Five Star Bus Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On November 9, 1991, a collision occurred between a passenger bus owned by Five Star Bus Company, driven by Ignacio Torres, and a Suzuki Supercarry Mini-Van operated by Samuel King Sagaral II. This incident led to a civil action for damages filed by Sagaral against Five Star Bus Company and Ignacio Torres. 2. Procedural History: The civil action was filed on April 1, 1992, and assigned to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela. After numerous postponements and a change in presiding judges due to the court's designation as a special court for heinous crimes, the case was re-raffled to Branch 75. The trial court repeatedly cancelled hearings at the instance of the petitioners, citing various reasons including the incarceration of petitioner Ignacio Torres and conflicts in their counsel's schedule. Ultimately, on July 16, 1996, the trial court deemed the petitioners' right to present evidence waived and submitted the case for decision due to their counsel's tardiness and subsequent motions for resetting. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC. 3. The Petition: Petitioners sought recourse to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, challenging the trial court's order deeming their right to present evidence waived. However, the Court of Appeals summarily dismissed their petition, citing non-compliance with Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91, as the certification on non-forum shopping was signed by their counsel and not by the petitioners themselves. The appellate court denied their motion for reconsideration. The present petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court argues that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their petition on this technicality and in affirming the trial court's order, praying for the case to be remanded for further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in summarily dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that the certification on non-forum shopping was signed by counsel and not by the petitioners themselves. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in deeming petitioners' right to present evidence waived.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari, affirming the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 23 September 1996, which summarily dismissed the petition for certiorari, and the Resolution of 31 October 1996, which denied the motion for reconsideration. The Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, was directed to render its decision in Civil Case No. 3812-V-92 without delay.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the certification on non-forum shopping: The Court reiterated that Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 requires the petitioner to certify under oath that they have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues. While substantial compliance has been accepted in certain circumstances, the Court found that in this case, strict compliance was necessary. The excuse provided by counsel for not personally signing the certification was deemed frail, and the petitioners failed to show reasonable cause for their failure to sign or convince the Court that the dismissal would defeat the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that the attestation requires personal knowledge by the party executing it, and utter disregard of the rules cannot be rationalized by liberal construction. On the issue of the trial court's order deeming the right to present evidence waived: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. The records showed that the case had been pending for over four years and that five out of six scheduled hearing dates for the presentation of petitioners' evidence were cancelled at their instance. The postponements were due to reasons such as the incarceration of petitioner Ignacio Torres, conflict of schedule of their counsel, and repeated motions to reset. The Court noted that petitioners were represented by a law firm, implying that any member could have appeared. The repeated resettings were viewed as potential dilatory tactics, and the trial court's order to waive the right to present evidence was a necessary measure to prevent further delay and uphold the principle that "justice delayed is justice denied."
Main Doctrine
Substantial compliance with the certification on non-forum shopping requirement is generally sufficient, but strict compliance is required when the failure to comply is not justified by reasonable cause and the dismissal of the petition would not defeat the administration of justice. Repeated postponements at the instance of a party, leading to significant delays, may justify the waiver of the right to present evidence.