BENJAMIN M. BITANGA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. NOEMI J. BALITAAN, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PARAÑAQUE CITY, BRANCH 258 AND EDGARDO L. SEVILLA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Bitanga versus Balitaan

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner, Benjamin M. Bitanga, is a defendant in a civil complaint for declaration of nullity of contracts pending before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 258. He impleads the presiding judge, Noemi J. Balitaan, and the private respondents, the Sevilla family, who are the plaintiffs below. Bitanga asks the Supreme Court to annul two orders of the trial court: the order of July 28, 2014, which considered his right to present his testimony as waived, and the order of August 14, 2014, which denied his motion for reconsideration. The case matters because it fixes the standard for when a trial court may declare a party to have waived the right to present evidence, and it reminds every litigant that postponements lie in the sound discretion of the court, not in the convenience of counsel.

Procedural History

The private respondents filed their complaint for declaration of nullity of contracts before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 258, against Planters Development Bank and Bitanga. After the private respondents rested their case, Bitanga filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court denied. The trial court then set the initial presentation of his evidence. When Bitanga failed to appear at the hearing of April 30, 2014, the trial court directed him to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt. The hearing was reset twice, first to June 9, 2014 and then to July 28, 2014. When Bitanga again failed to appear on July 28, 2014, the trial court issued the first assailed order, considering his right to present his testimony as waived. His motion for reconsideration was denied in the order of August 14, 2014. Bitanga then went directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari with an urgent application for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Facts

On October 20, 2008, Edgardo L. Sevilla and the other members of the Sevilla family filed a complaint before the Parañaque City Regional Trial Court against Planters Development Bank and Bitanga. They sought to nullify a deed of exchange entered into by Elisa L. Sevilla and Macrogen Realty Corporation, and a deed of assignment executed by Bitanga in favor of the bank. The private respondents presented their evidence and rested their case. Bitanga then filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court denied, and the initial presentation of his evidence was set.

Bitanga was supposed to testify on April 30, 2014, but he did not appear. His counsel simply told the court that his client had an emergency to attend to, without elaborating. The trial court directed him to show cause within seventy two hours why he should not be cited for contempt, and reset the hearing to June 9, 2014, and later to July 28, 2014. Bitanga complied with the show cause order only on June 20, 2014, more than a month after he received the notice on May 15, 2014, and he attached a machine copy of a medical certificate stating that he had consulted his doctor on April 29, 2014 and was suffering from acute tonsillopharyngitis. He promised to submit the original at the next hearing.

On July 28, 2014, Bitanga again failed to appear, without prior explanation or excuse. His counsel said he had to travel abroad due to unavoidable circumstances, but offered no passport, tickets, or other proof. The private respondents moved to declare him in default. The trial court issued the assailed order, considering his right to present his testimony as waived, and reset the continuation of the defense evidence. Bitanga moved for reconsideration, which was denied on August 14, 2014. He then filed this petition for certiorari.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it considered the petitioner to have waived his right to present his testimony.
• Whether or not the petitioner was denied his day in court and deprived of due process by the waiver of his right to testify.
• Whether or not the petitioner's failure to appear at the scheduled hearings was justified by sufficient and credible reasons.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court, on postponements, provides:

A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of illness of a party or counsel shall be supported by an affidavit or sworn certificate of the physician stating the nature of the illness and that the party or counsel is unable to appear in court, and shall be filed with the court before the date of the trial.

This provision bears on the case because the petitioner's claim of illness was not supported by a sworn certificate of his physician filed before the hearing, and his medical certificate was only a machine copy submitted late.

Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in waiving the petitioner's right to present his testimony. The Court stressed that postponements lie in the court's discretion, and a motion for postponement should not be filed at the last hour, especially when there is no reason why it could not have been presented earlier. The trial court had shown liberality by granting the resetting of the April 30, 2014 hearing despite the lack of sufficient explanation, and by directing the petitioner to show cause instead of immediately citing him for contempt. Yet the petitioner complied with the show cause order only on June 20, 2014, more than a month after receiving it, without apology or leave of court. He also failed to submit the original of his medical certificate at the July 28, 2014 hearing, and he again failed to appear without prior explanation.

On the second issue, the Court found no denial of due process. The petitioner was given every opportunity to be heard. The trial court even opted to consider his right to testify as waived instead of holding him in contempt for disobeying its lawful orders. The Court quoted with approval the rule that:

Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if the parties are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.

On the third issue, the Court found the petitioner's excuses empty. His medical certificate showed that he had consulted his doctor a day before the April 30, 2014 hearing, yet he did not inform the court or present the certificate on that day. His claim of travel abroad was unsupported by any passport, airline ticket, or other proof. His effort to secure another witness was not evidence of good faith, because he knew beforehand that he would be abroad and that the Securities and Exchange Commission had denied his request, yet he never informed the court of his unavailability. His motion for a subpoena was filed only on July 22, 2014, a few days before the hearing, so the trial court could not promptly act on it. The Court concluded that the petitioner's own omissions caused the delays, and that the trial court's orders were issued without grave abuse of discretion.

Doctrine

First, postponements lie in the sound discretion of the court. A motion for postponement should not be filed at the last hour, especially when the ground could have been presented earlier. Second, a claim of illness to excuse non-appearance must be supported by an affidavit or sworn certificate of the physician stating the nature of the illness and that the party is unable to appear, filed before the date of trial, as required by Section 4, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court. Third, the right to present evidence is not absolute; it may be waived by a party who repeatedly fails to appear despite notice and who offers only empty excuses. Fourth, the policy of liberal construction of procedural rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances; it was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. Fifth, grave abuse of discretion means a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it is not present where the trial court merely enforces its lawful orders after giving the party every chance to comply.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the orders of July 28, 2014 and August 14, 2014 of the Parañaque City Regional Trial Court, Branch 258, were affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that postponements lie in the court's discretion, and last minute empty excuses will not save a litigant who repeatedly disobeys lawful orders. Examiners like to use this case in civil procedure, on the topics of postponements, waiver of the right to present evidence, and the requisites for certiorari based on grave abuse of discretion.