Part 6 Pre-Trial

1

RULE18

Pre-Trial

Section1.Whenconducted.Afterthelastpleadinghasbeenservedandfiled,ifshallbethedutyoftheplaintifftopromptlymoveexpartethatthecasebesetforpre-trial(5a,R20)

Section2.Natureandpurpose.Thepre-trialismandatory.Thecourtshallconsider:

(a)Thepossibilityofanamicablesettlementorofasubmissiontoalternativemodesofdisputeresolution;

(b)Thesimplificationoftheissues;

(c)Thenecessityordesirabilityofamendmentstothepleadings;

(d)Thepossibilityofobtainingstipulationsoradmissionsoffactsandofdocumentstoavoidunnecessaryproof;

(e)Thelimitationofthenumberofwitnesses;

(f)Theadvisabilityofapreliminaryreferenceofissuestoacommissioner;

(g)Theproprietyofrenderingjudgmentonthepleadings,orsummaryjudgment,orofdismissingtheactionshouldavalidgroundthereforbefoundtoexist;

(h)Theadvisabilityornecessityofsuspendingtheproceedings;and

(i)Suchothermattersasmayaidinthepromptdispositionoftheaction.(1a,R20)

Section3.Noticeofpre-trial.Thenoticeofpre-trialshallbeservedoncounsel,oronthepartywhohasnocounsel.Thecounselservedwithsuchnoticeischargedwiththedutyofnotifyingthepartyrepresentedbyhim.(n)

Section4.Appearanceofparties.Itshallbethedutyofthepartiesandtheircounseltoappearatthepre-trial.Thenon-appearanceofapartymaybeexcusedonlyifavalidcauseisshowntherefororifarepresentativeshallappearinhisbehalffullyauthorizedinwritingtoenterintoanamicablesettlement,tosubmittoalternativemodesofdisputeresolution,andtoenterintostipulationsoradmissionsoffactsandofdocuments.(n)

Section5.Effectoffailuretoappear.Thefailureoftheplaintifftoappearwhensorequiredpursuanttothenextprecedingsectionshallbecausefordismissaloftheaction.Thedismissalshallbewithprejudice,unlessother-wiseorderedbythecourt.Asimilarfailureonthepartofthedefendantshallbecausetoallowtheplaintifftopresenthisevidenceexparteandthecourttorenderjudgmentonthebasisthereof.(2a,R20)

2

Section6.Pre-trialbrief.Thepartiesshallfilewiththecourtandserveontheadverseparty,insuchmannerasshallensuretheirreceiptthereofatleastthree(3)daysbeforethedateofthepre-trial,theirrespectivepre-trialbriefswhichshallcontain,amongothers:

(a)Astatementoftheirwillingnesstoenterintoamicablesettlementoralternativemodesofdisputeresolution,indicatingthedesiredtermsthereof;

(b)Asummaryofadmittedfactsandproposedstipulationoffacts;

(c)Theissuestobetriedorresolved;

(d)Thedocumentsorexhibitstobepresentedstatingthepurposethereof;

(e)Amanifestationoftheirhavingavailedortheirintentiontoavailthemselvesofdiscoveryproceduresorreferraltocommissioners;and

(f)Thenumberandnamesofthewitnesses,andthesubstanceoftheirrespectivetestimonies.

Failuretofilethepre-trialbriefshallhavethesameeffectasfailuretoappearatthepre-trial.(n)

Section7.Recordofpre-trial.Theproceedingsinthepre-trialshallberecorded.Upontheterminationthereof,thecourtshallissueanorderwhichshallreciteindetailthematterstakenupintheconference,theactiontakenthereon,theamendmentsallowedtothepleadings,andtheagreementsoradmissionsmadebythepartiesastoanyofthemattersconsidered.Shouldtheactionproceedtotrial,theordershall,explicitlydefineandlimittheissuestobetried.Thecontentsoftheordershallcontrolthesubsequentcourseoftheaction,unlessmodifiedbeforetrialtopreventmanifestinjustice.(5a,R20)

A.M.No.03-1-09-SC

RE:PROPOSEDRULEONGUIDELINESTOBEOBSERVEDBYTRIALCOURTJUDGESANDCLERKSOFCOURTINTHECONDUCTOFPRE-TRIALANDUSEOFDEPOSITION-DISCOVERYMEASURES

RESOLUTION

ActingontherecommendationoftheChairmanoftheCommitteeonRevisionoftheRulesofCourtsubmittingforthisCourt's,considerationandapprovaltheProposedRuleonGuidelinestobeObservedbyTrialCourtJudgesandClerksofCourtintheConductofPre-TrialandUseofDeposition-DiscoveryMeasures,theCourtResolvedtoAPPROVEthesame.ThesaidRuleisheretoattachedasanintegralpartofthisResolution.

TheRuleshalltakeeffectonAugust16,2004followingitspublicationinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationnotlaterthanJuly30,2004.

3

July13,2004.

(Sgd.)Davide,Jr.C.J.,Puno,Vitug,Panganiban,Quisumbing,Ynarez-Santiago,Sandoval-Gutierrez,Carpio,Austria-Martinez,Corona,Carpio-Morales,Callejo,Sr.,AzcunaandTingaJJ.

GUIDELINESTOBEOBSERVEDBYTRIALCOURTJUDGESANDCLERKSOFCOURTINTHECONDUCTOFPRE-TRIALANDUSEOFDEPOSITION-DISCOVERYMEASURES

Theuseofpre-trialandthedeposition-discoverymeasuresareundeniablyimportantandvitalcomponentsofcasemanagementintrialcourts.Toabbreviatecourtproceedings,ensurepromptdispositionofcasesanddecongestcourtdockets,andtofurtherimplementthepre-trialguidelineslaiddowninAdministrativeCircularNo.3-99datedJanuary15,1999andexceptasotherwisespecificallyprovidedforinotherspecialrules,thefollowingguidelinesareissuedfortheobservanceandguidanceoftrialjudgesandclerksofcourt:

I.PRE-TRIAL

A.CivilCases

1.Withinonedayfromreceiptofthecomplaint:

1.1SummonsshallbepreparedandshallcontainaremindertodefendanttoobserverestraintinfilingamotiontodismissandinsteadallegethegroundsthereofasdefensesintheAnswer,inconformitywithIBP-OCAMemorandumonPolicyGuidelinesdatedMarch12,2002.AcopyofthesummonsisheretoattachedasAnnex"A;"and

1.2ThecourtshallissueanorderrequiringthepartiestoavailofinterrogatoriestopartiesunderRule25andrequestforadmissionbyadversepartyunderRule26orattheirdiscretionmakeuseofdepositionsunderRule23orothermeasuresunderRules27and28withinfivedaysfromthefilingoftheanswer.1Acopyoftheordershallbeserveduponthedefendanttogetherwiththesummonsandupontheplaintiff.

Withinfive(5)daysfromdateoffilingofthereply,2theplaintiffmustpromptlymoveexpartethatthecasebesetforpre-trialconference.3Iftheplaintifffailstofilesaidmotionwithinthegivenperiod,theBranchCOCshallissueanoticeofpre-trial.

2.Thepartiesshallsubmit,atleastthree(3)daysbeforethepre-trial,pre-trialbriefscontainingthefollowing:4

a.Astatementoftheirwillingnesstoenterintoanamicablesettlementindicatingthedesiredtermsthereofortosubmitthecasetoanyofthealternativemodesofdisputeresolution;

b.Asummaryofadmittedfactsandproposedstipulationoffacts;

4

c.Theissuestobetriedorresolved;

d.Thedocumentsorexhibitstobepresented,statingthepurposethereof.(Noevidenceshallbeallowedtobepresentedandofferedduringthetrialinsupportofaparty'sevidence-in-chiefotherthanthosethathadbeenearlieridentifiedandpre-markedduringthepre-trial,exceptifallowedbythecourtforgoodcauseshown);

e.Amanifestationoftheirhavingavailedortheirintentiontoavailthemselvesofdiscoveryproceduresorreferraltocommissioners;and

f.Thenumberandnamesofthewitnesses,thesubstanceoftheirtestimonies,andtheapproximatenumberofhoursthatwillberequiredbythepartiesforthepresentationoftheirrespectivewitnesses.

AcopyoftheNoticeofPre-trialConferenceisheretoattachedasAnnex"B."

Theruleonthecontentsofthepre-trialbriefmuststrictlybecompliedwith.

Thepartiesareboundbytherepresentationsandstatementsintheirrespectivepre-trialbriefs.

3.Atthestartofthepre-trialconference,thejudgeshallimmediatelyreferthepartiesand/ortheircounselifauthorizedbytheirclientstothePMCmediationunitforpurposesofmediationifavailable.5Ifmediationfails,thejudgewillschedulethecontinuanceofthepre-trialconference.Beforethecontinuance,theJudgemayreferthecasetotheBranchCOCforapreliminaryconferencetoassistthepartiesinreachingasettlement,tomarkthedocumentsorexhibitstobepresentedbythepartiesandcopiesthereoftobeattachedtotherecordsaftercomparisonandtoconsidersuchothermattersasmayaidinitspromptdisposition.6

Duringthepreliminaryconference,theBranchCOCshallalsoascertainfromthepartiestheundisputedfactsandadmissionsonthegenuinenessanddueexecutionofthedocumentsmarkedasexhibits.Theproceedingsduring.thepreliminaryconferenceshallberecordedinthe"MinutesofPreliminaryConference"tobesignedbybothpartiesand/orcounsel,theformofwhichisheretoattachedasAnnex."C".

TheminutesofpreliminaryconferenceandtheexhibitsshallbeattachedbytheBranchCOCtothecaserecordbeforethepre-trial.

4.Beforethecontinuationofthepre-trialconference,thejudgemuststudyallthepleadingsofthecase,anddeterminetheissuesthereofandtherespectivepositionsofthepartiesthereontoenablehimtointelligentlysteerthepartiestowardapossibleamicablesettlementofthecase,or,attheveryleast,tohelpreduceandlimittheissues.Thejudgeshouldnotallowtheterminationofpre-trialsimplybecauseofthemanifestationofthepartiesthattheycannotsettlethecase.Heshouldexposethepartiestotheadvantagesofpre-trial.Hemustalsobemindfulthatthereareother

5

importantaspectsofthepre-trialthatoughttobetakenuptoexpeditethedispositionofthecase.7

TheJudgewithalltact,patience,impartialityandwithdueregardtotherightsofthepartiesshallendeavortopersuadethemtoarriveatasettlementofthedispute.8Thecourtshallinitiallyaskthepartiesandtheirlawyersifanamicablesettlementofthecaseispossible.Ifnot,thejudgemayconferwiththepartieswiththeopposingcounseltoconsiderthefollowing:

a.Giventheevidenceoftheplaintiffpresentedinhispre-trialbrieftosupporthisclaim,whatmannerofcompromiseisconsideredacceptabletothedefendantatthepresentstage?

b.Giventheevidenceofthedefendantdescribedinhispre-trialbrieftosupporthisdefense,whatmannerofcompromiseisconsideredacceptabletotheplaintiffatthepresentstage?

Ifnotsuccessful,thecourtshallconferwiththepartyandhiscounselseparately.

Ifthemannerofcompromiseisnotacceptable,thejudgeshallconferwiththepartieswithouttheircounselforthesamepurposeofsettlement.

