G.R. No. 148150. July 12, 2006.
R TRANSPORT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. PHILHINO SALES CORPORATION, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Philhino Sales Corporation filed a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against petitioner R Transport Corporation for alleged unpaid obligations from the sale of buses. After respondent presented its evidence, petitioner presented its last witness, Rizalina Lamzon, who completed her direct testimony and was cross-examined. The cross-examination was suspended, with agreed continuance dates. Subsequently, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Transfer these hearing dates, alleging Lamzon had to attend a deposition in the United States for an offshore company she represented. The trial court denied the motion, emphasizing the settings were by party agreement.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for postponement and in striking off the direct testimony of witness Rizalina Lamzon from the records.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, affirming the Court of Appeals. The denial of a motion for postponement is a matter of judicial discretion, not subject to review unless exercised with grave abuse. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. The hearing dates were set by agreement, and the reason for postponement—Lamzon’s need to attend a foreign deposition for a different corporate entity—was not a compelling or meritorious ground. It did not constitute an uncontrollable cause preventing her attendance. The Court emphasized that a witness’s testimony must be completed, and the witness must be available for cross-examination. Failure to appear for cross-examination, after direct testimony has been given, renders the direct testimony incompetent and inadmissible. Consequently, the trial court properly ordered the testimony stricken from the record. The petitioner was not denied due process as it was given ample opportunity to present evidence but failed to ensure its witness’s availability for the agreed-upon proceedings.