GR 141857; (June, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141857 ; June 9, 2004
RODSON PHILIPPINES, INC., EURASIA HEAVY INDUSTRIES, INC., AUTOGRAPHICS, INC., and PETER Y. RODRIGUEZ, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and the EASTAR RESOURCES (ASIA) CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a complaint for damages against respondent Eastar Resources (Asia) Corporation. After petitioners rested their case, respondent presented one witness and filed its formal offer of evidence. Petitioners, having changed counsel, moved to recall the respondent’s witness for further cross-examination. The trial court denied this motion but allowed petitioners to subpoena the witness as a hostile witness during their rebuttal. The court held in abeyance its resolution on the formal offer pending this motion.
The trial court eventually issued an order admitting respondent’s documentary evidence, noting that petitioners failed to file their required comment or opposition to the formal offer despite the lapse of a significant period after the denial of their motion to recall. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, assailing the trial court’s orders. The CA dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition and upholding the trial court’s orders admitting respondent’s evidence despite petitioners’ lack of opportunity to comment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s dismissal. The legal logic centers on the principle that certiorari is not a remedy for a party’s own negligence and the availability of other adequate remedies. The record showed the trial court denied the motion to recall on March 26, 1996. From that point, it was incumbent upon petitioners to file their comment on the formal offer. Their failure to do so for over a year constituted negligence.
The Court emphasized that petitioners were not without recourse. They could have appended their comment/opposition to their motion for reconsideration of the July 17, 1997 order, allowing the trial court to review it. A denial could then have been properly elevated to the CA for review of any grave abuse of discretion. By not doing so, petitioners failed to exhaust an adequate remedy. Furthermore, they retained the right to adduce rebuttal evidence to counter the respondent’s documents. The extraordinary writ of certiorari cannot shield a party from the consequences of its own omission and lack of diligence. Equity demands that one who seeks relief must come with clean hands.