Tormil Realty & Development Corp., et al. vs. Manuel A. Torres, Jr., et al.

[SEC CASE NO. 3161. October 30, 1987.] TORMIL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. , complainants , vs . MANUEL A. TORRES, JR., ET AL. , respondents . [SEC CASE NO. 3153. October 30, 1987.] TORMIL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , complainant , vs. MANUEL A. TORRES, JR. , respondent . O R D E R In the wake of respondents' failure to appear for the last two hearings without any justifiable reason the Commission issued an "ORDER", wherein it considered the respondents as having waived their right to cross-examine witnesses and to adduce evidence in their favor. ScCIaA The said ORDER is now the subject of respondents' "Motion For Reconsideration" which makes an outcry against denial of their right to be heard and thus plead for the Commission's liberality in applying the rules on procedure. HIETAc The petitioners in opposing respondents' "Motion" argued: "This time, respondents have thrown in another dilatory ploy in the form of a motion for reconsideration, the hearing of which they themselves scheduled but as expected, did not even bother to attend." And yet the incident of "injunction and appointment of a receiver by their very nature require prompt and speedy action and relief." Petitioners elaborating further said: "Respondents plead for liberality, yet they have time and time again abused and misused the liberality and leniency accorded to them by the Panel of Hearing Officers, . . . . Indeed, respondents have been showered with too much liberality, leniency and consideration and yet they still have the audicity to complain of deprivation of the opportunity to be heard, . . . ." Petitioners, observation is correct for 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 all at once be lost. DaESIC With all the valid and formidable arguments made by petitioners, respondents' motion for reconsideration can only find justification in the oft-repeated legal jargon, "in the interest of justice and equity "which, to our mind will have once again, to be applied, if only to give respondents another chance, hopefully the last. cAHIST WHEREFORE, as prayed for by respondents the Commission's "ORDER" dated September 18, 1987 is hereby reconsidered to allow respondents adduce evidence on the pending incidents, during the next hearing on November 27, 1987 at 9:00 o'clock in the morning. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) BERNARDO T. ESPEJO Hearing Officer (SGD.) ROLANDO C. MALABONGA Hearing Officer (SGD.) JAMES K. ABUGAN Hearing Officer