Augusto B. Villanueva, et al. vs. Ernesto M. Villareal

[SEC CASE NO. 3120. July 17, 1987.] AUGUSTO B. VILLANUEVA, ET AL. , petitioners , vs . ERNESTO M. VILLAREAL , respondent . O R D E R Submitted for resolution in the above-entitled case are the following incidents: 1. Motion to declare Atty. Edmundo Acua in contempt; 2. Motion to strike out the testimony of Atty. Edmundo Acua on matters that were not covered by the cross-examination; 3. Petitioners' application for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction; 4. Motion to declare respondent in default; and 5. Respondent's Motion to admit answer. The first and second incidents, which stemmed from Atty. Edmundo Acua's failure to appear in the hearing of this case on March 10, 1987, are quite interrelated and thus can be resolved jointly. On February 26, 1987, the respondent presented Atty. Edmundo Acua as his witness. The petitioners, however, were not able to finish their cross-examination of the said witness on the ground that their last few questions would already refer to the stock and transfer book of Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI, for short) which the witness failed to bring in said hearing. The Commission then directed Atty. Edmundo Acua to bring with him the said stock and transfer book at the hearing on March 10, 1987. Atty. Edmundo Acua, however, failed to appear in said hearing thus prompting the petitioners to move for the striking out of his testimony on matters that were not covered by the cross-examination, and likewise asked that the former be cited for contempt. The Commission, after analyzing the circumstances that gave rise to these two incidents, hereby orders: (1) Atty. Edmundo Acua to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt; and, (2) the respondent to file his comment and/or opposition to the petitioners' oral motion to strike out from the records the testimony of Atty. Edmundo Acua on matters which have not been covered by the cross-examination, within five (5) days from receipt hereof. IHCSET Anent the third incident, the Commission feels that the resolution of the same should, in the meantime, be deferred in view of the testimony of Atty. Edmundo Acua that Ernesto M. Villareal had already resigned as Corporate Secretary of PJI coupled with the fact that the petitioners are praying for the holding of PJI's annual stockholders' meeting to be held specifically on February 3, 1987 at 4:00 p.m., which date has already lapsed. Hence, the Commission believes that an amendment, as to the name of the party-respondent and the relief prayed for, is necessary; otherwise, no judgment can be validly enforced. Regarding petitioners' Motion to declare respondent in default, the same should be, as it is hereby, DENIED. To declare respondent in default simply on the basis of legal technicalities would certainly defeat and negate the very purpose of the provisions of the Rules of Court and the New Rules of Procedure in the SEC regarding liberal construction, thereby unjustly depriving him of his day in court. Thus, it is better to hear a case on the merits even with a little delay than to sacrifice rights of party-litigant on the sophisticated altar of technicality. A proceeding had without the presence of the respondent is akin and is only a little less than denial of due process. Furthermore, recent jurisprudence frowned upon default judgment. (Zenith Insurance Corp. vs. Purisima, 114 SCRA 62; Pineda vs. Court of Appeals, 67 SCRA 229). As regards the respondent's Motion to admit answer, the same is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent's answer is hereby admitted. SO ORDERED. EMMANUEL R. SISON Hearing Officer (SGD.) JUANITO B. ALMOSA, JR. (SGD.) ROLANDO C. MALABONGA Hearing Officer Hearing Officer