100%(1)100% нашли этот документ полезным (1 голос)
709 просмотров2 страницы
DOMINGO PADUA, petitioner, sought to recover damages for the injuressuffered by hi s ei ght - year ol d daughter, Luzvi mi nda, caused by her being hit by a truck driven by RUNDIO ABJAETO and owned by antoniog.ramos. Padua was litigating in forma pauperis.
DOMINGO PADUA, petitioner, sought to recover damages for the injuressuffered by hi s ei ght - year ol d daughter, Luzvi mi nda, caused by her being hit by a truck driven by RUNDIO ABJAETO and owned by antoniog.ramos. Padua was litigating in forma pauperis.
DOMINGO PADUA, petitioner, sought to recover damages for the injuressuffered by hi s ei ght - year ol d daughter, Luzvi mi nda, caused by her being hit by a truck driven by RUNDIO ABJAETO and owned by antoniog.ramos. Padua was litigating in forma pauperis.
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASESDOMINGO PADUA,
petitioner,vs. VICENTE ERICTA, etc., RUNDIO ABJAETO, and ANTONIO G.RAMOS, respondents. FACTS : Domingo Padua, petioner sought to recover damages for the injuressuf f er ed by hi s ei ght - year ol d daught er , Luzvi mi nda, caused by her being hit by a truck driven by Rundio Abjaeto and owned by AntonioG. Ramos. Padua was litigating in forma pauperis . Tr i al of t he case havi ng been set i n due cour se, Padua commencedpresentation of his evidence on December 6, 1973. He gave testimonyon direct exqmination in the course of which reference was made tonumerous documents. At the close of his examination, and on motionof defendants' counsel, the previously scheduled hearing of December12, 1973 was cancelled, and Padua' s cross-examination was reset onDecember 17, 1973. However, thehearing of December 17,1973wasa l s o c an c e l l e d , a ga i n a t t h e i nst ance of def endant s' c o u n s e l , wh o pleaded sickness as ground therefor; and trial was once more slatedto "take place on March 6, March 7 and 13, 1974, all at 9:00 o'clock inthe morning."After defendants' attorney had twice sought and obtained cancellationof trial settings, as narrated, it was plaintiff Padua' s counsel who nextmoved for cancellation of a hearing date. In a motion dated and filedo n Ma r c h 1 , 1 9 7 4 , Pa du a ' s c o u n s e l a l l e ge d t h a t h e h a d " an o t h e r hearing on March 6, 1974 in Tarlac
and that the cancellation would "atany r at e . . . l eave pl ai nt i f f and
defendants two (2) hearingdatesonMar ch 7 and 13, 1974; " and on t hese pr emi ses, he asked " t hat t hehearing on March 6, 1974 ... be ordered cancelled . " No opposition wasfiled by the defendants to the motion. Apart from filing this motion onMarch 1, 1974, plaintiffs counsel took the additional step of sendinghis client' s wife to the Court on the day of the trial, March 6,1974, toverbally reiterate his application for cancellation of the hearing on thatday. This, Mrs. Padua did. The respondent Judge however denied theapplication and dismissed the case. Padua moved for reconsideration,but this was denied.
Hence, this petition. ISSUE : Whether or not the respondent judge erred in dismissing the case ont he gr ound t hat i t vi ol at es t he ri ght to a speedy di sposi ti on of cases.
RULING :C o u r t s s h o u l d n o t b r o o k u n d u e d e l a y s i n t h e v e n t i l a t i o n a n d determination of causes. It should be their constant effort to assuret h a t l i t i g a t i o n s a r e p r o s e c u t e d a n d r e s o l v e d w i t h d i s p a t c h . Postponements of trials and hearings should not be allowed except on
meritorious grounds; and the grant or refusal thereof rests entirely int he sound di scr et i on of t he Judge. I t goes wi t hout sayi ng, however , that that discretion must be reasonably and wisely exercised, in thelight of the attendant circumstances. Some reasonable deferment of t he pr oceedi ngs may be al l owed or t ol er at ed t o t he end t hat casesmay be adjudged only after full and free presentation of evidence bya l l t h e p a r t i e s , s p e c i a l l y w h e r e t h e d e f e r m e n t w o u l d c a u s e n o s u b s t a n t i a l p r e j u d i c e t o a n y p a r t . T h e d e s i d e r a t u m o f a s p e e d y d i s p o s i t i o n o f c a s e s s h o u l d n o t , i f a t a l l p o s s i b l e , r e s u l t i n t h e pr eci pi t at e l oss of aparty' s r i ght t o pr esent evi dence and ei t her i nplaintiff's being non-suited or the defendant's being pronounced liableu n d e r a n e x p a r t e j u d gme n t . J ud ge ' s a c t i o n wa s u n r e a s o n a b l e , capricious and oppressive, and should be as it is hereby annulled.