5.Ifalleffortstosettlefail,thetrialjudgeshall:

a.Adopttheminutesofpreliminaryconferenceaspartofthepre-trialproceedingsandconfirmmarkingsofexhibitsorsubstitutedphotocopiesandadmissionsonthegenuinenessanddueexecutionofdocuments;

b.Inquireiftherearecasesarisingoutofthesamefactspendingbeforeothercourtsandorderitsconsolidationifwarranted;

c.Inquireifthepleadingsareinorder.Ifnot,ordertheamendmentsifnecessary;

d.Inquireifinterlocutoryissuesareinvolvedandresolvethesame;

e.Considertheaddingordroppingofparties;

f.Scrutinizeeverysingleallegationofthecomplaint,answerandotherpleadingsandattachmentstheretoandthecontentsofdocumentsandallotherevidenceidentifiedandpre-markedduringpre-trialindeterminingfurtheradmissionsoffactsanddocuments.Toobtainadmissions,theCourtshallaskthepartiestosubmitthedepositionstakenunderRule23,theanswerstowritteninterrogatoriesunderRule25andtheanswerstorequestforadmissionsbytheadversepartyunderRule26.ItmayalsorequiretheproductionofdocumentsorthingsrequestedbyapartyunderRule27andtheresultsofthephysicalandmentalexaminationofpersonsunderRule28;

6

g.Defineandsimplifythefactualandlegalissuesarisingfromthepleadings.Uncontrovertedissuesandfrivolousclaimsordefensesshouldbeeliminated.Foreachfactualissue,theparties/counselshallstatealltheevidencetosupporttheirpositionsthereon.Foreachlegalissue,parties/counselshallstatetheapplicablelawandjurisprudencesupportingtheirrespectivepositionsthereon.Ifonlylegalissuesarepresented,thejudgeshallrequirethepartiestosubmittheirrespectivememorandaandthecourtcanproceedtorenderjudgment;9

h.Determinetheproprietyofrenderingasummaryjudgmentdismissingthecasebasedonthedisclosuresmadeatthepre-trialorajudgmentbasedonthepleadings,evidenceidentifiedandadmissionsmadeduringpre-trial;10

i.AskpartiestoagreeonthespecifictrialdatesforcontinuoustrialinaccordancewithCircularNo.1-89datedJanuary19,1989;adheretothecaseflowchartdeterminedbythecourt,whichshallcontainthedifferentstagesoftheproceedingsuptothepromulgationofthedecisionandusethetimeframeforeachstageinsettingthetrialdates.TheOne-DayExaminationofWitnessRule,thatis,awitnesshastobefullyexaminedinone(1)dayonly,shallbestrictlyadheredtosubjecttothecourts'discretionduringtrialonwhetherornottoextendthedirectand/orcross-examinationforjustifiablereasons.Onthelasthearingdayallottedforeachparty,heisrequiredtomakehisformalofferofevidenceafterthepresentationofhislastwitnessandtheopposingpartyisrequiredtoimmediatelyinterposehisobjectionthereto.Thereafter,theJudgeshallmaketherulingontheofferofevidenceinopencourt.HoweverthejudgehasthediscretiontoallowtheofferofevidenceinwritinginconformitywithSection35,Rule132;

j.Determinethemostimportantwitnessestobeheardandlimitthenumberofwitnesses(MostImportantWitnessRule).Thefactstobeprovenbyeachwitnessandtheapproximatenumberofhoursperwitnessshallbefixed;

k.Athisdiscretion,orderthepartiestousetheaffidavitsofwitnessesasdirecttestimoniessubjecttotherighttoobjecttoinadmissibleportionsthereofandtotherightofcross-examinationbytheotherparty.Theaffidavitsshallbebasedonpersonalknowledge,shallsetforthfactsaswouldbeadmissibleinevidence,andshallshowaffirmativelythattheaffiantiscompetenttotestifytothemattersstatedtherein.Theaffidavitsshallbeinquestionandanswerform,andshallcomplywiththerulesonadmissibilityofevidence;

l.Requirethepartiesand/orcounseltosubmittotheBranchCOCthenames,addressesandcontactnumbersofthewitnessestobesummonedbysubpoena;

m.OrderthedelegationofthereceptionofevidencetotheBranchCOCunderRule30;and

n.ReferthecasetoatrialbycommissionerunderRule32.

7

Duringthepre-trial,thejudgeshallbetheonetoaskquestionsonissuesraisedthereinandallquestionsorcommentsbycounselorpartiesmustbedirectedtothejudgetoavoidhostilitiesbetweentheparties.

6.Thetrialjudgeshallschedulethepre-trialintheafternoonsessionsandsetasmanypre-trialconferencesasmaybenecessary.

7.Allproceedingsduringthepre-trialshallberecorded.Theminutesofeachpre-trialconferenceshallcontainmatterstakenupthereinmoreparticularlyadmissionsoffactsandexhibitsandshallbesignedbythepartiesandtheircounsel.

8.ThejudgeshallissuetherequiredPre-TrialOrderwithinten(10)daysaftertheterminationofthepre-trial.SaidOrdershallbindtheparties,limitthetrialtomattersnotdisposedofandcontrolthecourseoftheactionduringthetrial.AsamplePre-TrialOrderisheretoattachedasAnnex"D."

However,theCourtmayopttodictatethePre-TrialOrderinopencourtinthepresenceofthepartiesandtheircounselandwiththeuseofacomputer,shallhavethesameimmediatelyfinalizedandprinted.Oncefinished,thepartiesand/ortheircounselshallsignthesametomanifesttheirconformitythereto.

9.Thecourtshallendeavortomakethepartiesagreetoanequitablecompromiseorsettlementatanystageoftheproceedingsbeforerenditionofjudgment.

B.CriminalCases

1.Beforearraignment,theCourtshallissueanorderdirectingthepublicprosecutortosubmittherecordofthepreliminaryinvestigationtotheBranchCOCforthelattertoattachthesametotherecordofthecriminalcase.

Wheretheaccusedisunderpreventivedetention,hiscaseshallberaffledanditsrecordstransmittedtothejudgetowhomthecasewasraffledwithinthreedaysfromthefilingofthecomplaintorinformation.Theaccusedshallbearraignedwithintendaysfromthedateoftheraffle.Thepre-trialofhiscaseshallbeheldwithintendaysafterarraignmentunlessashorterperiodisprovidedforbylaw.11

2.Afterthearraignment,thecourtshallforthwithsetthepre-trialconferencewithinthirtydaysfromthedateofarraignment,andissueanorder:(a)requiringtheprivateoffendedpartytoappearthereatforpurposesofplea-bargainingexceptforviolationsoftheComprehensiveDangerousDrugsActof2002,andforothermattersrequiringhispresence;12(b)referringthecasetotheBranchCOC,ifwarranted,forapreliminaryconferencetobesetatleastthreedayspriortothepre-trialtomarkthedocumentsorexhibitstobepresentedbythepartiesandcopiesthereoftobeattachedtotherecordsaftercomparisonandtoconsiderothermattersasmayaidinitspromptdisposition;and(c)informingthepartiesthatnoevidenceshallbeallowedtobepresentedandofferedduringthetrialotherthanthoseidentifiedandmarkedduringthepre-trialexceptwhenallowedbythecourtforgoodcauseshown.Acopyoftheorderisheretoattached

8

asAnnex"E".Inmediatablecases,thejudgeshallreferthepartiesandtheircounseltothePMCunitforpurposesofmediationifavailable.

3.Duringthepreliminaryconference,theBranchCOCshallassistthepartiesinreachingasettlementofthecivilaspectofthecase,markthedocumentstobepresentedasexhibitsandcopiesthereofattachedtotherecordsaftercomparison,ascertainfromthepartiestheundisputedfactsandadmissionsonthegenuinenessanddueexecutionofdocumentsmarkedasexhibitsandconsidersuchothermattersasmayaidinthepromptdispositionofthecase.TheproceedingsduringthepreliminaryconferenceshallberecordedintheMinutesofPreliminaryConferencetobesignedbybothpartiesandcounsel.(PleaseseeAnnex"B")

TheMinutesofPreliminaryConferenceandtheexhibitsshallbeattachedbytheBranchCOCtothecaserecordbeforethepre-trial.

4.Beforethepre-trialconferencethejudgemuststudytheallegationsoftheinformation,thestatementsintheaffidavitsofwitnessesandotherdocumentaryevidencewhichformpartoftherecordofthepreliminaryinvestigation.

5.Duringthepre-trial,exceptforviolationsoftheComprehensiveDangerousDrugsActof2002,thetrialjudgeshallconsiderplea-bargainingarrangements.13Wheretheprosecutionandtheoffendedpartyagreetothepleaofferedbytheaccused,thecourtshall:

a.Issueanorderwhichcontainsthepleabargainingarrivedat;

b.Proceedtoreceiveevidenceonthecivilaspectofthecase;and

c.Renderandpromulgatejudgmentofconviction,includingthecivilliabilityordamagesdulyestablishedbytheevidence.14

6.Whenpleabargainingfails,theCourtshall:

a.Adopttheminutesofpreliminaryconferenceaspartofthepre-trialproceedings,confirmmarkingsofexhibitsorsubstitutedphotocopiesandadmissionsonthegenuinenessanddueexecutionofdocumentsandlistobjectandtestimonialevidence;

b.Scrutinizeeveryallegationoftheinformationandthestatementsintheaffidavitsandotherdocumentswhichformpartoftherecordofthepreliminaryinvestigationandotherdocumentsidentifiedandmarkedasexhibitsindeterminingfartheradmissionsoffacts,documentsandinparticularastothefollowing:15

1.theidentityoftheaccused;

2.court'sterritorialjurisdictionrelativetotheoffense/scharged;

9

3.qualificationofexpertwitness/es;

4.amountofdamages;

5.genuinenessanddueexecutionofdocuments;

6.thecauseofdeathorinjury,inpropercases;

7.adoptionofanyevidencepresentedduringthepreliminaryinvestigation;

8.disclosureofdefensesofalibi,insanity,self-defense,exerciseofpublicauthorityandjustifyingorexemptingcircumstances;and

9.suchothermattersthatwouldlimitthefactsinissue.

c.Definefactualandlegalissues;

d.Askpartiestoagreeonthespecifictrialdatesandadheretotheflowchartdeterminedbythecourtwhichshallcontainthetimeframesforthedifferentstagesoftheproceedinguptopromulgationofdecisionandusethetimeframeforeachstageinsettingthetrialdates;

e.RequirethepartiestosubmittotheBranchCOCthenames,addressesandcontactnumbersofwitnessesthatneedtobesummonedbysubpoena;16and

f.Considermodificationoforderoftrialiftheaccusedadmitsthechargebutinterposesalawfuldefense.

7.Duringthepre-trial,thejudgeshallbetheonetoaskquestionsonissuesraisedthereinandallquestionsmustbedirectedtohimtoavoidhostilitiesbetweenparties.

8.Allagreementsoradmissionsmadeorenteredduringthepre-trialconferenceshallbereducedinwritingandsignedbytheaccusedandcounsel,otherwise,theycannotbeusedagainsttheaccused.TheagreementscoveringthemattersreferredtoinSection1ofRule118shallbeapprovedbythecourt.(Section2,Rule118)

9.Allproceedingsduringthepre-trialshallberecorded,thetranscriptspreparedandtheminutessignedbythepartiesand/ortheircounsels.

