G.R. No. 44902 April 20, 1989
SERGIA BAUTISTA ESTRELLA, CONRADO ESTRELLA, and RODOLFO ARCALAS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MACARIO, NARCISO, EUGENIA, all surnamed ANCHETA, and CARMEN A. ABALAR, respondents.

FACTS

On January 21, 1967, Mauricia Baraceros was run over and killed in Rosales, Pangasinan by a power wagon driven by Rodolfo Arcalas, an employee of spouses Conrado and Sergia Estrella. After a criminal case against Arcalas was provisionally dismissed, the heirs of Baraceros filed a civil case for damages against the Estrellas and Arcalas in 1967, alleging reckless driving and the employers’ failure to exercise due diligence in selection and supervision. The defendants, in their answer, generally denied the allegations.
The procedural history was marked by extreme delay primarily attributable to the petitioners. Their counsel repeatedly sought postponements of pre-trial and trial settings. On multiple trial dates, neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared, leading the trial court to grant motions for ex parte presentation of evidence by the plaintiffs, only to later set aside these orders to allow the defendants their day in court. When trial finally proceeded on November 17, 1969, the petitioners’ counsel was again unprepared, presenting no witnesses and merely marking a few documents. The court granted a final one-month period for amicable settlement, but the petitioners did not respond. Consequently, the trial court rendered judgment based on the unrebutted evidence of the heirs.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the petitioners were denied due process, thereby invalidating the judgment rendered against them based on ex parte evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not denied due process. Due process is satisfied when a party is given an opportunity to be heard. The records unequivocally demonstrated that the petitioners were afforded numerous opportunities to present their defense but consistently failed to avail themselves of these opportunities through a pattern of non-appearance and dilatory motions. The trial court exhibited remarkable patience, repeatedly rescinding orders for ex parte proceedings to allow the petitioners to participate. Their final failure to present evidence at the long-delayed hearing, followed by their inaction during the court-ordered settlement period, constituted a waiver of their right to present evidence. Their claim of being deprived of a chance to file a demurrer to evidence was untenable, as they could have filed such a motion after the case was submitted for decision but did nothing. The Court emphasized that the petitioners, through their own neglect and tactics, forfeited their right to a hearing on the merits. Consequently, the trial court correctly adjudged the case based on the plaintiffs’ uncontroverted evidence, which established the driver’s negligence and the employers’ vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The Court affirmed the appellate decision but increased the death indemnity to P30,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.