Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6055)
Facts:
In Renato S. Martinez v. Jose Maria V. Ongsiako (G.R. No. 209057, December 4, 2017), respondent Jose Maria V. Ongsiako filed on May 17, 2010, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati Branch 61 a Petition for Perpetuation of Testimony under Rule 24 of the Rules of Court, citing his deteriorating health and anticipating future estate litigation. He named Renato S. Martinez, as administrator of his parents’ estate, Juan Miguel V. Ongsiako, and the Bank of the Philippines Islands as expected adverse parties. On June 17, 2010, petitioner Martinez opposed, arguing the perpetuation should occur in the pending estate proceedings and that a separate petition amounted to forum shopping. On June 21, the RTC granted the petition, set a deposition on June 23, and directed submission of respondent’s judicial affidavit by July 4 with cross-examination on July 7. Multiple hearing dates from July 13 to August 18, 2010, were reset due to attempted settlement talks and withdrawal of counselCase Digest (G.R. No. L-6055)
Facts:
- Petition for perpetuation of testimony
- On May 17, 2010, Jose Maria V. Ongsiako filed before the RTC Makati (Branch 61, Civil Case No. 10-467) a Petition under Rule 24 to perpetuate his testimony, citing:
- pending involvement in actions over certain properties
- his deteriorating health (end-stage renal disease)
- necessity to preserve testimony on material facts for future suits
- He identified the circumstances to be covered (e.g., execution of special powers of attorney, will, real estate transactions) and named expected adverse parties:
- Renato S. Martinez, as administrator of the estate of Nori V. Ongsiako
- Juan Miguel V. Ongsiako (brother)
- Bank of the Philippine Islands (mortgagee)
- Opposition and initial RTC rulings
- On June 17, 2010, Martinez filed Comment/Opposition, arguing that the perpetuation should occur in pending estate proceedings (Branch 58 RTC Makati) and alleging forum shopping.
- RTC issued a Resolution on June 21, 2010, granting the petition and ordering deposition on June 23. Motions for reconsideration were orally argued on June 23 and denied in open court.
- The court set the submission of Ongsiako’s judicial affidavit by July 4, 2010, and cross-examination for July 7, later reset to July 13. Martinez and his counsel failed to appear on July 13, but the court proceeded with direct examination.
- Subsequent hearing resets and service issues
- Cross-examination dates set for July 21, August 4, and August 11, 2010, but settlement talks and counsel withdrawal (Juan Miguel’s counsel on August 6) caused postponements.
- The RTC reset cross-examination to August 18, 2010, announced in open court and ordered written notices be served on all parties absent.
- Cross-examination hearing and waiver orders
- On August 16, 2010, Martinez filed a petition for certiorari with the CA challenging the June rulings but did not attend the August 18 hearing. His counsel also did not appear (motion to suspend proceedings filed at the hearing).
- The RTC proceeded: BPI’s counsel cross-examined; Martinez and Juan Miguel were declared to have waived cross-examination rights in an Order dated August 18, 2010.
- Martinez’s Motion for Reconsideration (filed August 2010) was denied on November 8, 2010, on grounds of valid notice and their absence causing waiver. Notice to counsel was returned unserved due to alleged change of address.
- Martinez filed Notice of Appeal on November 23, 2010. The RTC gave due course on November 25, 2010.
- Court of Appeals proceedings
- Martinez escalated to the CA, arguing due process violation and improper waiver; he also renewed forum-shopping contention.
- Ongsiako defended the perpetuation and waiver rulings.
- On May 14, 2013, the CA denied the appeal, holding that:
- perpetuation proceedings are accorded liberal treatment as discovery
- waiver of cross-examination may be inferred from non-attendance despite notice
- Petition before the Supreme Court
- Martinez filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari on October 30, 2013.
- He maintained that lack of proper notice excused his absence and that due process was violated; he reiterated forum shopping issue.
- Ongsiako opposed, arguing failure to raise new issues, no reversible error, counsel’s negligence, and absence of forum shopping.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the RTC ruling that Martinez waived his right to cross-examine Ongsiako by failing to attend the August 18, 2010 hearing.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)