10.ThetrialjudgeshallissueaPre-trialOrderwithinten(10)daysaftertheterminationofthepre-trialsettingforththeactionstakenduringthepre-trialconference,thefactsstipulated,theadmissionsmade,evidencemarked,thenumberofwitnessestobepresentedandthescheduleoftrial.SaidOrdershallbindtheparties,limitthetrialtomattersnotdisposedofandcontrolthecoursetheactionduringthetrial.17

Encl:

10

Annex"A"-SummonsAnnex"B"-NoticeofPre-trialConferenceinCivilCasesAnnex"C"-MinutesofPreliminaryConferenceAnnex"D"-Pre-trialOrderinCivilCasesAnnex"E"-NoticeofPre-trialConferenceinCriminalCases

1AccordingtoJusticeJoseY.Feria,Co-ChairmanoftheRevisionoftheRulesofCourtCommittee,Rules25and26requirethepartiestoavailofsaidrules.(1997RulesofCivilProcedure,p.88andp.89,PhilippineLegalStudies,SeriesNo.5,1998)

2AdministrativeCircularNo.3-99dated15January1999.

3Sec.1,Rule18,1997RulesofCivilProcedure.

4Sec.6,Rule18,1997RulesofCivilProcedure.

5IssuancesoftheCourtinA.M.No.01-10-5-SC-PHILJAdatedOctober16,2001,AdministrativeCircularNo.20-2002datedApril24,2002andA.M.No.04-3-15-SC-PHILJAdatedMarch23,2004relativetotheuseofAlternativeDisputeResolutioninPre-Trial,particularly,oncourt-annexedmediationshallcontinuetoapplyinproceedingsbeforepilotcourtsinMetroManila,CebuandDavao.

6Vol.I,2002RevisedManualforClerksofCourt,pp.234-244.

7AdministrativeCircularNo.3-99dated15January1999.

8Ibid.

9AdministrativeCircularNo.3-99dated15January1999.

10Ibid.

11Sec.1,Rule116,RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure,asamended.

12Sec.1,Rule118,Id

13Bellosillo,J.,EffectivePre-trialTechnique,pp.4-42.

14Id.,pp.4-43.

15Id.,pp.4-44.

16Id.,pp.4-45.

17Bellosillo,EffectivePre-trialTechnique,1990,p.622,Sec.7,Rule18,1997RulesofCivilProcedureandSec.4,Rule118,RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure.

Regalado Notes:Regalado Notes:Regalado Notes:Regalado Notes:

What is the public policy basis for imposing on the plaintiff the duty to move for a pre-trial?

11

The transfer of responsibility to the plaintiff himself is based on the policy that whosever

is the proponent of the particular stage of the proceeding should himself initiate the

corresponding steps to have judicial action taken thereon since he is presumed to be the one

interested in the speedy disposition thereof.

The pre-trial and the trial on the merits of the case must be held in separate dates.

When can the plaintiff properly move for a pre-trial?

A pre-trial cannot be validly held until the last pleading has been filed, which last pleading

may be the plaintiffs reply, EXCEPT where the period to file the last pleading has lapsed.

Defendant in a plunder case will not be able to attend the pre-trial because of knee surgery in Hong

Kong. He wants to appoint you as his representative. What must be contained in the special

power of attorney to be given to you, in order for the court to recognize you as the

defendants proper representative? The special authority on the partys representative must confer the following: a. power to enter into a compromise or amicable settlement.

b. power to submit to alternative modes of dispute settlement

c. power to enter into stipulations or admission of fact and documents.

The mere presentation of such written authority is not sufficient, but must be

complemented by a showing of VALID CAUSE for the non-appearance of the party himself.

In the preceding example, the written special power of authority given to you by the defendant

was rendered unintelligible because you spilled orange mocha frappucino on it while studying the

case at Starbucks. The defendant is already undergoing surgery in Hong Kong and cannot fax a new

SPA. Can you still appear in court without such written authority?

Yes. It has been held that the authority need not be in writing and may be established by

competent evidence or subsequently ratified by the party concerned.

Where the defendant was present at the pre-trial, the court has no authority to thereafter call

a second pre-trial and declare defendant in default for his absence therein.

Where a pre-trial has already been held, the fact that an amended complaint was later filed, with

leave of court, does not necessitate another pre-trial.

Notice of pre-trial was served on the defendant, but not on his counsel. Defendant acknowledged

receipt but failed to inform his counsel because he figured in a freak gas station accident and was

immobilized for a week for burns all over his body. Counsel failed to attend the pre-trial. At pre-

trial, trial court declared defendant in default and received evidence of the plaintiff ex parte. Was

the trial courts action valid?

No. Where petitioners counsel was not served with a separate notice of pre-trial, although the client acknowledged receipt of a copy thereof in its behalf and of said counsel, said

service is insufficient and the order of default and the ex parte proceedings before the

commissioner are null and void.

12

Bautista Notes:Bautista Notes:Bautista Notes:Bautista Notes:

What is pre-trial? What is its purpose?

Pre-trial is a conference or hearing at which the court with the cooperation of the

parties, seeks to determine definitively what precisely are the factual issues to be tried and how

each party intends to establish his position on each disputed factual issue.

Does the pre-trial cover only factual issues?

No, the pre-trial covers both factual and legal issues.

Pre-trial is not mandatory if the issue is purely legal.

Pre-trials are conducted after the last pleading has been served and filed. May pre-trial be

scheduled by the plaintiff, if he has not filed an answer to the defendants compulsory counterclaim?

Yes. Pre-trial may be properly scheduled even if the plaintiff has not yet filed his answer

to the defendants compulsory counterclaim, since no answer is required to be filed thereto.

Where nobody appeared at the pre-trial except the counsel for the plaintiff but said counsel had

no special authority to represent the plaintiff, the plaintiff may properly be declared non-suited.

The plaintiff may be so declared non-suited and the case dismissed without motion by the

defendant.

Trial court has the discretion to declare a party non-suited and, unless otherwise provided,

such dismissal has the effect of an adjudication on the merits.

What are the remedies for declaration on non-suited party?

Defendant can file a motion for reconsideration (without need for affidavits of merit) on the grounds of FAME. If this is denied, he can file certiorari under Rule 65 as such order is interlocutory.

Plaintiff can appeal from the order of dismissal, as it is a final order.

Avena Notes (20 Jan 05)Avena Notes (20 Jan 05)Avena Notes (20 Jan 05)Avena Notes (20 Jan 05)

What is the nature and purpose of pre-trial?

It is for the prompt disposition of case.

Who has the duty to move for a pre-trial? When should he do so?

It is the duty of the plaintiff to move for pre-trial and should do so upon the filing of the

last pleading allowed or upon the lapse of the period for filing of the last pleading allowed.

Plaintiff as the party moving for the pre-trial also decides the date of pre-trial hearing. True or

false.

False. It is up to the court to decide the date of the pre-trial hearing.

Whose appearance is required in a pre-trial?

13

The general rule is that both the party and counsel should appear at the pre-trial.

The rationale for the personal appearance of the party is for the possibility of amicable

settlement, resort to alternative modes of dispute resolution and for stipulation of the facts.

In the pre-trail hearing, Plaintiff A was able to attend, but his counsel, Atty. B did not. Should

Plaintiff A be declared non-suited because his lawyer did not appear in trial?

Maam is of the opinion that it can be argued either way. Under a strict interpretation of the Rules, the appearance of both the party AND his counsel is what is required; failure to appear

of either of them, renders the party non-suited.

But under an old ruling of the SC, the absence of the lawyer in a pre-trial is immaterial and

should not prejudice the party, being represented by the absent lawyer, who appeared at the pre-

trial.

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.155010.August16,2004

JONATHANLANDOILINTERNATIONALCO.,INC.,Petitioner,vs.SpousesSUHARTOMANGUDADATUandMIRIAMSANGKIMANGUDADATU,Respondents.

DECISION

This involved the non-appearance of the Landoil and its two counsels in the pre-trial

hearing. The two counsels were said to have withdrawn their services from Landoil. Trial court

allowed the presentation of evidence ex parte, upon Landoils absence at pre-trial. Under Sec. 3, Rule 7, counsel remains to be counsel of record, until there is a formal

withdrawal of counsel through the court.

The remedy for non-appearance at the pre-trial which resulted in opposing partys presentation of evidence ex parte is a motion for reconsideration; which is unlike a default

judgment which has different remedies.

PANGANIBAN,J.:

Lawyersmustbecarefulinhandlingcases,becausetheirnegligenceintheperformanceoftheirdutiesbindstheirclients.Theissuesintheinstantcasestemfromthefailureofthecounselsandtheirclienttoattendthepretrial.Theirnon-appearancewascompoundedbytheirsubsequentinaction,whichresultedintheeventualfinalityandexecutionofthedefaultjudgment.

TheCase

14

BeforeusisaPetitionforReview1underRule45oftheRulesofCourt,assailingtheJune6,2002Decision2andtheSeptember2,2002Resolution3oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCA-GRSPNo.69556.TheassailedDecisiondisposedasfollows:

WHEREFORE,PREMISESCONSIDERED,thispetitionisDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.4

ThechallengedResolutiondeniedreconsideration.

TheFacts

Respondent-SpousesSuhartoandMiriamSangkiMangudadatufiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofthe12thJudicialRegioninTacurongCity,SultanKudarat,aComplaintfordamagesagainstPetitionerJonathanLandoilInternationalCo.,Inc.(JLI).TheComplaintwasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.537andraffledtoBranch20.5Initially,petitionerhadcounteredwithaMotiontoDismiss;butwhenthiswasdenied,itfileditsAnswerdatedNovember23,1999.6

Thereafter,thepartiessubmittedtheirrespectivePretrialBriefs.7Trialproceededwithouttheparticipationofpetitioner,whoseabsenceduringthepretrialonAugust8,2000,hadledthetrialcourttodeclareitindefault.8

OnJuly3,2001,petitionerreceivedacopyoftheRTCsDecisiondatedJune19,2001.9OnJuly18,2001,itfiledanOmnibusMotionforNewTrialandChangeofVenue.10ThisMotionwasdeemedsubmittedforresolutiononAugust7,2001,11butwaseventuallydeniedbythetrialcourtinanOrderdatedSeptember12,2001.12

OnDecember12,2001,petitionerreceivedacopyofaWritofExecutiondatedDecember4,2001.AllegingthatithadyettoreceiveacopyofanOrderresolvingtheOmnibusMotionforNewTrial,petitionerfiledaMotiontoQuash/RecallWritofExecutiononDecember14,2001.13

OnJanuary7,2002,itscounsels--Attys.JaimeL.MarioJr.andDioscoroG.Peligro--submittedseparatewithdrawalsofappearance.14Onthesamedate,thelawfirmOngAbadSantos&MenesesfiledanEntryofAppearancewithSupplementtoMotiontoQuash/RecallWritofExecution.15ToitsSupplement,petitionerattachedtheAffidavitsofAttys.MarioandPeligroattestingthattheyhadnotyetreceivedacopyoftheOrderresolvingtheOmnibusMotionforNewTrial.16

Onthesameday,January7,2002,petitionerreceivedaSheriffsNoticedatedDecember26,2001,regardingthepublicauctionsaleofitsproperties.17ByreasonoftheimmediatethreattoimplementtheWritofExecution,itfiledwiththeCAonJanuary14,2002,aPetitionforProhibitionseekingtoenjointheenforcementoftheWrituntiltheresolutionoftheMotiontoQuash.18ThePetitionwasdocketedasCA-GRSPNo.68483.19

OnJanuary9,2002,theRTCissuedanOrderdirectingrespondentstofiletheirwrittencommentontheMotiontoQuashandscheduledthehearingthereonforFebruary1,2002.20

15

OnJanuary23,2002,petitionerreceivedacopyofrespondentsVigorousOpposition(Re:MotiontoQuash/RecallWritofExecution,anditsSupplement)datedJanuary16,2001.AttachedtothispleadingweretwoseparateCertificationssupposedlyissuedbythepostmasterofTacurongCity,affirmingthattheOrderdenyingtheMotionforNewTrialhadbeenreceivedbypetitionerstwopreviouscounselsofrecord.21TheCertificationpertainingtoAtty.PeligroallegedthatacertainMichelleViquirahadreceivedonOctober19,2001,acopyoftheOrderintendedforhim.22TheCertificationasregardsAtty.MariostatedthathehadpersonallyreceivedhiscopyonDecember21,2001.23

OnJanuary24,2002,petitionerpersonallyservedcounselforrespondentsaNoticetoTakeDepositionUponOralExaminationofAttys.MarioandPeligro.24TheDepositionwasintendedtoprovethatpetitionerhadnotreceivedacopyoftheOrderdenyingtheOmnibusMotionforNewTrial.25

At9:30a.m.onJanuary28,2002,thedeposition-takingproceededasscheduled--attheBusinessCenterConferenceRoomoftheMandarinOrientalHotelinMakatiCity--beforeAtty.AnaPeralta-Nazareno,anotarypublicactingasdepositionofficer.26At12:00noonofthesameday,respondentssentpetitionerafaxmessageviaJRSExpress,advisingitthattheyhadfiledaMotiontoStrikeOfffromtherecordstheNoticetoTakeDeposition;andaskingitnottoproceeduntiltheRTCwouldhaveresolvedtheMotion,27acopyofwhichiteventuallyreceivedlaterintheday,at3:10p.m.

OnJanuary29,2002,separateNoticesweresentbyAtty.NazarenotoAttys.MarioandPeligro,aswitnesses,forthemtoexaminethetranscriptoftheirtestimonies.28Onthesamedate,Atty.NazarenofiledviaregisteredmailaSubmissiontotheRTCattaching(1)aCertificationthatthewitnesseshadbeenpresentanddulysworntobyher;(2)atranscriptbearingtheirsignatures,attestingthatitwasatruerecordoftheirtestimonies;(3)acopyoftheNoticetoTakeDepositiondeliveredtoher;and(4)acopyoftheNoticesignedbyrespondentscounsel.29

DuringtheFebruary1,2002hearingontheMotiontoQuash,petitionersubmittedits(1)FormalOfferofExhibits,togetherwiththedocumentaryexhibitsmarkedduringthedeposition-taking;(2)ReplytorespondentsVigorousOppositiontotheMotiontoQuash;and(3)OppositionadCautelamtorespondentsMotiontoStrikeOfftheNoticetoTakeDeposition.30

Meanwhile,onFebruary26,2002,theCAissuedaResolutiondenyingthePetitionforProhibitioninCA-GRSPNo.68483.

OnMarch6,2002,petitionerreceivedacopyoftheRTCsResolutiondatedFebruary21,2002,denyingtheMotiontoQuash.31OnMarch8,2002,itreceivedacopyofrespondentsMotiontoSetAuctionSaleofDefendantsLeviedProperties.

OnMarch11,2002,petitionerfiledwiththeCAaPetitionforCertiorariandProhibition,32seekingtoholdinabeyancetheFebruary21,2002RTCResolutionandtheDecember4,2001WritofExecution.PetitionerallegedthatsinceithadnotreceivedtheOrderdenyingitsMotionforNewTrial,theperiodtoappealhadnotyetlapsed.33Itthusconcludedthatthejudgment,notbeingfinal,couldnotbethesubjectofawritofexecution.

16

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals

OnJune6,2002,theCAissuedtheassailedDecisiondenyingJLIsPetition.ItruledthatpetitionercouldnolongeravailitselfofadepositionunderRule23ofRulesofCourt,sincetrialhadalreadybeenterminated.34Theappellatecourtalsoopinedthattheallegederrorcommittedbythetrialcourt--whenthelatterdisregardedtwowitnessesoraldepositions--wasanerrorofjudgmentnotreviewablebycertiorariorprohibition.35Finally,itruledthatbetweenthedenialofalawyerandthecertificationofapostmaster,thelatterwouldprevail.36

Hence,thisPetition.37

TheIssues

Petitionerraisesthefollowingissuesforourconsideration:

I.

Whetherornotthetrialcourtjudgehassofardepartedfromtheacceptedandusualcourseofjudicialproceedings,andtheCourtofAppealshassanctionedsuchdeparturebythetrialcourtjudge,whenhedeniedpetitionersMotiontoQuash/RecallWritofExecutiondespiteclearandconvincingevidenceshowingthatpetitionerand/oritscounselhasyettoreceiveanorderresolvingpetitionerstimelyfiledMotionforNewTrial,whichwarrantstheexercisebythisHonorableCourtofitspowerofsupervision.

II.

WhetherornottheCourtofAppealsgravelyerredanddecidedaquestionofsubstanceinawaynotinaccordwithlawandapplicabledecisionsofthisHonorableCourt,whenitruledthatpetitionercannolongeravailofthetakingoforaldepositionsunderRule23ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.

III.

WhetherornottheCourtofAppealsgravelyerredanddecidedaquestionofsubstanceinawaynotinaccordwithlawandapplicabledecisionsofthisHonorableCourt,whenitruledthatthetrialcourtjudgecommittedamereerrorofjudgmentandnotanerrorofjurisdiction.

IV.

WhetherornottheCourtofAppealsgravelyerredanddecidedaquestionofsubstanceinawaynotinaccordwithlawandapplicabledecisionsofthisHonorableCourt,whenitconsideredthemannerbywhichthetrialcourtjudgegaveevidentiaryweighttowitnessespresentedbeforehimduringtrialonthemeritswhenwhatisbeingquestionedbeforetheCourtofAppealsistheproprietyofpresentingdepositionevidence(whereinthetrialcourtjudgecouldnothavebeenpresent)insupportoftheMotiontoQuash.

17

V.

WhetherornottheCourtofAppealsgravelyerredanddecidedaquestionofsubstanceinawaynotinaccordwithlawandapplicabledecisionsofthisHonorableCourt,whenitappliedtherulingofthisHonorableCourtinAportader[a]v.CourtofAppeals(158SCRA695)andPhilippineNationalBankv.CFIofRizal(209SCRA294)ontheevidentiaryvalueofapostmasterscertificationvis--visadenialofreceiptbycounsel.38

Inthemain,theissuesboildowntotwo:(1)whetherpetitionerreceivedtheOrderdenyingitstimelyfiledMotionforNewTrial;and(2)whetherthetakingoforaldepositionswasproperunderthecircumstances.

TheCourtsRuling

ThePetitionhasnomerit.

FirstIssue:

AppreciationofFacts

ItisreadilyapparentthatpetitionerisraisingfactualissuesthatthisCourtdoesnotreview.Whiletheruleadmitsofexceptions,39petitionerhasnotsatisfactorilyshownany.GiventhecircumstancessurroundingthefilingofitsMotionforNewTrialandtheallegationstherein,wefindnocompellingreasontodisturbtheCAsfactualfindings.Itmaythereforenotinsist,contrarytothefindingoftheCA,thatitdidnotreceivetheOrderdenyingitstimelyfiledMotionforNewTrial.

MotionforNewTrialImproper

Amotionfornewtrialmaybefiledonthegroundsof(1)fraud,accident,mistakeorexcusablenegligencethatcouldnothavebeenguardedagainstbyordinaryprudence,andbyreasonofwhichtheaggrievedpartysrightshaveprobablybeenimpaired;or(2)newlydiscoveredevidencethat,withreasonablediligence,theaggrievedpartycouldnothavediscoveredandproducedatthetrial;andthat,ifpresented,wouldprobablyaltertheresult.40InitsOmnibusMotionforNewTrial,41petitionerarguedthatitscounselAtty.Mariowassick,afactthatallegedlyconstitutedexcusablenegligenceforhisfailuretoappearattheAugust8,2000pretrial.42WithregardtoAtty.RogelioFernandez,thecollaboratingcounsel,itallegedthattheBoardofDirectorshadterminatedhislegalservicesonAugust4,2000.43

Thesegroundsrelieduponbypetitionercannotproperlysecureanewtrial.Counselsarenottheonlyonesrequiredtoattendthepretrial.Theappearanceoftheplaintiffandthedefendantisalsomandatory.Thepertinentrulestates:

Section4.Appearanceofparties.--Itshallbethedutyofthepartiesandtheircounseltoappearatthepre-trial.Thenon-appearanceofapartymaybeexcusedonlyifavalidcauseisshowntherefororifarepresentativeshallappearinhisbehalffullyauthorizedinwritingtoenterintoan

18

amicablesettlement,tosubmittoalternativemodesofdisputeresolution,andtoenterintostipulationsoradmissionsoffactsandofdocuments.44

Therationaleforthisrequirementofcompellingthepartiestoappearpersonallybeforethecourtistoexhaustthepossibilityofreachingacompromise.45Whilenoticeofthepretrialisservedoncounsels,itistheirdutytonotifythepartytheyrepresent.46

Theexplanationofferedbypetitionerasregardstheabsenceofitscounselfromthepretrialisthereforeunacceptable.Itshouldhavealsojustifieditsownabsencetherefrom.Havingfailedtodoso,ithadnovalidgroundtorequestanewtrial.

Petitioneralsofailedtojustifytheabsenceofbothitscounsels.Untiltheirformalwithdrawalisgranted,lawyersaredeemedtobetherepresentativesoftheirclients.47

Atty.FernandezmayhavebeennotifiedoftheterminationofhisservicesonAugust7,2004.48Butasfarasthetrialcourtwasconcerned,hecontinuedtobepetitionerscounselofrecord,sincenowithdrawalofappearancehadyetbeengranted.Hence,hisabsencefromthepretrialwasstillnotexcusable.Whilehecouldnolongerrepresentpetitioner,hispresencewouldhaveaffordedhimanopportunitytomakeaformalwithdrawalofappearance.Animprovidentterminationoflegalservicesisnotanexcusetojustifynon-appearanceatapretrial.Otherwise,therulesofprocedurewouldberenderedmeaningless,astheywouldbesubjecttothecounselswill.

TheProperRemedy

UnderthenewRules,theconsequenceofnon-appearancewithoutcauseatthepretrialisnotforthepetitionertobeconsideredasindefault,49buttoallowtheplaintifftopresentevidenceexparteand[for]thecourttorenderjudgmentonthebasisthereof.50Thisprocedurewasfollowedintheinstantcase.

Tothetrialcourtsorderallowingtheexpartepresentationofevidencebytheplaintiff,thedefendantsremedyisamotionforreconsideration.51Anaffidavitofmeritisnotrequiredtobeattachedtosuchmotion,becausethedefensehasalreadybeenlaiddownintheanswer.52

Liberalityistheruleinconsideringamotionforreconsideration.53Itisbestforthetrialcourttogiveboththeplaintiffandthedefendantachancetolitigatetheircausesfairlyandopenly,withoutresorttotechnicality.54Unlessthereopeningofthecaseisclearlyintendedfordelay,courtsshouldbeliberalinsettingasideordersbarringdefendantsfrompresentingevidence.Judgmentsbasedonanexpartepresentationofevidencearegenerallyfrownedupon.55

Inthepresentcase,petitionerdidnotfileamotionforreconsiderationafterthetrialcourthadallowedrespondentsexpartepresentationofevidence.TheRulesofCourtdoesnotprohibitthefilingofamotionforanewtrialdespitetheavailabilityofamotionforreconsideration.Butthefailuretofilethelattermotion--withoutduecause--isafactorindeterminingwhethertoapplytheliberalityruleinliftinganorderthatallowedtheexpartepresentationofevidence.InitsmotionsandpetitionsfiledwiththisCourtandthelowercourts,petitionerdidnotexplainwhyithadfailedtofileamotionforreconsideration.

