GR 140274; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140274 ; November 15, 2000
WILLIAM T. TOH, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and DECON CONSTRUCTION, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Decon Construction filed a civil case for damages against petitioner William Toh before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. During the hearing on October 10, 1996, petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Nardo M. de Guzman, Sr., presented Engineer delos Santos as a witness and formally offered his intended testimony, which private respondent’s counsel admitted. Atty. de Guzman then manifested he was dispensing with the examination of the witness and moved for continuance. The presiding judge, Judge Santiago G. Estrella, issued an order formally dispensing with the testimony and set the next hearing.
Petitioner later filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming he was misguided by the court’s declaration and that dispensing with the testimony was a palpable mistake, depriving him of a vital witness. The motion was denied. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner was not deprived of due process and that the trial judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order dispensing with the testimony of petitioner’s witness.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that no deprivation of due process occurred. The assailed order clearly indicated it was petitioner’s own counsel who voluntarily manifested the dispensation of the witness testimony after the offer was admitted by opposing counsel. A tactical lapse by counsel binds the client. Moreover, petitioner was able to seek reconsideration, availing himself of an opportunity to be heard, which satisfies due process.
The Court also found no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by Judge Estrella. His resolution denying reconsideration was reasoned, noting that with the admission of the offered testimony, further examination would serve no purpose except to delay. Assuming any error was committed, it would be an error of judgment, correctible by appeal, not by certiorari. Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a remedy for errors of judgment but only for jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition.