Ty v. Petron Corp.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 200060. October 19, 2016.]

ARNEL TY, petitioner, vs. PETRON CORPORATION, PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY, LTD., and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 19 October 2016 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 200060 — Arnel Ty, petitioner v. Petron Corporation, Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, Shell International Petroleum Company, Ltd., and People of the Philippines, respondents.

After a thorough review of the records of the case, the Court finds the Petition for Review on Certiorari to be lacking in merit. We adopt the findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Indeed the right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. 1 However, the right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct-examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record. In the present case, petitioner was given the opportunity to cross-examine Atty. Jose Theron Valencia during the hearing on April 28, 2010 but failed to do so giving the reasons that the handling counsels had already resigned from the law firm while the supervising counsel was actively campaigning for the 2010 elections. To the mind of the Court, the reasons adduced did not constitute gross but only simple or ordinary and inexcusable negligence which is not even an exception to the general rule that a client is bound by the acts and mistakes of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique. This is equally true when petitioner's counsel arrived late during the hearing of his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of June 9, 2010. In Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 2 the Court ruled that "[i]n the event that the counsel appearing for the client resigns, the firm is bound to provide a replacement." The Court hastened to add in the said case that "[t]ardiness is plain and simple negligence." 3 AScHCD

True, procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice. However, procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudicing a party's substantive rights. The bare invocation of substantive justice is not a magic wand that will compel the court to suspend the rules of procedure. The circumstances obtaining in the present case coupled with the failure of petitioner to even allege that he has a meritorious defense clearly show that relaxation of the rules is unwarranted.

In Samonte v. S.F. Naguiat, Inc. 4 the Court emphatically declared:

There is no rule more settled than that a client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence and mistake in handling the case. To allow a party to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel. Petitioner failed to show that his counsel's negligence was so gross and palpable as to call for the exercise of this Court's equity jurisdiction. While it is true that rules of procedure are not cast in stone, it is equally true that strict compliance with the Rules is indispensable for the prevention of needless delays and for the orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business.

In fine, considering the circumstances obtaining in this case, we are of the considered view that petitioner failed to show that his counsel's negligence was so gross and palpable as to call for the exercise of this Court's equity jurisdiction.

ACCORDINGLY, we ADOPT the findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to show that the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115554 committed any reversible error in rendering the assailed September 6, 2011 Decision and January 9, 2012 Resolution.

SO ORDERED.(Carpio, J., no part due to close association; Reyes, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated November 14, 2012; Leonen, J., on official leave)"

Very truly yours,

 

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Equitable PC Banking Corporation v. RCBC Capital Corporation, 595 Phil. 536, 580 (2008).

2. 430 Phil. 812, 830 (2002).

3. Id.

4. 617 Phil. 435, 445 (2009).