19

Thelapseoftime--fromtheAugust8,2000pretrialtotheSeptember5,2000expartepresentationofevidence,anduntiltheJune19,2001promulgationoftheDecision56--showsthenegligenceofpetitioneranditscounsels.Priortothetrialcourtsresolutionofthecase,ithadampleopportunitytochallengetheOrderallowingtheexpartepresentationofevidence.ToolatewasthechallengethatitmadeaftertheDecisionhadalreadybeenrendered.

Non-ReceiptoftheOrder

Inadditiontotheforegoingfacts,petitionerfailstoconvinceusthatithasnotreceivedthetrialcourtsOrderdenyingitsMotionforNewTrial.

Thereisadisputablepresumptionthatofficialdutieshavebeenregularlyperformed.57Onthisbasis,wehaveruledthatthepostmasterscertificationprevailsoverthemeredenialofalawyer.58Thisruleisapplicablehere.Petitionerhasfailedtoestablishitsnon-receiptofthetrialcourtsOrderdenyingitsMotionforNewTrial.

ThisCourtnotesthetrialcourtsfindingthatpetitionerreceivedacopyofrespondentsSeptember24,2001MotionforExecutionandNovember21,2001MotionforEarlyResolution,aswellasthetrialcourtsSeptember28,2001OrdersubmittingtheMotionforExecutionforresolution.59Giventheseunrebuttedfacts,itisunbelievablethatpetitionerdidnotknowthatarulingontheMotionforNewTrialhadalreadybeenissued.Attheveryleast,theMotionsfiledbyrespondentsshouldhavealerteditofsuchissuance.Otherwise,itcouldhaveopposedtheirMotionforExecutionbyrequestingtheRTCtoresolvetheMotionforNewTrial;orthetrialcourtcouldhavebeeninformedbypetitionerofthelattersnon-receiptoftheOrderresolvingrespondentsMotion.

SecondIssue:

TheTakingofDepositions

Theappellatecourtsupposedlyerred,too,indeclaringthatthetakingofthedepositionsofpetitionerswitnesseswasimproper.Weagreewiththiscontention.

DepositionPendingAction

Adepositionmaybetakenwithleaveofcourtafterjurisdictionhasbeenobtainedoveranydefendantoroverpropertythatisthesubjectoftheaction;or,withoutsuchleave,afterananswerhasbeenserved.60Depositionischieflyamodeofdiscovery,theprimaryfunctionofwhichistosupplementthepleadingsforthepurposeofdisclosingtherealpointsofdisputebetweenthepartiesandaffordinganadequatefactualbasisduringthepreparationfortrial.61Thelibertyofapartytoavailitselfofthisprocedure,asanattributeofdiscovery,iswell-nighunrestrictedifthemattersinquiredintoareotherwiserelevantandnotprivileged,andtheinquiryismadeingoodfaithandwithintheboundsofthelaw.62

Limitationswouldarise,though,iftheexaminationisconductedinbadfaith;orinsuchamannerastoannoy,embarrass,oroppressthepersonwhoisthesubjectoftheinquiry;orwhen

20

theinquirytouchesupontheirrelevantorencroachesupontherecognizeddomainsofprivilege.63

Asamodeofdiscoveryresortedtobeforetrial,depositionhasadvantages,asfollows:

1.Itisofgreatassistanceinascertainingthetruthandincheckingandpreventingperjury.xxx

2.Itisaneffectivemeansofdetectingandexposingfalse,fraudulent,andshamclaimsanddefenses.

3.Itmakesavailableinasimple,convenient,andofteninexpensivewayfactswhichotherwisecouldnothavebeenproved,exceptwithgreatdifficultyandsometimesnotatall.

4.Iteducatesthepartiesinadvanceoftrialastotherealvalueoftheirclaimsanddefenses,therebyencouragingsettlementsoutofcourt.

5.Itexpeditesthedisposaloflitigation,savesthetimeofthecourts,andclearsthedocketofmanycasesbysettlementsanddismissalswhichotherwisewouldhavetobetried.

6.Itsafeguardsagainstsurpriseatthetrial,preventsdelays,andnarrowsandsimplifiestheissuestobetried,therebyexpeditingthetrial.

7.Itfacilitatesboththepreparationandthetrialofcases.64

TheRulesofCourt65andjurisprudence,however,donotrestrictadepositiontothesolefunctionofbeingamodeofdiscoverybeforetrial.Undercertainconditionsandforcertainlimitedpurposes,itmaybetakenevenaftertrialhascommencedandmaybeusedwithoutthedeponentbeingactuallycalledtothewitnessstand.InDasmariasGarmentsv.Reyes,66weallowedthetakingofthewitnessestestimoniesthroughdeposition,inlieuoftheiractualpresenceatthetrial.

Thus,[d]epositionsmaybetakenatanytimeaftertheinstitutionofanyaction,whenevernecessaryorconvenient.Thereisnorulethatlimitsdeposition-takingonlytotheperiodofpre-trialorbeforeit;noprohibitionagainstthetakingofdepositionsafterpre-trial.67Therecanbenovalidobjectiontoallowingthemduringtheprocessofexecutingfinalandexecutoryjudgments,whenthematerialissuesoffacthavebecomenumerousorcomplicated.68

Inkeepingwiththeprincipleofpromotingthejust,speedyandinexpensivedispositionofeveryactionandproceeding,69depositionsareallowedasadeparturefromtheacceptedandusualjudicialproceedingsofexaminingwitnessesinopencourtwheretheirdemeanorcouldbeobservedbythetrialjudge.70Depositionsareallowed,providedtheyaretakeninaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheRulesofCourt(thatis,withleaveofcourtifthesummonshavebeenserved,withoutleaveofcourtifananswerhasbeensubmitted);andprovided,further,thatacircumstancefortheiradmissibilityexists(Section4,Rule23,RulesofCourt).

TheRulesofCourtvestsinthetrialcourtthediscretiontoorderwhetheradepositionmaybetakenornotunderspecifiedcircumstancesthatmayevendifferfromthosetheproponentshave

21

intended.71However,itiswell-settledthatthisdiscretionisnotunlimited.Itmustbeexercised--notarbitrarily,capriciouslyoroppressively--butinareasonablemannerandinconsonancewiththespiritofthelaw,totheendthatitspurposemaybeattained.72

Whenadepositiondoesnotconformtotheessentialrequirementsoflawandmayreasonablycausematerialinjurytotheadverseparty,itstakingshouldnotbeallowed.ThiswastheprimaryconcerninNorthwestAirlinesv.Cruz.73Inthatcase,theendsofjusticewouldbebetterservedifthewitnesswastobebroughttothetrialcourttotestify.Thelocusoftheoraldepositionthereinwasnotwithinthereachofordinarycitizens,asthereweretimeconstraints;andthetriprequiredatravelvisa,bookings,andasubstantialtravelfare.74InPeoplev.Webb,75thetakingofdepositionswasunnecessary,sincethetrialcourthadalreadyadmittedtheExhibitsonwhichthewitnesseswouldhavetestified.76

SafeguardsAvailable

TheRulesofCourtprovidesadequatesafeguardstoensurethereliabilityofdepositions.77Therighttoobjecttotheiradmissibilityisretainedbytheparties,forthesamereasonsasthoseforexcludingevidenceifthewitnesswerepresentandhadtestifiedincourt;78andforerrorsandirregularitiesinthedeposition.79Asarule,depositionsshouldbeallowed,absentanyshowingthattakingthemwouldprejudiceanyparty.

UseofDepositions

Depositionsmaybeusedforthetrialorforthehearingofamotionoraninterlocutoryproceeding,underthecircumstancesspecifiedhereunder:

Section4.UseofDepositions.--Atthetrialoruponthehearingofamotionoraninterlocutoryproceeding,anypartorallofadeposition,sofarasadmissibleundertherulesofevidence,maybeusedagainstanypartywhowaspresentorrepresentedatthetakingofthedepositionorwhohadduenoticethereof,inaccordancewithanyoneofthefollowingprovisions:

(a)Anydepositionmaybeusedbyanypartyforthepurposeofcontradictingorimpeachingthetestimonyofdeponentasawitness;

(b)Thedepositionofapartyorofanyonewhoatthetimeoftakingthedepositionwasanofficer,director,ormanagingagentofapublicorprivatecorporation,partnership,orassociationwhichisapartymaybeusedbyanadversepartyforanypurpose;

(c)Thedepositionofawitness,whetherornotaparty,maybeusedbyanypartyforanypurposeifthecourtfinds:(1)thatthewitnessisdead;or(2)thatthewitnessresidesatadistancemorethanonehundred(100)kilometersfromtheplaceoftrialorhearing,orisoutofthePhilippines,unlessitappearsthathisabsencewasprocuredbythepartyofferingthedeposition;or(3)thatthewitnessisunabletoattendortestifybecauseofage,sickness,infirmity,orimprisonment;or(4)thatthepartyofferingthedepositionhasbeenunabletoprocuretheattendanceofthewitnessbysubpoena;or(5)uponapplicationandnotice,thatsuchexceptionalcircumstancesexistasto

22

makeitdesirable,intheinterestofjusticeandwithdueregardtotheimportanceofpresentingthetestimonyofwitnessesorallyinopencourt,toallowthedepositiontobeused;and

(d)Ifonlypartofadepositionisofferedinevidencebyaparty,theadversepartymayrequirehimtointroduceallofitwhichisrelevanttothepartintroduced,andanypartymayintroduceanyotherparts.80

Thepresentcaseinvolvedacircumstancethatfellundertheabove-citedSection4(c)(2)ofRule23--thewitnessesofpetitionerinMetroManilaresidedbeyond100kilometersfromSultanKudarat,theplaceofhearing.PetitionerofferedthedepositionsinsupportofitsMotiontoQuash(theWritofExecution)andforthepurposeofprovingthatthetrialcourtsDecisionwasnotyetfinal.Aspreviouslyexplained,despitethefactthattrialhasalreadybeenterminated,adepositioncanstillbeproperlytaken.

Wenote,however,thattheRTCdidnottotallydisregardpetitionersdepositions.InitsFebruary21,2001Resolution,thetrialcourtconsideredandweighed--againstallotherevidence--thatitsOrderdenyingtheMotionforNewTrialfiledbypetitionerhadnotbeenreceivedbythelatterscounsels.Despitetheirdepositions,petitionerfailedtoproveconvincinglyitsdenialofreceipt.

WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDENIED,andtheassailedDecisionandResolutionAFFIRMED.Costsagainstpetitioner.

SOORDERED.

Corona,andCarpioMorales,JJ.,concur.

Sandoval-Gutierrez,J.,onleave.

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.164375:October12,2006

RODOLFOPAREDES,TITOALAGOANDAGRIPINOBAYBAY,SR.,Petitioners,v.ERNESTOVERANOandCOSMEHINUNANGAN,Respondent.

DECISION

TINGA,J.:

23

Thecentralissueinthiscaseiswhethertheabsenceofthecounselfordefendantsatthepre-trial,withalldefendantsthemselvespresent,isagroundtodeclaredefendantsindefaultandtoauthorizeplaintiffstopresentevidenceexparte.

