10 Guinea v. Vda. de Ramonal

[G.R. No. L-38659. February 20, 1975.] 5.
CERTIORARI; DISMISSAL; PETITION BEREFT OF

MERIT; PETITIONERS’ LACK OF CANDOR AND
SUPPRESSION OF FACTS INDICATIVE THEREOF. —
BEATRIZ MERCADO GUINEA, CARIDAD MERCADO
Petitioners’ dilatory tactics and conspicuous lack of
VDA. DE GALLEGO, ESTRELLA MERCADO IRENEO, candor in their version of what occurred in the hearing
SUSANA G. VDA. DE MERCADO, VENUS MERCADO
complained of, as shown in the deficiencies and
ABELLA, NILDA MERCADO ARUBAN, ASILA suppression of facts in their pleadings, indicate that their
MERCADO CURVERA, SILVESTRE MERCADO, JR.,
petition is benefit of merit.
GODOFREDO MERCADO, ABUNDIA MERCADO,
GERTRUDES MERCADO TORRES, MANOLO
TAMESIN, ROMEO TAMESIN and BETTY EDMILAO
D E C I S I O N (AQUINO, J.:)
VDA. DE MERCADO; and REMEDIOS, EMMA, MILA,
JULIO, EMMANUEL, and ANGELO, all surnamed This special civil action of certiorari was instituted by the
MERCADO, represented herein by their Mother petitioners to annul the orders of respondent Judge
BETTY EDMILAO VDA. DE MERCADO, as Guardian- dated June 28, 1973 and January 14 and February 22,
ad-litem, Petitioners, v. MATILDE S. VDA. DE 1974 in Civil Case No. 2766 of the Court of First Instance
RAMONAL and JUDGE BERNARDO TEVES of the of Misamis Oriental on the ground that they were issued
Court of First Instance of Misamis allegedly with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
Oriental, Respondents. lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Civil Case No. 2766 is a litigation between the

