DE LA PAZ VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, G.R. No.

71537, September 17,

1987

FACTS: Loreto de la Paz filed a complaint against the petitioners for a judicial declaration of
ownership of a parcel of land in the name of Ponciano de la Paz with damages. The parties failed
to arrive at an amicable settlement during pre-trial. Hence, trial on the merits followed. Loreto
finished her direct testimony on March 12, 1984. On April 25, 1984, the petitioners' counsel
began his cross-examination of Loreto but it was not completed. Hence, the petitioners' counsel
moved in open court for the continuance of the cross-examination since he still had to conduct a
lengthy cross-examination. On May 18, 1984, Loreto's counsel filed a motion for "correction of
transcript" due to some errors in the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the direct
testimony of Loreto. The grant of this motion prompted the petitioners' counsel to manifest that
he would not be able to undertake the cross-examination of the witness as scheduled. He asked
for the postponement of the May 23, 1984 hearing. The trial court postponed the trial of the case
to May 31, 1984 and later to July 5, and 11, 1984. On August 13, 1984, trial resumed. The
petitioners' counsel, still asked for another postponement of the cross-examination. During the
scheduled trial on September 14, 1984, neither the petitioners, nor their counsel appeared despite
due notice. Thus, Loreto's counsel was allowed to present evidence ex parte before a
commissioner. During this time, petitioners were still allowed to cross-examine Loreto. On the
scheduled hearing on September 18, 1984, the petitioners' counsel failed to appear, and the cross-
examination of Loreto was deferred for the fourth time. On November 7, 1984, the petitioners'
counsel still postponed the cross-examination of Loreto and it was rescheduled. However, Loreto
died on December 1, 1984. The petitioners moved to strike off the record the entire testimony of
Loreto. However, this was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner had waived their right to cross examine Loreto.

RULING: The right of a party to cross-examine the witness of his adversary is a personal one
which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right
of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness
but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the
testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the
record.

In the case at bar, the petitioners' failure to cross-examine Loreto was through no fault of
the respondents. Loreto was available for cross-examination from the time she finished her direct
testimony on March 12, 1984 to November 7, 1984, the last scheduled hearing of the case before
her death on December 1, 1984. The petitioners not only kept on postponing the cross-
examination but at times failed to appear during scheduled hearings. The postponement of the
trial on May 23, 1984 to a later date due to the correction of the stenographic notes of Loreto's
testimony may be justified, but the same cannot be said for the subsequent posponements
requested by the petitioners. The scheduled trials before November 7, 1984, did not push
through, because of the petitioners' fault. It may also be recalled that at the scheduled hearing on
September 14, 1984 neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared leading to the presentation
of evidence ex parte. And also during the scheduled hearing on September 18, 1984, when the
petitioners were allowed to cross-examine Loreto despite the fact that the case was already
deemed submitted for decision, the petitioners again failed to appear.

Therefore, petitioners had waived their right to cross-examine Loreto. Through their own
fault, they lost their right to cross-examine Loreto. Her testimony stands.