Therelevantfactsareuncomplicated.

Theprotractedlegalbattlebetweenthepartiesbeganwithacomplaintfortheestablishmentofarightofwayfiledbypetitionershereinasplaintiffsagainstrespondentsasdefendants.1Thecomplaint,docketedasCivilCaseNo.2767oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofMaasinCity,SouthernLeyte,Branch24,culminatedinajudgmentbycompromisedated26April1994.2IntheCompromiseAgreement,respondentCosmeHinunangangrantedatwo(2)meter-widerightofwayinfavorofpetitionersinconsiderationoftheamountofP6,000.00whichpetitionersagreedtopay.3chanroblesvirtuallawlibary

AllegingthatpetitionershadblockedthepassagewayinviolationoftheCompromiseAgreement,on28September1999,respondentsfiledacomplaintforspecificperformancewithdamagesagainstpetitioners.ItwasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.R-3111alsooftheRTCofMaasinCity,SouthernLeyte,Branch24.4cra

Intheiranswer,petitionersdeniedhavingviolatedtheCompromiseAgreement.Theyallegedthatlikethem,respondentswerenotactualresidentsofBarangayTagnipawherethe"roadrightofway"wasestablishedandthatrespondentCosmeHinunanganhadalreadysoldhisonlyremaininglotinthevicinitytopetitionerRodolfoPaderes.5cra

Subsequenttotheanswer,petitionersfiledamotiontodismissonthegroundoflackofcauseofaction.6Thetrialcourt,presidedbyJudgeBethanyG.Kapili,deniedthemotiontodismiss.7PetitionerselevatedtheorderofdenialtotheCourtofAppealsandthereaftertothisCourt,bothtonoavail.8cra

PetitionersaskedJudgeKapilitoinhibithimselffromthecase.Thejudgedeniedthemotion.9cra

Pre-trialwasinitiallysetfor24April2003,butthiswasresetto3June2003onmotionofrespondents'counsel.Butthepre-trialseton3June2003didnotpushthrougheitherbecausenoneofthepartiesappeared.

So,pre-trialwasresetto11November2003.PetitionerBaybay'scounselmovedtoresetittoanotherdateonaccountofaconflictinghearing.However,petitionerBaybay,whoisthefatherofthecounselforpetitioners,waspresentincourtalongwiththeotherdefendants,whenthecasewascalledon11November2003.TheRTCwasinformedthenofaproposedsettlementbetweentheparties,althoughrespondentBaybayqualifiedhisreactionbytellingthecourt

thathewouldfirsthavetoinformhislawyerandtheco-defendantsofthesaidproposal.TheRTCthencommentedunfavorablyontheabsenceofpetitioners'counsel,expressingdisappointmenttowardshisattitude,evenmakingnoteofthefactthatnotoncehadthecounselappearedbeforetheRTC,eventhoughthecasehadalreadyreachedtheSupremeCourtoverthe

24

denialofthemotiontodismiss.10Atthesametime,theRTCaccededandresetthepre-trialfor23January2004.11chanroblesvirtuallawlibary

Shortlybeforethenewpre-trialdate,counselforpetitionersfiledaManifestationofWillingnesstoSettleWithRequestforCancellationdated5January2004.12Apartfrommanifestinghiswillingnesstosettlethecomplaint,petitioners'counselthroughtheManifestationsuggestedtotheopposingcounselthathebeinformedofthetermsoftheproposedsettlement.Correspondingly,petitioners'counselrequestedthecancellationofthe23January2004hearing.

However,thehearingdidpushthroughon23January2004.Theprivaterespondentsandtheircounselwerepresent.SowerepetitionersBaybayandPaderes,andco-defendantAlago,butnottheircounsel.

Anorderofevendateformalizedwhathadtranspiredduringthehearing.TheRTCallowedrespondentstopresenttheirevidenceexparte,"forfailureofthedefendants[']counseltoappearbefore[theRTC]".13Petitionersfiledamotionforreconsideration,butthiswasdeniedbytheRTC.14cra

Thus,petitionersfiledapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCourtofAppeals,assailingtheordersoftheRTC.However,on28April2004,theCourtofAppealsdismissedthepetitionoutright,15forfailuretoattachduplicateoriginalcopiesoftheannexestothepetitionotherthantheRTCOrdersdated23January2004and17February2004(attachingphotocopiesinstead),aswellasforfailuretosubmitsuchotherpleadingsrelevantandpertinenttothepetition.PetitionersfiledaMotionforReconsiderationwithMotiontoAdmitAdditionalExhibits,advertingtothedocumentspreviouslymissingfromthepetitionbutattachedtothemotion.

On13July2004,theCourtofAppealsissuedaResolutiondenyingthemotionforreconsideration.Indoingso,theCourtofAppealsresolvedthepetitiononitsmerits,asitruledthat"evenwiththesubmissionbypetitionersoftherequiredpleadingsanddocuments,theinstantpetitionmustneverthelessfail."16Theappellatecourtquotedextensivelyfromthetranscriptsofthehearingsof11November2003and23January2004.ItconcededthatunderSection5,Rule18ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,itisthefailureofthedefendant,andnotdefendant'scounsel,toappearatthepre-trialthatwouldservecausetoallowplaintifftopresentevidenceexparte.Nevertheless,theCourtofAppealsnotedthatpetitionerBaybayhadmadeitclearthathewouldneverenterintoanyamicablesettlementwithouttheadviceofhiscounsel.Thus,theCourtofAppealsconcludedthatJudgeKapili's"handsweretied,"explaining,thus:"Hewasheldhostagebytheblatantdisplayofarroganceexhibitedbypetitioner'scounselinassiduouslyfailingtoappearbeforethetrialcourt.WerehetoclosehiseyestothereprehensibleschemeofAtty.Baybayindelayingthedispositionofthemaincase,theresultingimpasswouldonlystrainfurtherthemeagerresourcesofthecourtandprejudicetherightsofprivateRespondents."17chanroblesvirtuallawlibary

TheCourtofAppealsthencitedSps.Ampeloquio,Sr.v.CourtofAppeals,18whereintheCourtheldthatifeveryerrorcommittedbythetrialcourtweretobeaproperobjectofreviewbycertiorari,thentrialwouldnevercometoanendandtheappellatecourtdocketswouldbecloggedwithpetitionschallengingeveryinterlocutoryorderofthetrialcourt.Itconcludedthat

25

theactsofJudgeKapilididnotconstitutegraveabuseofdiscretionequivalenttolackofjurisdiction.

Finally,thetrialcourtadmonishedpetitioners'counselto"bearinmindthatasanofficerofthecourt,heistaskedtoobservetherulesofprocedure,nottoundulydelayacaseanddefeattheendsofjusticebuttopromoterespectforthelawandlegalprocesses."19chanroblesvirtuallawlibary

WereversethetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppeals.

Apreliminaryobservation.TheCourtofAppealshadinitiallydismissedthepetitionlodgedbypetitionersonaccountoftheirfailuretoattachseveralrelevantpleadings,citingSection3,Rule46ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.BeforethisCourt,petitionersdevotesomeeffortinarguingthattheCourtofAppealserredindismissingthepetitiononthatproceduralground,whilerespondentsintheircommentsimilarlyundertooktodefendtheappellatecourt'sactiononthatpoint.WedonotdoubtthatunderSection3,Rule46ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,theCourtofAppealshassufficientdiscretiontodismissthepetitionforfailureofpetitionertocomplywiththerequirementsenumeratedinthesection,including"suchmaterialportionsoftherecordasarereferredto[inthepetition],andotherdocumentsrelevantorpertinentthereto."20Atthesametime,"[d]ismissalofappealspurelyontechnicalgroundsisfrowneduponandtherulesofprocedureoughtnottobeappliedinaveryrigid,technicalsense,fortheyareadoptedtohelpsecure,notoverride,substantialjustice,andtherebydefeattheirveryaims."21Thus,theCourthasnothesitatedtoviewSection3ofRule46withaliberaloutlook,rulingforexamplethatitwasnotnecessarytoattachcertifiedtruecopiesofsuchmaterialportionsoftherecordasreferredtotherein.22cra

ThesituationinthiscasebearssimilaritytothatwhichtranspiredinCortez-Estradav.HeirsofSamut.23Therein,thepetitionerhadfailedtoattachmaterialdocumentstoherpetitionbeforetheCourtofAppeals.TheCourtofAppealsheldthepetitionwasdismissibleforsuchproceduralinfirmities,yetitnonethelessproceededtoruleagainstthepetitioneronthemerits.TheSupremeCourtagreedwiththeappellatecourtthatthepetitionwasprocedurallyinfirm,yetfoundpartialmeritinitsargumentsandconsequentlygrantedpartialreliefinfavorofthepetitioner.Inthiscase,theCourtofAppeals,inresolvingthemotionforreconsideration,proceededtomakeajudgmentonthemerits.Similarly,thisCourtfindsamplebasistoreviewthedecisionofthetrialcourtasaffirmedbytheappellatecourt,notwithstandingtheproceduralflawthatoriginallyaccompaniedthepetition-aflawwhichpetitionersdidseektoremedywhentheybelatedlyattachedtherelevantdocumentstotheirmotionforreconsideration.

Ultimately,thereareimportantreasonstoconsiderthecaseonthemerits.ThiscaseaffordstheCourttheopportunitytoclarifytheauthoritygrantedtoatrialjudgeinrelationtopre-trialproceedings.

TheorderoftheRTCallowingrespondentstopresentevidenceexpartewasundoubtedlytothedetrimentofpetitioners.SincetheRTCwouldonlyconsidertheevidencepresentedbyrespondents,andnotthatofpetitioners,theorderstrikesattheheartofthecase,disallowingasitdoesanymeaningfuldefensepetitionerscouldhaveposed.Ajudgmentofdefaultagainstadefendantwhofailedtoattendpre-trial,orevenanydefendantwhofailedtofileananswer,

26

impliesawaiveronlyoftheirrighttobeheardandtopresentevidencetosupporttheirallegationsbutnotalltheirotherrights.24cra

TheConstitutionguaranteesthatnopersonshallbedeprivedofpropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw.Onemannerbywhichdueprocessisassuredisthroughthefaithfuladherencetotheproceduralrulesthatgovernthebehavioroftheparty-litigants.TheRulesofCourtdosanction,onseveralinstances,penaltiesforviolationoftheRulesthatcausestheterminationofanactionwithoutarulingonthemerits,orbarsonepartyfromlitigatingthesamewhilepermittingtheothertodoso.WenotedearlierthatSection3,Rule46authorizesthedismissalofanoriginalpetitionbeforetheCourtofAppealsforfailuretoappendmaterialportionsoftherecord.PursuanttoSection5,Rule17,thefailureoftheplaintifftoappearonthedateofthepresentationofhis/herevidenceinchiefonthecomplaintisgroundforthecourttodismissthecomplaint,withoutprejudicetotherightofthedefendanttoprosecutethecounterclaiminthesameorinaseparateaction.AndunderSection5,Rule18,thefailureoftheplaintiffordefendanttoappearduringpre-trialauthorizesthecourttoeitherdismissthecomplaint,iftheplaintiffwereabsent;ortoallowtheplaintifftopresentevidenceexparte,ifthedefendantwereabsent.

