View full case

R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PHILHINO SALES CORPORATION

FACTS:

Petitioner R Transport Corporation filed a Petition for Review seeking to nullify and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In September 1994, petitioner allegedly purchased ten brand new units of Hino RF821 buses from respondent. The transaction was covered by a Sales Proposal Advice where petitioner agreed to a payment scheme. However, petitioner failed to pay the monthly installments and did not remit the proceeds of the bank financing. Respondent filed a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages with Urgent Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment against petitioner. The court granted the writ but it was later dissolved upon petitioner's motion and filing of a counterbond. The trial was postponed several times and finally set for 1 April 1998. Petitioner presented its witnesses but the court struck out the direct testimony of one witness due to her failure to appear. Petitioner filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals, raising several issues. The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order to enjoin the trial court from enforcing its order.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reset the cross-examination of its witness.

  2. Whether the trial court violated petitioner's right to due process.

  3. Whether the trial court's order striking out the testimony of petitioner's witness was justified.

  4. Whether the trial court displayed partiality in granting postponements to the respondent while denying petitioner's request for a schedule transfer of its witness' cross-examination.

  5. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for continuance or postponement.

  6. Whether the trial court's order striking out the unfinished testimony of the petitioner's witness was arbitrary or oppressive.

  7. Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for postponement and striking off the records a witness's testimony.

  8. Whether or not the trial court was partial in favor of the respondent.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's denial of petitioner's motion to reset the cross-examination of its witness. The Court reasoned that the scheduled hearing was with the conformity of petitioner's counsel and witness, and therefore, they were bound to attend the hearing.

  2. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's claim of denial of due process. It held that as long as a party is accorded an opportunity to be heard, due process is satisfied. In this case, petitioner had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, thereby forfeiting its right to be heard.

  3. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court's order striking out the testimony of petitioner's witness was justified. Since the failure to present the witness was due to petitioner's fault, the incomplete testimony cannot be taken into account by the trial court.

  4. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's allegation of partiality on the part of the trial court due to lack of evidence.

  5. The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for continuance or postponement. The grant of a motion for continuance or postponement is discretionary and parties cannot assume that their motions would be granted. Unless there is a clear and manifest abuse of discretion resulting in a denial of substantial justice, the decision of the trial court will not be disturbed by appellate courts.

  6. The trial court's order striking out the unfinished testimony of the petitioner's witness was not arbitrary or oppressive. It was a plausible outcome of the previous order denying the petitioner's motion for postponement. With the denial, the proper procedure was to declare the presentation of the petitioner's evidence terminated.

  7. The Court of Appeals did not err in finding that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the trial court in denying petitioner's motion for postponement and striking off the records a witness's testimony.

  8. The Court found nothing in the records to substantiate the allegation that the trial court was partial in favor of the respondent.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The right to due process includes the right to be heard. If a party is afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but fails to do so, the party cannot complain of a deprivation of due process.

  • The trial court has discretion in granting or denying motions to reset hearings, taking into consideration the circumstances and the interests of the parties.

  • If a party fails to present a witness due to its fault, the court may strike out the incomplete testimony and disregard it in its decision.

  • The grant of a motion for continuance or postponement is discretionary and parties have no right to assume that their motions would be granted. Unless there is a clear and manifest abuse of discretion resulting in a denial of substantial justice, the decision of the trial court will not be disturbed by appellate courts.

  • The trial court's order striking out the unfinished testimony of a witness is a logical consequence of the previous order denying a motion for continuance or postponement. It is not arbitrary or oppressive and is within the court's discretion to preserve the orderly conduct of the proceedings.

  • The denial of a motion for postponement and the striking off of a witness's testimony are matters within the discretion of the trial court.

  • Grave abuse of discretion must be shown to warrant the reversal of a trial court's ruling.

  • Allegations of bias or partiality on the part of the trial court must be supported by concrete evidence.