that the partnership’s product was defective, this statement may be introduced as evidence against both A and B, provided that the existence of the partnership is established by independent evidence (partnership agreement, business registration, etc.).
Corporate Officers or Employees (as Agents)
- In many situations, corporate officers (e.g., President, Treasurer) or specifically authorized employees are deemed agents of the corporation.
- If the officer makes a statement within the scope of his authority regarding corporate transactions, that statement can be offered in evidence as an admission by the corporation, again contingent on proof of the officer’s authority and position.
- By contrast, a mere employee without authority on specific corporate matters cannot bind the corporation with extraneous statements outside the ambit of their duty.
Sales Agent
- If a sales agent, duly authorized to negotiate and conclude contracts on behalf of the principal, makes an admission about defects in the goods sold or misrepresentations in the contract while transacting with the customer, such admission may be held against the principal-employer, as it arises from the scope of the agent’s authority.

6. Distinguishing Admission from Confession

Admission
- An admission is a statement of fact that does not necessarily acknowledge guilt but tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue.
- In civil proceedings (e.g., breach of contract, property disputes), an admission may relate to liability, the existence of a debt, or the authenticity of a document.
Confession
- A confession, in criminal law, is an unequivocal acknowledgment of guilt for a particular offense.
- While both admissions and confessions are forms of evidence under the umbrella of “statements by the accused,” the stricter rules on confessions (e.g., voluntariness, constitutional safeguards) primarily apply in criminal proceedings and revolve around the accused’s acknowledgement of participation in or responsibility for the crime charged.

Given that we are focusing on “admission by a co-partner or agent,” the concept is typically relevant in civil or quasi-civil contexts (e.g., contractual liability, tortious liability of a company, or partnership liability). In criminal cases, the notion of “admission by agent” is less commonly invoked, except in specialized contexts like corporate criminal liability or conspiracy (where a co-conspirator’s statements may become relevant).

7. Key Points of Jurisprudence

Although numerous cases interpret and apply these principles, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has consistently underscored:

Necessity of Independent Proof
- Courts require that the existence of the partnership or agency be shown by competent evidence other than the admission itself. If a party attempts to use the alleged statement of the agent or partner as the sole evidence to prove the agency or partnership, it fails under the rule.
Scope and Authority
- Statements outside the scope of business or authority (ultra vires) are not admissions that bind the principal. Courts scrutinize closely whether the subject matter of the statement falls within what the agent or partner is authorized to do.
Timing
- The statement must have been made during the continuance of the agency or partnership. A post-termination declaration is typically deemed inadmissible as an admission of the principal or other partners.
Protective Purpose
- The rule prevents one party from disclaiming statements that were effectively made on their behalf in the ordinary course of business or authorized dealings, thereby upholding commercial fairness and accountability.

8. Practical Considerations and Caveats

Documentary vs. Verbal Admissions
- Admissions by a co-partner or agent may be oral or written (e.g., letters, emails, messages). Regardless of form, the same foundational rules apply: prove the relationship independently, show authority, and ensure the statement is within scope and timing.
Unauthorized or “Rogue” Statements
- If the partner or agent clearly acts outside their authority or disowns the principal’s interests for personal reasons, the statement may not bind the principal. A court would look to see if the speaker had apparent, implied, or express authority.
Burden of Proof
- The proponent of the evidence (the party introducing the admission) bears the burden of showing that the foundation requirements are satisfied. Failure to do so precludes admissibility.
Distinction from Mere Employee Statements
- The rule explicitly addresses “partners” and “agents” with authority. Not every employee automatically qualifies as an agent for all corporate matters. Courts consider the nature of the employment and actual or apparent authority.

9. Summary of the Rule’s Importance

Admissions by a co-partner or agent streamline litigation by allowing statements made in the ordinary course of business (or within the scope of authority) to serve as direct evidence against a principal or partnership. This rule reflects commercial realities: businesses and partnerships act through representatives. When those representatives speak on the partnership’s or principal’s behalf, fairness dictates that their statements should be binding on the entity—provided the relationship and authority are proven.

By requiring independent proof of the partnership or agency and confining the scope to authorized matters, the rule guards against abuse (e.g., an unscrupulous individual falsely claiming partnership or agency status to bind an unsuspecting principal). It thus strikes a balance between preventing hearsay abuses and recognizing legitimate admissions made in the ordinary course of authorized dealings.

Key Takeaways

Foundational Proof: You cannot rely solely on the statement in question to prove the existence of the agency or partnership. Independent evidence (like contracts, registration papers, or testimony establishing the relationship) is essential.
During Existence of Relationship: The admission must be made while the agency or partnership continues; post-termination statements do not bind.
Within Scope: The statement must concern business or matters within the partner’s or agent’s authority; personal declarations or ultra vires statements do not bind the principal.
Effect: Once the foundational facts are established, the statement is deemed an admission of the principal or partnership, no longer hearsay but directly attributable to the represented entity.

In short, an admission by a co-partner or agent is a crucial, well-recognized exception to the hearsay rule in Philippine remedial law, premised on the idea that one who speaks or acts on behalf of another in a valid legal relationship implicates that other in whatever is said or done within the legitimate bounds of their authority.