G.R. No. L-39276 February 24, 1975
JOSE ESPELETA, petitioner, vs. HON. CELSO AVELINO, as Presiding Judge, CFI, Cebu City, Branch XIII; and SHELL PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Espeleta was the defendant in a collection suit filed by Shell Philippines, Inc. for an alleged unpaid balance on fuel purchases. During trial, Espeleta presented Adelfa Montano, a Certified Public Accountant, as a vital witness to establish his defense regarding accounting discrepancies and undelivered products. Her direct testimony was completed, but she failed to appear on the scheduled date for her cross-examination due to an official audit assignment in Leyte. Espeleta’s counsel moved for postponement via telegram, but the respondent judge denied it.
The trial court granted Shell’s motion to strike Montano’s entire testimony from the records for her non-appearance and allowed Shell to present a rebuttal witness. The order characterized Espeleta’s previous requests for postponement as tantamount to delaying justice. Espeleta filed two motions for reconsideration, arguing that striking the testimony deprived him of a fair opportunity to present his defense, but these were denied. He then filed this certiorari petition, alleging a denial of procedural due process.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to a denial of procedural due process, in ordering the striking out of the entire testimony of a vital defense witness for her failure to appear on the date set for cross-examination.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that procedural due process mandates that a party be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard. Striking the entire testimony of a crucial witness effectively emasculated Espeleta’s right to present his defense, as Montano’s accounting testimony was indispensable to his case. While courts have discretion to control their dockets and prevent delays, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and without sacrificing fundamental fairness.
The Court cited the liberal interpretation of due process, noting that the witness’s absence was due to a legitimate official duty, not a willful disregard of the court. The drastic sanction of expunging her testimony was disproportionate, especially considering that Shell had previously been granted a postponement for a non-essential reason. The proper course was to reschedule the cross-examination or impose a lesser sanction, not to wholly deprive the defendant of his evidence. The order was annulled, and the case was remanded with instructions that Montano’s testimony remain in the records, subject to cross-examination. Costs were imposed on Shell Philippines, Inc.