G.R. No. 97130; June 19, 1991
FRANCISCO N. DY, JR., Substituted by his Estate Rep. by ROSARIO PEREZ-DY, Administratrix, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FERTILIZER MARKETING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Fertilizer Marketing Company filed a collection suit against Francisco Dy, Jr. and his trading corporation for an unpaid fertilizer purchase balance. The defendants were initially declared in default for failure to answer. After the plaintiff presented evidence ex parte before the Branch Clerk of Court, the default order was later set aside, and the defendants were allowed to answer. However, they subsequently failed to appear for the presentation of their evidence, leading to a judgment against them. On appeal, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for pre-trial and trial on the merits.
At the pre-trial conference, the parties entered into an agreement, embodied in the pre-trial order, that the evidence previously presented by the plaintiff before the Branch Clerk of Court would remain on record, subject to cross-examination. The defendants also agreed to present their witnesses via affidavits. Despite this, the defendants later filed a motion to set aside this agreement and, on the scheduled hearing date, failed to appear to present their evidence. The trial court deemed this a waiver and rendered a decision based on the plaintiff’s evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) upholding the validity of the proceedings before the Branch Clerk of Court; and (2) finding that the petitioner was not denied due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner was estopped from questioning the proceedings before the Branch Clerk of Court. During the pre-trial, the petitioner’s predecessor, Francisco Dy, Jr., explicitly agreed to retain the evidence presented in those proceedings, subject to cross-examination. Agreements made during pre-trial, when incorporated into the pre-trial order, control the subsequent trial and cannot be disturbed absent manifest injustice. Furthermore, the practice of a Branch Clerk of Court receiving evidence as a commissioner is sanctioned by Rule 33 of the Rules of Court and is not irregular, as established in precedents like Continental Bank vs. Tiangco.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that there was no denial of due process. Due process was satisfied as the petitioner retained the right to present evidence and to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses. The failure to exercise these rights was due to a voluntary waiver by the defendants when they agreed to the pre-trial terms and subsequently failed to appear at the hearing. A party cannot invoke denial of due process when the deprivation results from its own voluntary acts or negligence. The procedural agreements and subsequent waiver were binding, and the judgment was properly based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff.