TRIAL
VICENTE YU VS EMILIO MAPAYO
FACTS:
- Plaintiff Vicente filed a suit for recovery of sum of money representing
an unpaid balance for an engine sold to defendant Emilio
- Defendant filed its answer admitting the unpaid balance
o But contended that it was spent for repairs of hidden defects
of the engine which plaintiff agreed to waive
- The court ordered defendant to pay
- Defendant appealed
- The case was called for hearing
- Plaintiff was ordered to present evidence
- Plaintiffs counsel insisted that since defendant had admitted in his
answer the allegation, it should be defendant to present evidence for
his special defenses
- The court issued an order to make it of record that plaintiffs counsel
refuses to present evidence
- Plaintiff appealed
ISSUE: Whether or not plaintiff is correct in insisting that it should be
defendants turn to present evidence to his special defences?
HELD:
Yes.
The court found that defendant has admitted in his answer the
allegations of plaintiff in his complaint. That it is the right of plaintiff to insist
that it was for defendant to come forward with evidence in support of his
special defences. Sec 2 Rule 129 supports plaintiffs insistence.
SPS CALO VS SPS TAN
FACTS:
- Respondent Tan entered a joint venture agreement with petitioner
Calo, a mining business
- Respondent as the financier and procure all the equipment needed
while petitioner as industrial partner
- Petitioner Calo applied for a loan from DBP, using as collateral the
equipment allegedly purchased by respondent
- The loan was granted and a chattel mortgage was constituted
- Petitioner failed to pay the loan and the mortgage was foreclosed
- The equipment was sold at public auction with DBP as the highest
bidder
- Respondent filed a complaint for replevin against petitioner Calo
- Trial was constantly set and dates for presentation of the evidence for
petitioner as defendants were scheduled
- Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing on the scheduled date
- RTC held, petitioner having failed to appear during the hearing set for
the presentation of evidence, deemed to have waived their right to
present evidence.
- Petitioner appealed to the CA
- CA rendered affirming RTC
- Petitioner allege that CA erred in upholding as RTC acted
unreasonably when it ruled that they waived their right to present
evidence in view of their failure to attend the hearing
ISSUE:
HELD:
The absence of a party during trial constitutes waiver of his right to
present evidence, is firmly supported by jurisprudence.
Defendant who answered the complaint but fails to appear at the
scheduled trial cannot be declared in default, however, the trial may proceed
without his presence. If absence during hearing was due to his own fault, he
cannot later on complain that he was deprived of his day in court.