GR 193966; (February, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 193966 ; February 19, 2014
DESIGN SOURCES INTERNATIONAL INC. and KENNETH SY, Petitioners, vs. LOURDES L. ERISTINGCOL, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Lourdes Eristingcol purchased and installed Pergo flooring from petitioner Design Sources International Inc. in 1998. In 2000, she discovered bulges in the flooring and demanded repair or replacement. After the petitioner corporation failed to meet the deadline for replacement, Eristingcol filed a complaint for damages. During trial, after petitioner Kenneth Sy testified, petitioners’ counsel indicated their next witness would be Stephen Sy, who was present in the courtroom. Respondent’s counsel objected to Stephen Sy’s testimony because he had been present during Kenneth Sy’s entire testimony.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) sustained the objection and precluded Stephen Sy from testifying, reasoning that allowing his testimony would disadvantage the plaintiff and that petitioners could present a different witness on similar technical matters. The RTC denied petitioners’ motions for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petitioners’ certiorari petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC, applying the doctrine from People v. Sandal that a witness who violates an exclusion order may be precluded if their testimony would not materially bolster the case.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in precluding Stephen Sy from testifying as a witness.
RULING
Yes, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA. The legal logic centers on the absence of a foundational order for witness exclusion. The power to exclude a witness is premised on a prior court order issued upon a party’s motion. In this case, no such order was ever issued by the RTC, nor was a motion for exclusion formally made by respondent’s counsel before Kenneth Sy testified. The objection was raised only after the testimony concluded.
Consequently, there was no violation of an exclusion rule by Stephen Sy’s presence. The RTC’s reliance on the potential disadvantage to the respondent and the availability of another witness was erroneous without a prior exclusionary order in place. The duty to request the exclusion of witnesses rests on counsel; the respondent is bound by her counsel’s procedural oversight. The Court clarified that the Sandal doctrine applies only when an exclusion order has been defied, which was not the situation here. Therefore, precluding Stephen Sy’s testimony constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The RTC was ordered to allow Stephen Sy to testify.