G.R. No. 164307 March 5, 2007
Spouses Rodelio and Alicia Poltan, Petitioners, vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. and John Doe, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners obtained a loan from Mantrade Development Corporation, secured by a chattel mortgage over a Nissan Sentra vehicle. Mantrade assigned the promissory note and mortgage to respondent BPI Family Savings Bank. Petitioners defaulted on their installment payments. BPI filed a complaint for replevin and damages. In their Answer, petitioners admitted the loan and assignment but claimed they stopped payments because the insured vehicle was totaled in an accident and the insurer, FGU Insurance Corporation, failed to indemnify them, thereby excusing their non-payment.
After the case was remanded by the Court of Appeals for trial on the merits, the hearing was set for January 10, 2000. Petitioners and their counsel failed to appear. The trial court allowed BPI to present evidence ex parte and subsequently rendered a decision against petitioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Petitioners now argue before the Supreme Court that they were deprived of due process when the trial court proceeded with the ex parte hearing despite their counsel’s past attendance and the opposing counsel’s prior absences.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court deprived petitioners of due process by allowing BPI to present evidence ex parte after petitioners and their counsel failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.
RULING
No, petitioners were not deprived of due process. The right to be heard is not absolute and carries the correlative duty to be present at scheduled hearings. The records show petitioners and their counsel received due notice of the January 10, 2000 hearing but failed to attend without offering any justification or motion for postponement. The trial court’s act of proceeding with the ex parte presentation of evidence was a valid exercise of its discretion to prevent further delays, especially considering the case’s protracted history, including a prior default declaration and a remand from the Court of Appeals. Due process merely requires an opportunity to be heard, not that the hearing be held at all times and under all circumstances at the convenience of a party. Petitioners forfeited this opportunity through their own inaction. The Supreme Court found no arbitrariness in the trial court’s action, as the pattern of postponements and the unexplained absence on the final setting warranted proceeding without them. The subsequent decision was based on the evidence formally offered by BPI, which petitioners had the chance to rebut but chose not to. Therefore, the petition was denied, and the appealed decision was affirmed.