SYNOPSIS petitioners, the plaintiffs therein, and Matilde S. Vda. de
Ramonal over Lot No. 2059 of the Cagayan de Oro
During the trial of their case before respondent Judge,
cadastre with an area of 43,690 square meters. The
petitioners presented their eighth witness allegedly to plaintiffs alleged in paragraph 9 of their complaint that
prove the same point already testified to by their
they have been in possession of the lot "since their birth
previous seven witnesses. Upon objection of private up to now disturbed only during the war up to February
respondent, respondent Judge disallowed his testimony.
1966 when plaintiffs through their attorney-in-fact took
Subsequently, in the scheduled continuation of the trial, legal possession again of the said land." They meant
respondent Judge terminated petitioners’ evidence after
that they did not possess the lot during wartime and up
their counsel had failed to arrive on time and ordered to February, 1966.
private respondent to present her evidence. Denied
reconsideration, petitioners filed the present action During the trial they presented seven witnesses to prove
for certiorari to annul this later order as well as the
their possession "since 1940 up to 1966, interrupted
previous order of respondent Judge. only during the last World War." They presented an
eighth witness named Isabelo Ello allegedly to prove the
Special civil action for certiorari dismissed with costs
same point but respondent Judge in his aforementioned
against petitioners.
order of June 28, 1973 sustained the objection to that
SYLLABUS testimony. He noted that according to paragraph 9 of
the complaint the plaintiffs were not in possession of the
1. EVIDENCE; CUMULATIVE; CONCEPT; CASE AT BAR. lot from 1940 to 1966. He implied that Mrs. Ramonal
— Where the testimony of the eight witness for the was in possession of the lot during that period. He held
plaintiffs be on the same point already testified to by that paragraph 9 could no longer be amended at that
their preceding seven witnesses, such testimony would stage of the trial. In his order of January 14, 1974 he
be merely cumulative and not corroborative." denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
2. ID.; ID.; MAY BE REJECTED BY TRIAL COURT. — A The continuation of the hearing was scheduled in the
testimony which would be merely cumulative may be morning of February 22, 1974. According to respondent
rejected by the trial court. Ramonal, petitioners’ counsel was late. When he arrived,
instead of going to trial, he moved that the hearing be
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; BASIS. — The trial court is invested with cancelled in order that he could file
the prerogative of stopping "further testimony upon any a certiorari proceeding in this Court for the purpose of
particular point when the evidence upon it is already so annulling the order of January 14, 1974. Respondent
full that more witnesses to be same point cannot be Judge denied the motion in a lengthy written order. He
reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive." (Sec. noted that petitioners’ counsel could have filed
6, Rule 133, Rules of Court). the certiorari proceeding before February 22nd because
he received a copy of the order on January 16th.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; TESTIMONY WOULD EVEN VARY
ADMISSIONS IN COMPLAINT. — Where the proposed However, respondent Judge granted petitioners’ motion
testimony of the plaintiffs’ eighth witnesses, like that of that the hearing be transferred in the afternoon: two
their preceding seven witnesses, would be at variance o’clock, according to the respondents, or two-thirty
with and nullify the admissions of the plaintiffs in their according to the petitioners (they have conflicting
complaint, the trial judge in the exercise of his versions as to the hour fixed by respondent Judge).
prerogative may stop such testimony.
When the case was called at two o’clock petitioners’
counsel was not in court. Mrs. Ramonal and her counsel
were present. A recess was called after the Judge was seven witnesses, would be at variance with the
informed that petitioners’ counsel might have admission in the aforequoted paragraph 9 of the
understood that the hearing was scheduled at two- complaint that the plaintiffs were not in possession of
thirty. the disputed lot from 1940 to February, 1966. As noted
by the respondents, paragraph 9 was reproduced in the
When the case was again called at two-thirty, first, second and third amended complaints which, like
petitioners’ counsel had not arrived. Upon motion of Mrs. the original complaint, were verified.
Ramonal’s counsel, respondent Judge terminated the
presentation of petitioners’ (plaintiffs’) evidence and The respondents, contradicting petitioners’ claim,
ordered defendant Mrs. Ramonal to present her counter that Ello would testify that the plaintiffs
evidence. That is one of the orders sought to be possessed the lot from 1940 to February, 1966 without
reviewed in this case (it was the second order issued by any interruption. If that were so, then that testimony
respondent Judge on that day, February 22nd). would directly nullify plaintiffs’ admission in paragraph 9
that they did not possess the lot from 1940 to February,
While Mrs. Ramonal was testifying, petitioners’ counsel 1966. That anomalous consequence was taken into
arrived at two-forty-five. He moved for the consideration by respondent Judge.
reconsideration of respondent Judge’s order, closing the
presentation of plaintiffs’ evidence. He explained that he Regarding the other branch of the case, which deals
was late because he attended a meeting of the Kiwanis with the events that transpired on February 22, 1974, it
Club of which he was the president. is at once manifest that the petitioners displayed a
conspicuous lack of candor in their version of what
Respondent Judge denied the motion. He issued another occurred at the morning and afternoon hearings on that
lengthy order, justifying the denial of the motion for day.
reconsideration (it was his third order). Petitioners’
counsel then asked for five days within which to file a That circumstance, together with the other deficiencies
written motion for the reconsideration. Respondent and suppressions of facts in their pleadings as well as
Judge denied petitioners’ motion in another lengthy petitioners’ dilatory tactics, indicates that their petition is
order dictated in open court (his fourth order in the case bereft of merit.
on that same day). He directed that Mrs. Ramonal
should proceed with the presentation of her evidence. WHEREFORE, the case is dismissed with costs against
Later, the continuation of the hearing was set on May 23 the petitioners.
and 24, 1974.
SO ORDERED.
The petitioners filed their instant petition
for certiorari only on May 21, 1974 instead of in
February, 1974. The petition was given due course
because of the Court’s impression that an injustice might
have been committed when respondent Judge refused
to allow plaintiffs’ eighth witness to testify on the issue
of possession and when the presentation of their
evidence was curtailed without their consent allegedly
because their counsel was fifteen minutes late.
After a painstaking perusal of the record, we have come

to the conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in not allowing Isabelo Ello to testify on the
issue of possession and in terminating the presentation
of petitioners’ evidence.
If, according to the petitioners, Ello would testify that

they were in possession of the lot from 1940 to 1966,
except during wartime, then that testimony would be
merely cumulative because, according to the petitioners,
seven witnesses had already testified to the same effect.
Petitioners’ assertion that Ello’s testimony would be
"corroborative" is incorrect.
As Ello’s testimony would be merely cumulative, the trial

court did not err in rejecting it. The trial court is invested
with the prerogative of stopping "further testimony upon
any particular point when the evidence upon it is already
so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be
reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive" (Sec.
6, Rule 133, Rules of Court).
Moreover, Ello’s testimony, like that of the preceding

10 Guinea v. Vda. de Ramonal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Guinea v. Vda. de Ramonal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Guinea v. Vda. de Ramonal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. L-38659. February 20, 1975.] 5.

CERTIORARI; DISMISSAL; PETITION BEREFT OF

Civil Case No. 2766 is a litigation between the

After a painstaking perusal of the record, we have come

If, according to the petitioners, Ello would testify that

As Ello’s testimony would be merely cumulative, the trial

Moreover, Ello’s testimony, like that of the preceding

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.