Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Savory Luncheonette filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino (LAKAS PILIPINO) for allegedly violating Republic Act 875 by declaring a strike despite a no-strike clause in their collective bargaining agreement, failing to observe the grievance procedure and cooling-off period, employing illegal means, and striking for recognition when another union was the certified bargaining agent. Procedural History: Petitioner presented Atty. Emiliano Morabe as its key witness. Atty. Morabe's direct examination was concluded on March 2, 1973. The private respondents, through their counsel Atty. Amante, repeatedly failed to cross-examine Atty. Morabe despite several postponements and warnings from the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). Atty. Morabe passed away on March 31, 1973, before he could be cross-examined. The Petition: On April 12, 1973, LAKAS PILIPINO moved to strike out Atty. Morabe's testimony, arguing it could no longer be rebutted. Petitioner opposed, asserting the right to cross-examine was waived. Separately, private respondents moved to recall Bienvenida Ting for further cross-examination, which the CIR granted on May 3, 1974. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on July 5, 1974. This Petition for Review on certiorari assails the CIR's orders as grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the direct testimony of Atty. Emiliano Morabe to be stricken off the record. Whether the respondent Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the recall of Bienvenida Ting for further cross-examination.
Ruling
The Petition is granted. The Orders of the respondent Court of May 3, 1974, and July 5, 1974, are set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the striking of Atty. Morabe's testimony: The right to cross-examine is a fundamental right guaranteed by due process, but it is a personal right that can be waived, expressly or impliedly. The private respondents, through their counsel, were afforded five opportunities to cross-examine Atty. Morabe. Despite repeated postponements due to the counsel's unpreparedness and absence, and despite warnings from the court, the cross-examination never took place. The witness's death before cross-examination, when the adverse party had adequate opportunity but failed to avail of it due to their own fault, does not warrant striking out the testimony. The repeated failure and lack of preparation on the part of the respondents' counsel led to the forfeiture of their right to cross-examine Atty. Morabe. Therefore, the CIR's order to strike off the testimony was an act of grave abuse of discretion. On the recall of Bienvenida Ting: The order to recall Bienvenida Ting for further cross-examination was also unwarranted. The witness's direct examination was completed on March 27, 1973, and her cross-examination was conducted on June 4, 1973, more than two months later. This interval provided ample time for the respondents' counsel to scrutinize the testimony and prepare for cross-examination. Having conducted the cross-examination extensively and concluded it, the subsequent motion to recall the witness, without specifying the matters sought to be established, was evidently intended for delay and harassment. The CIR's granting of this motion, especially when the witness had already been extensively cross-examined after a significant delay, constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The right to cross-examine is a fundamental right that can be waived, expressly or impliedly. Failure to avail of the opportunity to cross-examine, despite repeated chances, constitutes a waiver, and the testimony on direct examination may be admitted.