Theoperationoftheabove-citedprovisionsmaydefeatthecauseofactionorthedefenseofthepartywhoviolatedtheproceduralrule.Yetitcouldnotbesaidthatanyresultantadversejudgmentwouldcontravenethedueprocessclause,asthepartiesarepresumedtohaveknownthegoverningrulesandtheconsequencesfortheviolationofsuchrules.Incontrast,thesamepresumptioncouldnotattachifapartywerecondemnedtothesameoutcomeevenifthepartydidnotviolateaprescribedruleofprocedure.Anyrulingthatdisposesofanactionorprecludesapartyfrompresentingevidenceinsupportoragainstthereofmusthavebasisinlaw,25andanyrulingsointentionedwithoutlegalbasisisdeemedasissuedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.26Intheend,apersonwhoiscondemnedtosufferlossofpropertywithoutjustifyinglegalbasisisdenieddueprocessoflaw.

Simplyput,nothingintheRulesofCourtauthorizesatrialjudgetoallowtheplaintifftopresentevidenceexparteonaccountoftheabsenceduringpre-trialofthecounselfordefendant.

Sections4and5ofRule18warrantexamination:

SEC.4.AppearanceofParties.-Itshallbethedutyofthepartiesandtheircounseltoappearatthepre-trial.Thenon-appearanceofapartymaybeexcusedonlyifavalidcauseisshowntherefororifarepresentativeshallappearinhisbehalffullyauthorizedinwritingtoenterintoanamicablesettlement,tosubmittoalternativemodesofdisputeresolution,andtoenterintostipulationsoradmissionsoffactsandofdocuments.

SEC.5.Effectoffailuretoappear.-Thefailureoftheplaintifftoappearwhensorequiredpursuanttothenextprecedingsectionshallbecausefordismissaloftheaction.Thedismissalshallbewithprejudice,unlessotherwiseorderedbythecourt.Asimilarfailureonthepartofthedefendantshallbecausetoallowtheplaintifftopresenthisevidenceexparteandthecourttorenderjudgmentonthebasisthereof.

27

Section4imposesthedutyonlitigatingpartiesandtheirrespectivecounselduringpre-trial.Theprovisionalsoprovidesfortheinstanceswherethenon-appearanceofapartymaybeexcused.Nothing,however,inSection4providesforasanctionshouldthepartiesortheirrespectivecounselbeabsentduringpre-trial.Instead,thepenaltyisprovidedforinSection5.Notably,whatSection5penalizesisthefailuretoappearofeithertheplaintifforthedefendant,andnottheirrespectivecounsel.

Indeed,theCourthasnothesitatedtoaffirmthedismissalsofcomplaintsortheallowanceofplaintiffstopresentevidenceexparteonaccountoftheabsenceofapartyduringpre-trial.InUnitedCoconutPlantersBankv.Magpayo,27thecomplaintwasdismissedbecausealthoughthecounselforcomplainantwaspresentduringthepre-trialhearing,theCourtaffirmedsuchdismissalonaccountofsaidcounsel'sfailuretopresentanyspecialpowerofattorneyauthorizinghimtorepresentthecomplainantduringpre-trial.28InJonathanLandoilInternationalCo.v.Mangudadatu,29thedefendantanditscounselfailedtoappearduringpre-trial,andthecomplainantswereallowedtopresentevidenceexparte.Afteranadversedecisionwasrenderedagainstthedefendant,itfiledamotionfornewtrialinwhichitcitedtheillnessofdefendant'scounselasthereasonforhisnon-appearanceduringpre-trial.WhiletheCourtacknowledgedthatsuchargumentwasnotapropergroundforamotionfornewtrial,italsonotedthattheappearanceofthedefendantduringpre-trialwasalsomandatory,andthatthedefendantfailedtojustifyitsownabsenceduringpre-trial.30cra

Therearetwocaseswhich,atfirstblush,mayseemtoaffirmtheactionoftheRTC.InthedisbarmentcaseofMiwav.Medina,31alawyerwassuspendedfromthepracticeforone(1)monthfor,amongothers,failingtoappearduringpre-trial,thusleadingtothedeclarationofhisclient,thedefendant,indefault.Atthesametime,theCourtinMiwadidtakethedefendantherselftotaskforalsofailingtoappearduringpre-trial,observingthat"thefailureofapartytoappearatpre-trial,givenitsmandatorycharacter,maycausehertobenon-suitedorconsideredasindefault."32chanroblesvirtuallawlibary

InSocialSecuritySystemv.Chaves,33theSocialSecuritySystem(SSS)itselfwasnamedasthedefendantinacomplaintfiledwiththeRTCofCagayandeOroCity.Thepre-trialbriefwasfiledbytheactingassistantbranchmanageroftheSSSinCagayandeOroCity,whohappenedtobealawyerandwhoalsoenteredhisappearanceascounselfortheSSS.However,saidlawyerwasnotpresentduringpre-trial,andtheSSSwasdeclaredindefaultandthecomplainantsallowedtopresenttheirevidenceexparte.TheCourtaffirmedsuchorderofdefault,notingotherproceduralviolationsonthepartofSSS,suchasthefactthatthemotionforreconsiderationtolifttheorderofdefaultlackedverification,noticeofhearingandaffidavitofmerit.

Notwithstanding,theCourtisnotconvincedthatSSSisampleprecedenttoaffirmanorderofdefaultwhereeventhoughthedefendantwaspresentduringpre-trial,defendant'scounselfailedtoappearforthesamehearing.TheCourtinSSSdidnotmakeanycategoricaldeclarationtothiseffect.Moreover,itcanbeobservedthatinSSS,thecounselhimself,theactingassistantbranchmanageroftheSSS,wouldhavebeeninaddition,therepresentativeoftheSSSitself,ajuridicalpersonwhichcanonlymakeanappearanceduringpre-trialthroughanaturalpersonasitsdulyauthorizedrepresentative.TheCourtofAppealsdecisionupheldinSSS,citedextensivelyinourdecisiontherein,expresslyaffirmedtheorderofdefaultonthegroundthat"itisthediscretionof

28

thetrialjudgetodeclareaparty-defendantasindefaultforfailuretoappearatapre-trialconference."However,inSSS,neithertheCourtofAppealsnorthisCourtexpresslylaidrelevancetothefactthatthecounselhimself,asopposedtothedefendant,hadnotattendedthepre-trial.

Upontheotherhand,Africav.IntermediateAppellateCourt34illuminatestheproperstandardwithinwhichtoviewtheinstantpetition.Itappearedthereinthatonthedayofthepre-trial,counselforthedefendant(thereinpetitioner)hadarrivedtenminutesafterthecasewascalled.Withinthatten-minutespan,thetrialcourthadissuedanorderinopencourtdeclaringthedefendantindefaultandauthorizingtheplaintifftopresentitsevidenceexparte.Ameretwodayslater,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentinfavorofplaintiff.TheCourtreversedthetrialcourt,holdingthattheorderofdefaultwasissuedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.ThereasoningoftheCourtwasgroundedprimarilyonthedoctrinalrulethatfrownedagainst"theinjudiciousandoftenimpetuousissuanceofdefaultorders,"35whichledinthatcaseto"adeni[alofthedefendant's]basicrighttobeheard,evenafterhiscounselhadpromptlyexplainedthereasonforhistardinessatthepre-trial."36chanroblesvirtuallawlibary

Still,itwouldnotbepropertoconsiderAfricaasthegoverningprecedentherein,influentialasitmaybetoourdisposition.ItwasnotclearfromthenarrationinAfricawhetherthedefendanthimselfwasabsentduringthepre-trial,acircumstancewhichisdeterminativetothispetition.Moreover,theCourt'stoneinAfricaindicatedthatitwasanimatedbyaliberalphilosophytowardstheproceduralrule,implyingthatthetrialcourt'sreversedactionwasnonethelessadherenttothestrictletteroftherule.WhetherornotthetrialcourtinAfricaactedconformablywiththerulesdependsuponthepresenceorabsenceofthedefendantthereinduringpre-trial.ItcannolongerbediscernedwhethertheCourtsoruledinAfricanotwithstandingthepresenceorabsenceofthedefendanttherein.Itwouldbedisingenuousthoughtoassume,asameansofapplyingthatcaseasprecedentherein,thatthedefendantwasactuallypresentduringthepre-trialinAfrica.

Hence,wepronouncethattheabsenceofcounselfordefendantsatpre-trialdoesnotipsofactoauthorizethejudgetodeclarethedefendantasindefaultandorderthepresentationofevidenceexparte.ItbearsstressingthatnothingintheRulesofCourtsanctionsthepresentationofevidenceexparteuponinstanceswhencounselfordefendantisabsentduringpre-trial.TheRulesdonotcountenancestringentconstructionattheexpenseofjusticeandequity.37AstheCourthaspreviouslyenunciated:

Wecannotlookwithfavoronacourseofactionwhichwouldplacetheadministrationofjusticeinastraightjacketforthentheresultwouldbeapoorkindofjusticeiftherewouldbejusticeatall.Verily,judicialorders,suchastheonesubjectofthispetition,areissuedtobeobeyed,nonethelessanon-complianceistobedealtwithasthecircumstancesattendingthecasemaywarrant.Whatshouldguidejudicialactionistheprinciplethataparty-litigantistobegiventhefullestopportunitytoestablishthemeritsofhiscomplaintordefenseratherthanforhimtoloselife,libertyorpropertiesontechnicalities.38

Dueprocessdictatesthatpetitionersbedeprivedoftheirrighttobeheardandtopresentevidencetosupporttheirallegationsif,andonlyif,thereexistssufficientbasisinfactandinlaw

29

todoso.39Therebeingamanifestlackofsuchbasisinthiscase,petitionerswouldbeunjustlydeniedoftheopportunitytofullydefendthemselvesshouldtheCourtaffirmthequestionedorderswhichwereevidentlyissuedbytheRTCwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.Thebetterandcertainlymoreprudentcourseofactionineveryjudicialproceedingistohearbothsidesanddecideonthemeritsratherthandisposeofacaseontechnicalities.40cra

Whilecounselissomewhattoblameforhisnon-attendanceatpre-trial,incidentallytheoperativeactwhichgavebirthtothecontroversyatbar,itwouldbemostunfairtopenalizepetitionersforwhatmaybethedeficiencyoftheirlawyerwhentheconsequentpenaltyhasnobasisinlaw.Particularlymitigatingintheinstantcaseisthefactthatthecounselforprivaterespondentsintimated,atanearlierhearing,apossibilityofanamicablesettlementtothecase.Then,counselforpetitionerssubmittedamanifestation41requestingthereinthatthepartiesbegivenampletimetorespectivelydiscusstheirproposalsandcounter-proposalsandthatthehearingfor23January2004bemovedtoalaterdateasmaybeagreeduponbythepartiesforsubmissionoftheirpossiblecompromiseagreement.Itmaywellhavebeenthatcounselforpetitionerslaboredunderthefalseunderstandingthatacompromiseagreementwasanimminentpossibility.TheCourtnonethelessnotesthatcounselwasremissinassumingthathismotiontoresetthescheduledhearingwouldnecessarilybegrantedbythecourtaquo.

Bethatasitmay,thereisnocleardemonstrationthattheactsofthecounselofpetitionerswereintendedtoperpetuatedelayinthelitigationofthecase.Assumingarguendothatthetrialcourtcorrectlyconstruedtheactionsofthecounselofpetitionerstobedilatory,itcannotbesaidthatthecourtwaspowerlessandvirtuallywithoutrecoursebuttoordertheexpartepresentationofevidencebythereinplaintiffs.Weareinsomesympathywiththejudgewhowasobviouslyaggrievedthatthecasewasdraggingonforanunduelengthoftime.Butevenso,therewereotherremediesavailabletothecourt.

