Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 114 views

    LegRes Lounge - MARTINEZ v. ONGSIAKO

    Uploaded by

    Chaze Cerdena
    This case discusses whether a party waived their right to cross-examine an opposing witness. The petitioner sought to set aside a ruling that declared he waived his right when he failed to attend scheduled cross-examination hearings. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's absence was not due to his own fault, as he did not receive adequate notice of the new hearing dates. Therefore, the petitioner did not implicitly waive his right to cross-examination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    LegRes Lounge - MARTINEZ v. ONGSIAKO

    Uploaded by

    Chaze Cerdena
    114 views2 pages
    This case discusses whether a party waived their right to cross-examine an opposing witness. The petitioner sought to set aside a ruling that declared he waived his right when he failed to attend scheduled cross-examination hearings. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's absence was not due to his own fault, as he did not receive adequate notice of the new hearing dates. Therefore, the petitioner did not implicitly waive his right to cross-examination.

    Original Title

    LegRes Lounge_ MARTINEZ v. ONGSIAKO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether a party waived their right to cross-examine an opposing witness. The petitioner sought to set aside a ruling that declared he waived his right when he failed to attend scheduled cross-examination hearings. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's absence was not due to his own fault, as he did not receive adequate notice of the new hearing dates. Therefore, the petitioner did not implicitly waive his right to cross-examination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    114 views2 pages

    LegRes Lounge - MARTINEZ v. ONGSIAKO

    Uploaded by

    Chaze Cerdena
    This case discusses whether a party waived their right to cross-examine an opposing witness. The petitioner sought to set aside a ruling that declared he waived his right when he failed to attend scheduled cross-examination hearings. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's absence was not due to his own fault, as he did not receive adequate notice of the new hearing dates. Therefore, the petitioner did not implicitly waive his right to cross-examination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    3/24/2020 LegRes Lounge: MARTINEZ v.

    ONGSIAKO

    Higit Pa Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

    Home January February March April June About Us

    MARTINEZ v. ONGSIAKO Search Cases

    RENATO S. MARTINEZ vs. JOSE MARIA V. ONGSIAKO Search


    G.R. No. 209157
    March 15, 2017

    Public Cases
    In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner seek to set aside the Decision and Resolution of the CA. He
    April
    contends that the CA committed an egregious error when it denied his appeal from the order and the resolution of
    the RTC declaring that he had waived his right to cross examine respondent during the proceedings for the February
    perpetuation of the latter’s testimony.
    January

    FACTS: June

    On May 17, 2010, Respondent filed a petition before the RTC of Makati seeking permission to perpetuate his March
    testimony under Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. He alleged that the taking of his deposition was
    necessary because of some personal circumstances. In his petition, he also named the expected adverse parties
    in the actions he anticipated would be filed.

    On June 17, 2010, petitioner filed a Comment/Opposition to the Petition. He objected to the proceedings on the
    ground that estate proceedings over the properties mentioned by respondent in the latter’s petition were then
    pending, he also asserted that the filing of a separate action for the perpetuation of testimony was tantamount to
    forum shopping.

    In a resolution dated June 21, 2010, the RTC granted the herein respondent’s Petition. The trial court ordered his
    deposition to be taken on June 23, 2010. Petitioner, along with other adverse parties, sought a reconsideration of
    the RTC Resolution, but the RTC denied the motions in open court. A hearing and cross-examination by adverse
    parties was then set on July 7-13, 2010.

    On July 13, 2010, the hearing proceeded notwithstanding the absence of the petitioner and his counsel, and the
    direct examination of respondent was concluded. The RTC conducted confidence-building activities for
    respondent and his brother, Juan Miguel Ongsiako. The parties, however, failed to reach an agreement. The
    scheduled hearing on August 11, 2010 was impeded by the withdrawal of appearance by the law firm representing
    Juan Miguel. The trial court reset the hearing to August 18, 2010. This directive was announced to all parties
    present in the open court. For those who were absent during the hearing, such as the petitioner and his counsel,
    the RTC directed that copies of the written order be server upon them.

    On August 16, 2010, the RTC received a copy of the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner with the CA. the
    Petition questioned the resolution dated June 21, 2010.

    On August 18, 2010, the cross examination of respondent finally proceeded, but both petitioner and his counsel
    were again absent at the hearing. The RTC noted, however, that petitioner had filed a Motion to Suspend
    Proceedings right before the start of the hearing. In his motion, he requested that the proceedings for the
    perpetuation of testimony be suspended pending the final resolution of the Petition for Certiorari earlier filed with
    the CA. Towards the end of the proceedings on August 18, 2010, the RTC issued an Order declaring that
    petitioner, together with Juan Miguel, had waived their right to cross-examine respondent.

    legresslounge.blogspot.com/2017/11/renato-s-martinez-vs-jose-maria-v.html 1/2
    3/24/2020 LegRes Lounge: MARTINEZ v. ONGSIAKO

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the RTC ruling that declared petitioner to have waived his right to cross-
    examination.

    HELD:

    The conduct of a party which may be construed as an implied waiver of the right to cross-examine may take
    various forms. But the common basic principle underlying the application of the rule on implied waiver is that the
    party was given the opportunity to confront and cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take advantage
    of it for reasons attributable to himself alone.

    In this case, we find that the conduct of the petitioner cannot be construed as a waiver of his right to cross-
    examine respondent. The ruling of the RTC declaring that petitioner waived his right to cross-examination was
    premised on his failure to attend the scheduled hearing on 18 August 2010. However, the records of the case
    reveal that neither he nor his counsel was adequately informed of the new schedule for the cross-examination of
    respondent. While the RTC ordered that Notices of Hearing be sent to both Petitioner and his counsel, they did
    not receive these processes in time for the hearing through no fault of their own.

    With respect to the Notice of Hearing sent to petitioner himself, the registry receipt attached to the records of the
    RTC indicates that the letter was only received on 14 September 2010. On the other hand, the said Notice sent to
    petitioner’s counsel never reached the intended recipient because of the incorrect address indicated on the
    registered envelope containing the letter.

    After due consideration of the above circumstances, SC conclude that the absence of petitioner and his counsel
    at the hearing was clearly not due to their own fault. Hence, the Petition for Review was granted.

    Labels: March

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Enter your comment...

    Comment as: Google Account

    Publish Preview

    Newer Post Home Older Post

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

    Report Abuse

    2017.All rights reserved.

    legresslounge.blogspot.com/2017/11/renato-s-martinez-vs-jose-maria-v.html 2/2

    You might also like