GR L 73039; (October, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-73039, L-68680, L-57771 October 9, 1987
Perfecta Cavili, Primitivo Cavili and Quirino Cavili, petitioners, vs. Hon. Teodoro N. Florendo, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents filed a complaint for Partition, Accounting, and Damages against petitioners. Petitioners were declared in default for failure to file an answer, and a judgment by default was rendered. Petitioners secured a new trial via a Supreme Court decision. During the new trial before the Regional Trial Court, petitioners presented Perfecta Cavili as their first witness. Respondents moved for her disqualification, arguing that as a party declared in default, she lost her standing in court and could not participate, even as a witness. The trial court sustained this motion and disqualified Perfecta from testifying.
ISSUE
Whether a party declared in default is disqualified from being presented as a witness in the same case.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the trial court’s order. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between the rights of a party litigant and the competence of a witness. A default order results in the loss of standing in court, meaning the defaulting party forfeits the rights of a litigant: to present a defense, control proceedings, and examine witnesses. However, the Rules on evidence are generous regarding witness qualification. Under Rule 130, interest in the case is not a ground for disqualification.
The Court clarified that “loss of standing” and being barred from “taking part in the trial” refer to active participation as a legal adversary. A witness is merely an observer who testifies to perceptions and does not actively contest the case. Therefore, being in default does not render a person an incompetent witness. Disqualifying Perfecta would unjustly prejudice her co-defendants, Primitivo and Quirino, who were not in default, by depriving them of their right to present evidence. They should not bear the consequences of Perfecta’s default. The only available evidence might be in Perfecta’s possession, making her testimony crucial for a just resolution. The order was reversed, and the case remanded for continuation of the trial.