Anda di halaman 1dari 1

Savory v.

Lakas (Short title) PROVISION


GR # L-38964 | January 31, 1975 Rule 132 Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. — Upon the
Petitioner: Savory Luncheonette termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by
Respondent: Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino et. al the adverse party as to many matters stated in the direct examination, or
(Rule 132, Section 6) connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy
and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to
FACTS elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.
1. Savory through a Court Prosecutor of the Court of Industrial
Relations filed a complaint against Lakas for unfair labor practice by RULING & RATIO
declaring a strike in violation of a no-strike clause of an existing 1. Yes.
CBA without prior resort to the grievance procedure and without 1. The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing
having observed the 30-day cooling off period prescribed by law. witnesses in a judicial litigation is a fundamental right which is
2. Savory presented as its key witness Atty. Morabe, its legal counsel, part of due process however, the right is a personal one which
in-charge of the labor-management problems of Savory and thus may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting
have first-hand knowledge of the facts of the labor dispute. to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination.
3. Savory's counsel conducted the direct examination of Atty. Morabe. 2. The conduct of a party which may be construed as an implied
Atty. Amante, counsel of Lakas, was called to cross-examine Atty. waiver of the right to cross-examine may take various forms.
Morabe, but he moved for a postponement on the ground that he 3. The basic principle underlying the application of the rule on implied
was not in a position to cross-examine the witness so, the cross- waiver is that the party was given the opportunity to cross-examine
examination of Atty. Morabe was re-schedule. The failure of Atty. and failed to do so for reasons attributable to himself alone.
Amante was repeated for five more times citing different reasons 4. The present case of Savory falls within the confines of the
for each failure. jurisprudence available.
4. For the fifth failure, the cross-examination was postponed with the 5. Lakas through Atty. Amante, were given not only one but five
reservation made by Atty. Morabe challenging the granting of opportunities to cross-examine and despite the warnings given,
another postponement. counsel still failed or refused such so the right was deemed waived.
5. Subsequently, Atty. Morabe succumbed to a heart attack and 6. The fact that the witness died is no ground in itself for excluding his
Lakas filed a motion to strike out his direct testimony from the from the record so long as the adverse party was afforded an
records on the ground that cross-examination was no longer adequate opportunity for cross-examination.
possible for such direct testimony could no longer be rebutted. 7. With regard to the order concerning Bienvenida Ting, such is
6. Savory opposed stating that because of Lakas' repeated failure to unwarranted. As claimed by Savory, the motion was intended
cross-examine they are deemed to have waived the same. merely to delay the proceedings and to harass and inconvenience
7. Lakas filed another motion seeking the recall of Savory's witness the witness sought to he recalled.
Bienvenida Ting for further cross-examination to which savory also 8. The instant petition presents a clear case of grave abuse of
opposed claiming that the witness was already cross-examined discretion which justifies the Court's intervention at this stage of the
more than two months after her direct testimony and that the proceedings in the court below.
motion failed to state the points that were not taken up during the
previous cross-examination giving rise to the conclusion that such DISPOSITION
was to delay and to harass and inconvenience the witness. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the writ of certiorari prayed for is granted and
8. The motion was granted and Savory's MR was denied. the Orders of respondent Court of May 3, 1974, and July 5, 1974, under
review are hereby set aside. With costs against private respondents.
ISSUE/S So Ordered.
1. W/N Court of Industrial Relations acted with grave abuse of discretion
when the latter ordered the direct testimony of Atty. Morabe be stricken
off the record.