THELMA YNIGUEZ, ROTHEL YNIGUEZ, RACHEL YNIGUEZ, AND ROMULO C. YNIGUEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, QUEENS SUPERMARKETS, INC. AND LOURDES CORTEZ, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision* of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CV-10124, entitled “Thelma Yniguez, et al., plaintiffs-appellees
vs. Queens Supermarkets, Inc., et al., defendants-appellants” annulling
the decision of the RTC, Branch 147, Makati,
Metro Manila.**

On 4 December 1978,
petitioners Thelma, Rothel, Rachel and Romulo, all surnamed Yniquez,
filed a complaint for dam­ages before the Court of First Instance (now Regional
Trial Court) of Pasay,
docketed as Civil Case No. Pq-6831-PO, later re-docketed as Civil Case No. 3893
assigned to Branch 147, RTC, Makati, against
respondents Queens Supermarkets, Inc. (hereafter, Queens) located at Harrison
Plaza and Lourdes Cortez, its employee, for alleged disregard by the latter of
petitioner Thelma’s honor and dignity, by accusing her of shoplifting a packet
of “vetsin“, which accusation was later
found to be false by the officials of Queens.

After joinder of issues, the case was
set for pre­trial on 18 September 1979.  Respondent Queens was declared as in default
for failure of its counsel to appear on the scheduled date of pre-trial.  Acting on a second motion for reconsideration
filed by respondent, without opposition from petitioners, the default order was
set aside and pre-trial re-set to 8 May
1980.  On 29 December 1983, the case was
dismissed for petitioners’ failure to prosecute, but reinstated on 1 June 1984 upon motion by
petitioners.

Finally, pre-trial was terminated on 12 September 1984.  The case was set for hearing on the merits on
18 October 1984. For lack
of material time, continuance was scheduled on 14 November 1984 at 8:30
a.m.

What follows are the crucial events leading to the present petition.  On 13
November 1984, one day before the scheduled date for continuance, counsel for
respondents filed an Urgent Motion for Postponement on the ground that he had
to attend on 14 November 1984 at 8:30 a.m. the trial of a murder case^[1]
before the Military Tribunal at Camp Crame.  When the case was called on 14 November 1984,
the trial court issued the following order:

“In view of the objection of Atty. Gonzales to the motion for
postponement of defendant, the same is denied.

“On motion of plaintiff, thru counsel, plaintiff is allowed to
present evidence ex parte.”^[2]

Respondents’ counsel claims to have received a copy of the above
order only on 20 March 1985 when he made an inquiry with the court.^[3]

In the afternoon of 14 November 1984, petitioners (plaintiffs
below) presented evidence ex parte, on
the basis of which, the court a quo rendered judgment on 11 March
1985, the dispositive portion thereof reading as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, ordering the
latter to pay the former, solidarily, the following:

“1. The amount of P250,000.00
representing moral damages;

“2. The amount of P50,000.00
representing exemplary damages;

“3. The amount of P10,000.00 for and
as attorney’s fees;

“4. The costs.”^[4]

A motion for reconsideration was denied.  Before the Court of Appeals, respondents
raised five (5) issues which may be summed up as grave abuse of discretion of
the court a quo in hastily disposing of the case without properly
notifying respondents of the denial of their motion for post­ponement, then,
awarding excessive and scandalous damages, in violation of procedural due
process.

The Court of Appeals held:

“WHEREFORE, for being infirmed by lack of procedural due
process, the judgment appealed from is hereby annulled and set aside.  Conform­ably, the case is hereby remanded for
continuation of trial and further proceedings. 
The court a quo is hereby ordered to give
defendants-appellants ample opportunity to cross-examine witness Thelma Yniguez, whose testimony should remain; and thereafter, to
present their own (defendants’) evidence, without prejudice to the right of
plaintiffs to adduce additional and/or rebuttal proofs.  Only after both parties shall have completed
the adducement of their evidence and been afforded
the ampliest [sic] chance to litigate, shall the case
be decided by the trial court.  Cost
against the appellees.

“SO ORDERED.”

This is the decision now questioned before this Court.

Cases of this genre are quite unfortunate, for the time and
effort they extract from the appellate courts. 
While the RTC Judge may have been correct in denying the respondents’
motion for postponement, for being violative of the
three (3) day notice rule, and in disallowing cross-examination of petitioners’
witness on 14 November 1984, as counsel for private respondents was absent and
could not just take for granted that his motion for postponement would be acted
upon favorably, yet, we fail to see any rhyme or reason why respondents’ right
to cross examine petitioners’ witness was disregarded altogether.

For such omission of the trial judge, compounded by the failure
of his staff to properly and timely notify respondents’ counsel of the denial
of his Motion for Postponement, wittingly or unwittingly, respondents were
denied due process.  In this connection,
it is worth repeating that –

“The Court has consistently maintained that although a speedy
determination of an action implies a speedy trial, speed is not the chief
objective of a trial.  Careful and
deliberate consideration for the administration of justice, a genuine respect
for the rights of all parties and the requirements of procedural due process
and an adherence to the Court’s standing admo­nition that the discretion
granted judges in the granting or denial of motions for postponement and the
setting aside of denial orders pre­viously issued ‘should always be predicated
on the consideration that more than the mere convenience of the courts or of
the parties in the case, the ends of justice and fairness would be served
thereby’ are more important than a race to end the trial.”^[5]

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.  The decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CV-10124 is AFFIRMED.  Let this case be remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings.  Private
respondents shall have the right to cross examine petitioners’ witnesses, and
to present their own evidence.  RTC Judge
Guadiz and his staff are admonished to be more
punctilious in the performance of their duties so that the proceedings in cases
before the court can be terminated at the soonest possible time, but consistent
always with the right of the parties to proce­dural due process.  Costs against the
petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

*
Fourteenth Division, Justice Fidel P. Purisima,
ponente, Justices Emeterio
C. Cui and Jesus M. Elbinias, concur­ring.

**
Judge Teofilo Guadiz
presiding.

^[1]
People v. Federico Feliciano

^[2] Rollo, p. 84

^[3] Rollo, p. 137

^[4] Rollo, p. 84

^[5] Amberti v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41808, March 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 240.