8/10/2019 10 Espeleta v. Avelino Baaria

1/1

Prepared by: Gwendolyn Ann I. Baaria, 1-D

ESPELETA v. AVELINO

G.R. No. L-39276

24 February 1975

Aspects of the Proceedings (Sec 1, Art III)

FACTS

Espeleta claimed to have been denied procedural due processwhen Judge Avelinoin a spiritof unwanted generosity towards Shell Philippines, Inc., acceded to its plea that the testimony of awitness, Adelfa Montano, deemed by him as vital to his case be ignored and disregarded in itsentirety for failure to be present in court on the day set for her cross-examination.

The preceding case was for Recovery of Sum of Money filed by Shell alleging that Espeletapurchased Shell products not fully paid; while Espeleta alleged that the unpaid balance was lesser andthere was still to be deducted from the trueamount for the value of the liters of gasoline not actuallydelivered by Shell, and the cost of gasoline leakage and wastage caused by the leak of theunderground tank plus the usual allowance for evaporation. Espeleta decided to present Montano, aCPA to show to the lower court the true figures of the transactions after accounting. Unfortunately,being a new employee in the Office of the Department of Local Govt and Community Devt at the

time she was supposed to continue her testimony could not disregard the orders of her superiors tomake an urgent audit in Baybay, Leyte and instead informed Espeletas counsel of her unavailability

so that the latter could make the proper representation with the Honorable lower court for possibledeferment. It will be noted that the only witness for the Shell was its Sales representative, Mr. JosephSmith, who was not privy to the bookkeeping & accounting of the accounts of transaction during theentire period.

The challenged order declared that the direct testimony of Montano, the last witness for the

defendant, not having been finished and she not having been cross-examined due to her failure toappear in Court in spite of the fact that she was duly notified in open court, was considered strickenfrom the records, and that Shell was allowed to present a rebuttal witness in connection with thetestimony of Espeleta, being well taken. It was also noted that it was not the first time that Espeletascounsel had sent a telegram to the court requesting postponement of the hearing of the case which

actuation was tantamount to delaying the administration of justice. The defendant was given 10 daysfrom receipt to offer in writing his documentary evidence, but with regards only to those documents

he identified during his testimony, considering that those presented and identified during Montanostestimony were already considered stricken from the records.

ISSUES

1) Whether Judge Avelinos order denied Espeleta procedural due process

HELD

1) Yes.The proceedings did not satisfy the constitutional standard for a judicious inquiry.

The requirement that the judgment should be only after a trial where the litigants are givenfull and unimpeded opportunity to sustain their respective claims and to have their evidence

duly considered and weighed was not satisfied.Judge Avelino was not mindful that a sound discretion should be exercised the trial

judge, and the highly commendable desire for the dispatch of a business should not bepermitted to turn the scales of justice rather than accede to a reasonable request for acontinuance.

In cases where a party litigant without malice, fault, or inexcusable neglect, is notprepared for the trial of a case, the court exceeds the discretion conferred upon it by law indenying to said litigant a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the trial and to obtain dueprocess of law and proper protection under the law. Liberality should be exercised in grantingpostponements of trial to obtain presence of material evidence and to prevent miscarriage ofjustice.