Case Digest (G.R. No. 193966)
Facts:
Design Sources International, Inc. and Kenneth Sy (petitioners) distributed Pergo flooring and sold Cherry Blocked flooring to Lourdes L. Eristingcol (respondent) in 1998, which respondent alleged developed defects on February 24, 2000 and for which she filed a complaint for damages in Civil Case No. 00-850 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City on July 13, 2000. During trial, petitioner witness Kenneth Sy testified on February 8, 2006 while another proposed petitioner witness, architect Stephen Sy, was present in the courtroom; respondent's counsel later objected to Stephen testifying on the ground he heard Kenneth, and the RTC issued orders dated February 8, 2006, June 1, 2006, and February 26, 2007 disallowing Stephen, which the Court of Appeals affirmed in a June 1, 2010 Decision; petitioners brought this Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court.Issues:
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners the right to present Stephen Sy as a witn
Case Digest (G.R. No. 193966)
Facts:
- Background and parties
- Design Sources International, Inc. (Petitioner Corporation) is a distributor of Pergo flooring.
- Kenneth Sy (Petitioner) is one of the petitioners and served as a defense witness.
- Lourdes L. Eristingcol (Private Respondent) purchased Pergo flooring of the Cherry Blocked type circa 1998 and had it installed in her house.
- Discovery of defect and pre-trial demands
- On February 24, 2000, Respondent discovered unsightly bulges at the joints and seams of the installed flooring.
- Respondent demanded repair or replacement at petitioners' expense.
- After inspections, meetings and exchanges of correspondence, petitioners were given until May 31, 2000 to replace the flooring; petitioners did not comply.
- Complaint and trial events
- Respondent filed a Complaint for damages, Civil Case No. 00-850, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, on July 13, 2000.
- On February 8, 2006, Kenneth Sy testified in open court.
- Petitioners intended to present Stephen Sy as the next witness; Stephen was observed inside the courtroom during Kenneth's testimony.
- Transcript of stenographic notes records counsel colloquy and the trial judge's instruction to counsel to inform the court of witnesses present in the courtroom.
- Defense counsel moved for continuance after Kenneth's testimony to secure another technical witness; plaintiff's counsel did not object to the continuance; the RTC reset the continuation to April 5, 2006.
- RTC orders denying Stephen's testimony and motions for reconsideration
- Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the RTC Order on March 22, 2006.
- The RTC denied reconsideration on June 1, 2006, stating it deemed unnecessary to allow Stephen Sy to testify because another witness could give similar testimony and because Stephen had heard Kenneth's testimony which would disadvantage the plaintiff.
- Petitioners filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration dated June 19, 2006, which the RTC denied in Order dated February 26, 2007.
- Proceedings in appellate courts and petition to this Court
- Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals (CA), contesting the denial to allow Stephen Sy to testify.
- The CA, in Decision dated June 1, 2010 and Resolution dated September 30, 2010, affirmed the RTC Or...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Primary issue presented
- Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the presentation of Stephen Sy as petitioners' witness despite the absence of any prior order or motion to exclude witnesses.
- Secondary issues
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying *People v. Sandal* to justify the exclusion.
- Whether ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)