Title
Design Sources International, Inc. vs. Eristingcol
Case
G.R. No. 193966
Decision Date
Feb 19, 2014
A buyer sued for defective flooring; court initially barred a witness due to prior testimony exposure, but Supreme Court ruled no exclusion order justified testimony, reversing lower court's decision.
grave abuse of discretion
witness testimony
exclusion of witnesses
A

Case Summary (A.M. No. 23-07-26-SC)

Factual Background

The Petitioners distributed Pergo flooring. In 1998 the Private Respondent purchased Pergo flooring of the Cherry Blocked type from the Petitioner Corporation and had it installed in her residence. On February 24, 2000, the Private Respondent discovered unsightly bulges at the joints and seams of the installed flooring. The Private Respondent demanded repair or replacement at the Petitioners' expense. After inspections, meetings, and correspondence, the Petitioners were given until May 31, 2000 to replace the flooring, but they did not comply. The Private Respondent filed a complaint for damages in the RTC on July 13, 2000, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-850.

Trial Court Events Concerning Witnesses

During trial, on February 8, 2006, Kenneth Sy testified for the defense. Petitioners signaled intent to present Stephen Sy as the next witness. The transcript of stenographic notes showed that Stephen was present in the courtroom while Kenneth was testifying and that opposing counsel protested the planned presentation on the ground that Stephen had heard Kenneth's testimony. The trial judge reset the presentation of the defendant's evidence to April 5, 2006 and ordered counsel for the petitioners to inform the court when other witnesses were present in court.

RTC Orders and Motions for Reconsideration

Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the RTC's order denying Stephen Sy's immediate presentation. The RTC denied reconsideration on June 1, 2006, reasoning that it deemed unnecessary to allow Stephen to testify when another witness could cover similar matters and that allowing Stephen to testify would disadvantage the plaintiff because he had heard Kenneth's testimony. A second motion for reconsideration dated June 19, 2006 was likewise denied by RTC order dated February 26, 2007.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, alleging that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by refusing to allow Stephen to testify. The CA found no sufficient basis showing that the respondent had previously asked for exclusion of other witnesses. Nevertheless, the CA applied the doctrine of People v. Sandal and concluded that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion because petitioners failed to show how Stephen’s testimony would bolster their position and because petitioners had another witness who could give similar testimony. The CA therefore sustained the RTC orders.

Assignment of Errors Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioners presented three principal errors: (1) that the preclusion of Stephen from testifying did amount to grave abuse of discretion by the trial judge; (2) that the CA wrongly applied People v. Sandal to justify the exclusion; and (3) that the CA erred in concluding that petitioners had another witness who could give similar testimony.

Supreme Court's Legal Analysis — Applicability of Rule on Exclusion

The Supreme Court examined Section 15, Rule 132 which allows the judge to exclude from the court any witness not then under examination so that the witness may not hear the testimony of other witnesses, and to keep witnesses separate to prevent collusion. The Court observed that exclusion or separation of witnesses is a protective measure to discourage fabrication and collusion. The Court emphasized, however, that exclusion requires either a court order or a motion by a party; absent such a motion or order, nothing in the rules prohibited a witness from hearing the testimony of another witness.

Supreme Court's Analysis — Absence of Exclusion Motion or Order

The Court found that the respondent did not show that she had moved for the exclusion of other witnesses or that the RTC had ordered exclusion prior to or during Kenneth’s testimony. The respondent’s comment did not allege any prior request for exclusion. Under those circumstances, the Court held that there was nothing to prevent Stephen from hearing Kenneth’s testimony and that the RTC should have allowed Stephen to testify.

Distinction from People v. Sandal and Procedural Responsibility

The Court explained that the CA’s reliance on People v. Sandal was misplaced because in Sandal there existed an express court order excluding witnesses which the witness defied, and the court there exercised discretion to reject testimony that disregarded its order. By contrast, no exclusion order or motion existed here. The Court stressed that it was the responsibility of the respondent’s counsel to protect the client’s interest by timely moving for exclusion if the counsel believed a witness’ presence would prejudice the case. The Court noted that respondent was bound by her counsel’s failure to make such a motion, citing procedural responsibility principles.

Remedies and Due Process Considerations

The Court observed that even if Stephen

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms