G.R. No. 146365; February 28, 2005
SIMPLICIO A. PALANCA, petitioner, vs. ULYSSIS GUIDES joined by her husband LORENZO GUIDES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Simplicio Palanca executed a Contract to Sell a parcel of land to Josefa Jopson. Jopson subsequently assigned her rights under the contract to respondent Ulyssis Guides, who assumed the remaining balance. Respondent made installment payments to petitioner, which were acknowledged by receipts issued in her name. Upon believing the obligation was fully paid, respondent discovered the land title was not in petitioner’s name but in the name of a third party, Carissa T. de Leon. Petitioner refused to execute a deed of sale or release the title, claiming respondent had an outstanding balance. This prompted respondent to file a complaint for specific performance with damages.
The trial court denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss, which was based on an alleged defective barangay certification. During pre-trial, the core issue was identified as the determination of the outstanding balance. After years of delay and several postponements initiated by petitioner’s counsel, the trial court, due to petitioner and his counsels’ failure to appear at the final hearing for presentation of his evidence despite due notice, declared petitioner to have waived his right to present evidence. The trial court then rendered judgment in favor of respondent, ordering petitioner to execute a deed of absolute sale. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly declared petitioner to have waived his right to present evidence. A secondary issue involves the validity of the barangay certification for the complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in declaring a waiver. Petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to present his evidence over several years. His failure to appear at the final scheduled hearing, which was set at the instance of his own counsel of record (Atty. Cario), constituted a waiver of his right to present evidence. Due process was not violated, as the right to be heard carries the correlative duty to prosecute one’s case with reasonable diligence. Petitioner’s negligence bound him.
Regarding the barangay certification, the Court ruled there was substantial compliance with P.D. No. 1508. The error in naming Oscar Rivera (petitioner’s subdivision manager who appeared at the conciliation) instead of petitioner himself was a mere formal defect. The barangay secretary corrected this via affidavit, explaining Rivera represented petitioner. The law’s objective of achieving amicable settlement prior to litigation was served, as a conference was indeed held. The certification’s validity was upheld. Consequently, with petitioner having waived his right to counter respondent’s evidence, the factual findings on full payment of the purchase price by the trial court stand. Petitioner was thus ordered to execute the requisite deed of absolute sale.