Você está na página 1de 1

TRIAL SPS CALO VS SPS TAN

VICENTE YU VS EMILIO MAPAYO FACTS:


- Respondent Tan entered a joint venture agreement with petitioner
FACTS: Calo, a mining business
- Plaintiff Vicente filed a suit for recovery of sum of money representing - Respondent as the financier and procure all the equipment needed
an unpaid balance for an engine sold to defendant Emilio while petitioner as industrial partner
- Defendant filed its answer admitting the unpaid balance - Petitioner Calo applied for a loan from DBP, using as collateral the
o But contended that it was spent for repairs of hidden defects equipment allegedly purchased by respondent
of the engine which plaintiff agreed to waive - The loan was granted and a chattel mortgage was constituted
- The court ordered defendant to pay - Petitioner failed to pay the loan and the mortgage was foreclosed
- Defendant appealed - The equipment was sold at public auction with DBP as the highest
- The case was called for hearing bidder
- Plaintiff was ordered to present evidence - Respondent filed a complaint for replevin against petitioner Calo
- Plaintiffs counsel insisted that since defendant had admitted in his - Trial was constantly set and dates for presentation of the evidence for
answer the allegation, it should be defendant to present evidence for petitioner as defendants were scheduled
his special defenses - Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing on the scheduled date
- The court issued an order to make it of record that plaintiffs counsel - RTC held, petitioner having failed to appear during the hearing set for
refuses to present evidence the presentation of evidence, deemed to have waived their right to
- Plaintiff appealed present evidence.
- Petitioner appealed to the CA
ISSUE: Whether or not plaintiff is correct in insisting that it should be - CA rendered affirming RTC
defendants turn to present evidence to his special defences? - Petitioner allege that CA erred in upholding as RTC acted
unreasonably when it ruled that they waived their right to present
HELD: evidence in view of their failure to attend the hearing
Yes.
The court found that defendant has admitted in his answer the ISSUE:
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 HELD:
special defences. Sec 2 Rule 129 supports plaintiffs insistence. 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.