G.R. No. L-38964. January 31, 1975.
Savory Luncheonette, petitioner, vs. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino, et al., and Court of Industrial Relations, respondents.

FACTS

Savory Luncheonette filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the respondent union, Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino. To substantiate its charges, petitioner presented its legal counsel, Atty. Emiliano Morabe, as a key witness. His direct examination concluded on March 2, 1973. Counsel for the private respondents, Atty. Rodolfo Amante, repeatedly sought postponements of the cross-examination, citing unpreparedness and lack of the transcript, despite explicit warnings from the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) that further failure would constitute a waiver of that right. After four such postponements, Atty. Morabe died of a heart attack on March 31, 1973, before cross-examination could be conducted.
Subsequently, the private respondents filed a motion to strike Atty. Morabe’s direct testimony from the record, arguing it could no longer be rebutted. They also moved to recall another witness, Bienvenida Ting, for further cross-examination. The CIR granted both motions in an Order dated May 3, 1974. Savory Luncheonette’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Industrial Relations commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the striking of Atty. Morabe’s testimony and the recall of witness Bienvenida Ting for further cross-examination?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the CIR’s orders, finding grave abuse of discretion. On the first issue, the right to cross-examine is a personal privilege that can be waived. The private respondents were granted ample and repeated opportunities to cross-examine Atty. Morabe but unjustifiably failed to do so despite judicial warnings. Their deliberate inaction constituted a waiver of that right. To strike the testimony as a consequence of the witness’s subsequent death would unfairly allow the respondents to benefit from their own neglect and would deprive the petitioner of vital evidence through no fault of its own. The direct testimony should therefore remain on record.
Regarding the recall of Bienvenida Ting, the Court found the motion lacked substantive justification, failing to specify the points omitted in the earlier cross-examination. Granting such a motion, after the witness had already been cross-examined, under these vague circumstances, was capricious and indicative of a strategy to delay proceedings. The CIR’s orders violated fundamental fairness and the principle that parties must not profit from their own procedural defaults. The case was remanded for continuation of the proceedings consistent with this ruling.