Abacus Properties, Inc. vs. Marcelino Balansag

[SEC CASE NO. 2307. November 2, 1987.] ABACUS PROPERTIES, INC. , petitioner , vs . MARCELINO BALANSAG , respondent . O R D E R This "Manifestation and Motion" filed by respondent is asking the Commission "to disregarded the petitioner's Memorandum for it was filed prematurely . . . ." In effect respondent contends that the Commission erred in allowing petitioner to adduce its evidence ex-parte while respondent's motion for reconsideration was still pending in the Supreme Court, and thus the subsequent filing by petitioner of his "Memorandum" is premature and therefore should be disregarded. Respondent's view does not seem to impress the Commission. Admittedly, trial on the merits of the case had been indefinitely suspended even before the initial hearing could be had in 1982, in view of the filing by respondent of a motion for the transfer of venue from Manila to Cebu. DcTSHa Unfortunately for petitioner it took more than five years before an otherwise simple issue of venue was finally resolved in favor of the petitioner when the Supreme Court, in effect denied respondent's motion to transfer venue from Manila to Cebu City. The prolonged wranglings on the side of the issue of venue was bound to happen as respondent would then moved for a reconsideration every time said motion is denied by the S.E.C., the Intermediate Appellate Court and finally the Supreme Court. Petitioner in September 1986, after receiving a copy of the IAC's denial of respondent's motion for reconsideration moved for the setting of the case for hearing. But it was only after about five months or in February 1987 that the case had been finally set for hearing. AaSTIH However, the February 1987 hearing was cancelled and reset to March 1987, but like in the former setting, respondent again failed to appear despite due notice. Neither did respondent file any motion to cancel or postpone the said hearings as may have been expected of him under the circumstances. Respondent's negative attitude cannot but lead to no other logical and rational conclusion except to have him be considered as having waived not only his right to cross-examine petitioner's witnesses but also his right to adduce its own evidence to support his stand. SECcIH This perception has been heightened by respondent's failure to react accordingly after receiving copies each of petitioner's two motions for extension of time to file memorandum and the corresponding copies each of the Commission's two "ORDERS" granting the said two motions. For instead of filing his opposition to petitioner's two motions or of filing a motion for reconsideration of the Commission's two orders granting the two motions, respondent chose to kept silent and remain unmindful of significant development that concerns his own interest, when all of a sudden, after eventually receiving copy of petitioner's memorandum which he now claims "was filed prematurely" made an outcry about his right "to due process" as having been violated. Due process does not only mean the right to be heard. It also means the responsible performance by those concerned of the corresponding obligation otherwise such right may be lost. cISAHT Viewed in this light and considering that proper authorities have not issued, any order enjoining the resumption of the hearing of the case, we find the filing of petitioner's "Memorandum" to be in order. WHEREFORE, respondent's Manifestation and Motion dated May 27, 1987, should be, as it is hereby denied for obvious lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) BERNARDO T. ESPEJO Hearing Officer