Design Sources v. Eristingcol
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Lourdes L. Eristingcol purchased Pergo flooring of the "Cherry Blocked" type from Petitioner Corporation, Design Sources International, Inc., in 1998. Upon installation, the flooring developed unsightly bulges at the joints and seams by February 24, 2000. Despite repeated demands for repair or replacement and a deadline of May 31, 2000, Petitioner Corporation failed to comply. Consequently, respondent filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners. Procedural History: The complaint for damages was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-850. During the trial, specifically after the testimony of Kenneth Sy, petitioners' counsel moved for a continuance to secure another witness, architect Stephen Sy, to testify on technical aspects. This motion was initially granted by the RTC, but later reconsidered and denied, as were subsequent motions for reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disallowing Stephen Sy's testimony. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioners Design Sources International, Inc. and Kenneth Sy filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the CA's decision. They contend that the CA erred in upholding the RTC's refusal to allow architect Stephen Sy to testify. Petitioners argue that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion because there was no prior court order or motion from the respondent's counsel for the exclusion of witnesses, and therefore, Stephen Sy should not have been precluded from testifying simply because he heard the testimony of another witness. They assert that the CA's reliance on People v. Sandal was misplaced as that case involved a witness defying a direct court order of exclusion, which was not the situation here.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the testimony of Stephen Sy. Whether the ruling in People v. Sandal was correctly applied by the CA. Whether the respondent's counsel fulfilled their duty to protect the client's interests. Whether the disallowance of Stephen Sy's testimony resulted in a deprivation of due process for the respondent.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The RTC is ordered to allow the presentation of Stephen Sy as witness for petitioners. The Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order filed by petitioners is rendered moot.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in disallowing Stephen Sy's testimony: The Court found that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. Section 15, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court allows a judge to exclude witnesses not under examination to prevent them from hearing other testimonies, primarily to avoid connivance or collusion and ensure truthful testimony. However, this measure requires either a motion from the opposing party or an order from the court. In this case, there was no prior motion from the respondent's counsel to exclude other witnesses, nor was there any court order for exclusion. Therefore, Stephen Sy was not prohibited from hearing Kenneth Sy's testimony, and the RTC should have allowed him to testify. On the application of People v. Sandal: The Court held that the application of People v. Sandal by the CA was misplaced. In Sandal, there was a clear court order for exclusion that the witness disregarded, giving the court discretion to admit or reject the testimony. In the present case, no such order or motion for exclusion existed. Consequently, the determination of the materiality of Stephen Sy's testimony, as done by the CA based on Sandal, was unnecessary and uncalled for. On the duty of counsel: The Court emphasized that it is the responsibility of counsel to protect their client's interests during the presentation of witnesses. If respondent's counsel believed that Kenneth Sy's testimony would significantly affect Stephen Sy's testimony, he should have raised the issue of exclusion promptly. The respondent is bound by the acts of her counsel, including procedural errors. On the issue of due process: The Court noted that the respondent is bound by the acts of her counsel, including procedural errors, unless such errors result in a deprivation of due process, which was not shown here. The Court also noted that even if Stephen Sy's testimony were allowed, the respondent would still have recourse through impeachment of testimonies.
Main Doctrine
A court cannot disallow the presentation of a witness solely on the ground that the witness heard the testimony of another witness, absent any prior motion for exclusion or court order for exclusion. The opposing counsel has the duty to protect their client's interest by timely raising the issue of witness exclusion.