AmongtheinherentpowersofthecourtsexpresslyrecognizedbytheRulesincludetheauthoritytoenforceorderinproceedingsbeforeit,42tocompelobediencetoitsjudgments,ordersandprocesses,43andtoamendandcontrolitsprocessandorderssoastomakethemconformabletolawandjustice.44Moreover,theCodeofJudicialConductempowersthecourtstojudiciouslytakeorinitiatedisciplinarymeasuresagainstlawyersforunprofessionalconduct.45Ashowcauseordertocounselwouldhavebeenthemorecautiousandreasonablecourseofactiontotakeunderthecircumstancesthenprevailing.Infailingtodoso,thetrialcourtimpetuouslydeprivedpetitionersoftheopportunitytomeaningfullypresentaneffectivedefenseandtoadequatelyadduceevidenceinsupportoftheircontentions.

WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisherebyGRANTEDandtheresolutionsoftheCourtofAppealsaffirmingtheOrdersoftheRegionalTrialCourtinCivilCaseNo.R-3111dated23January2004and17February2004areREVERSED.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

Quisumbing,Chairperson,Carpio,CarpioMorales,andVelasco,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

THIRDDIVISION

30

ROLANDOAGULTO,MAXIMAG.R.No.145276

AGULTOandCECILLETENORIO,

Petitioners,

Present:

PANGANIBAN,J.,Chairman,

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,

-versus'-CORONA,

CARPIOMORALESand

GARCIA,JJ.

WILLIAMZ.TECSON,

Respondent.'Promulgated:

November29,2005

x------------------------------------------x

DECISION

CORONA,J.:

BeforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtassailingtheSeptember27,2000decision[1]oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCA-G.R.SPNo.55955whichdismissedthepetitionforcertiorariquestioningtheSeptember24,

31

1999orderoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofQuezonCity,Branch79inCivilCaseNo.Q-97-31977.

OnAugust25,1997,therespondentWilliamZ.TecsonfiledanactionfordamagesagainstpetitionersRolandoAgulto,MaximaAgulto,CecilleTenoriaandacertainMaribelMallariintheRTCofQuezonCity,Branch79.ItwasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.Q-97-31977.

ThepetitionersandMallarifiledtheiransweronOctober29,1997.Theyclaimedthattherespondenthadnocauseofactionagainstthem,allegingmaliciousprosecution.Theythenprayedforthedismissalofthecomplaint.

OnNovember19,1998,theRTCdismissedthecomplaintforfailuretoprosecuteforanunreasonablelengthoftime.Respondentfiledanurgentmotionforreconsiderationoftheorderofdismissal.OnDecember2,1998,theRTCorderedtherevivalofthecomplaintandrequiredthepartiestoappearduringthepre-trialconferencescheduledonJanuary21,1999.Thepre-trialwas,however,resettoApril29,1999.

Duringthescheduledpre-trialonApril29,1999,petitionerRolandoAgultoandhiscounselwereinformedbyanemployeeoftheRTCthatthepresidingjudgewasonleave.Thecounselforpetitionerssuggestedthatthepre-trialberesettoJune17,1999.TheRTCemployeeadvisedpetitioner'scounselthatthesuggestedsettingwasnotyetofficialasitwoulddependonthecalendarofthecourtandthecounselofrespondent.

Thepre-trialproceededonJune17,1999.Forfailureofpetitionerstoappearatthepre-trialandtosubmittheirpre-trialbrief,theRTCissuedanorderallowingtherespondenttopresenthisevidenceexparte.

PetitionersfiledamotionforreconsiderationoftheJune17,1999orderoftheRTC.Theyclaimedthattheywerenotnotifiedofthepre-trialheldonJune17,1999.Beforethemotioncouldbeheard,however,thecourtrendereditsJuly12,1999decisioninfavorofrespondent.Petitionerswereorderedtopayrespondentmoraldamages,exemplarydamagesandattorney'sfeesintheaggregateamountofP170,000.

32

AfterreceivingacopyofthedecisiononJuly21,1999,petitionersfiledtheirJuly28,1999motionstociterespondent'scounselincontemptofcourtandtosetthedecisionaside.OnSeptember24,1999,theRTCdeniedpetitioners'motionforreconsiderationoftheJune17,1999orderandthemotionstocitecounselincontemptofcourtandtosetitsdecisionaside.

PetitionersfiledapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedurewiththeCAonNovember24,1999.TheyclaimedthattheRTCgravelyabuseditsdiscretionwhenitissuedtheSeptember24,1999order.TheyalsoassertedthattheRTCviolatedtheirconstitutionalrighttodueprocesswhenitdecidedthecasenotonthemeritsbutonmeretechnicalities.

OnSeptember27,2000,theCAdismissedthepetition.Itruledthattheproperremedywasappealbywritoferror,i.e.,ordinaryappeal,underRule41ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,notapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65.TheCAalsoheldthatthepetitionersfailedtoshowthattheirabsenceduringthescheduledpre-trialwasforavalidcause.Hence,therewasnoabuseofdiscretiononthepartoftheRTCwhenitdeniedthepetitioners'motionforreconsiderationoftheJune17,1999order,aswellastheirmotionstocitecounselincontemptofcourtandtosetthedecisionaside.

Hence,thispetitionwiththefollowingassignmentoferrors:

1.

[THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALS]ERREDINRULINGTHATTHEREGIONALTRIALCOURTOFQUEZONCITY,BRANCH79THEREOFDIDNOTGRAVELYABUSEITSDISCRETIONAMOUNTINGTOLACKOFJURISDICTIONWHENITREJECTEDORDENIEDPETITIONERS'MOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONDATEDJULY1,1999ANDMOTIONSTOCITECOUNSELINCONTEMPTANDTOSETASIDEDECISIONDATEDJULY28,1999,PURSUANTTOITSORDERDATEDSEPTEMBER24,1999.

2.

THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINUPHOLDINGTHEDECISIONOFTHECOURTAQUOWHICHWASBASEDNOTONTHEMERITSOFTHECASEBUTONMERETECHNICALITIES.

33

3.

THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINRULINGTHATTHEPROPERREMEDYTHATSHOULDHAVEBEENTAKENBYTHEPETITIONERSWASTOAPPEALFROMTHEJUDGMENTBYDEFAULTANDNOTCERTIORARIUNDERRULE65OFTHERULESOFCOURT.[2]

Weagree.

PriortoSection3,Rule18ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,therulewasthatanoticeofpre-trialhadtobeservedonthepartyaffectedseparatelyfromhiscounsel,[3]andthesamecouldbeserveddirectlyonhimorthroughhiscounsel.[4]Otherwise,theproceedingswerenullandvoid.[5]

UnderthepresentSection3,Rule18ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,thenoticeofpre-trialshouldbeservedoncounsel.Thecounselservedwithnoticeischargedwiththedutyofnotifyingthepartyherepresents.Itisonlywhenapartyhasnocounselthatthenoticeofpre-trialisrequiredtobeservedpersonallyonhim.

Thus,thepresentrulesimplifiestheprocedureinthesensethatnoticeofpre-trialisservedoncounsel,andserviceismadeonapartyonlyifhehasnocounsel.[6]Itdoesnot,however,dispensewithnoticeofpre-trial.

Thefailureofapartytoappearatthepre-trialhasadverseconsequences.Iftheabsentpartyistheplaintiff,thenhemaybedeclarednon-suitedandhiscasedismissed.Ifitisthedefendantwhofailstoappear,thentheplaintiffmaybeallowedtopresenthisevidenceexparteandthecourttorenderjudgmentonthebasisthereof.[7]

Thus,sendinganoticeofpre-trialstatingthedate,timeandplaceofpre-trialismandatory.Itsabsencewillrenderthepre-trialandsubsequentproceedingsvoid.Thismustbesoaspartofaparty'srighttodueprocess.

Withduenoticeoftheproceedings,thefateofapartyadverselyaffectedwillnotbejudgedexparteandhewillhavetheopportunitytoconfronttheopposingparty.The

34

paramountpublicinterestwhichcallsforaproperexaminationoftheissuesinanyjusticiablecontroversywillbesubserved.[8]Shouldanorderdeclaringtheplaintiffnon-suitedorallowingtheplaintifftopresenthisevidenceexpartebeissueddespitethefailuretoservetherequirednoticeofpre-trialoncounselorparty(ifhehasnocounsel),theplaintiffdeclarednon-suitedorthedefendantagainstwhomanorderforthepresentationofevidenceexparteisissuedwillbeeffectivelydeniedhisconstitutionalrighttodueprocess.[9]Thus,thetrialcourt'sorderallowingtheplaintifftopresenthisevidenceexpartewithoutduenoticeofpre-trialtothedefendantconstitutesgraveabuseofdiscretion.[10]

Here,nonoticeofpre-trialwasservedoncounselofpetitionersinconnectionwiththepre-trialheldonJune17,1999.Hence,theRTCcommittedagraveabuseofdiscretionwhenitissueditsJune17,1999orderallowingrespondenttopresenthisevidenceexparte.ThegraveabuseofdiscretionwasperpetuatedintheSeptember24,1999orderdenyingpetitioners'motionforreconsiderationoftheJune17,1999orderandmotionstocitecounselincontemptofcourtandtosetthedecisionaside.

ConsideringthattheRTCgravelyabuseditsdiscretion,petitionersavailedoftheproperremedywhentheyfiledapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCA.

Evenassumingthatordinaryappealistheproperremedy,wehaveincertaininstancesallowedawritofcertiorariwheretheorderofthecourtisapatentnullity.[11]Intheseexceptionalcases,weentertainedapetitionforcertioraridespitetheavailabilityoftheremedyofappeal.[12]

Ifnonoticeofpre-trialisserved,alltheproceedingsatthepre-trialetseq.arenullandvoid.[13]Hence,theabsenceoftherequisitenoticeofpre-trialtothedefendant'scounsel(ortothedefendanthimself,incasehehasnocounsel)nullifiestheorderallowingtheplaintifftopresenthisevidenceexparte.

Giventheforegoingconsiderations,theJune17,1999andSeptember24,1999orderswereevidentlyvoidandpatentnullitiesforlackofnoticeofpre-trial.Thus,theCAerredwhenitdismissedthepetitionforcertiorarionthegroundthatitwasnottheproperremedy.

35

Thefactthattherespondentwasallowedtopresenthisevidenceexpartenotonlybecausethepetitionersfailedtoappearatthepre-trialbutalsobecausetheyfailedtofiletheirpre-trialbriefisofnomoment.

Althoughthefailureofthedefendanttofileapre-trialbriefhasthesameeffectashisfailuretoappearatthepre-trial(thisis,theplaintiffmaybeallowedtopresenthisevidenceexparteandthecourtshallrenderjudgmentonthebasisthereof[14]),aconditionprecedentistheserviceofnoticeofpre-trial.Otherwise,thedefendantwillbegropinginthedarkastowhenexactlyheissupposedtofilehispre-trialbrief.

Morespecifically,underSection6,Rule18ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,thepartiesarerequiredtofilewiththecourtandserveontheadverseparty,insuchmannerasshallensuretheirreceiptthereofatleastthreedaysbeforethedateofthepre-trial,theirrespectivepre-trialbriefs.Clearly,thedateofthepre-trialisthereckoningpointforthefilingofthepre-trialbrief.Butwithoutpriornoticeofpre-trial,thepartiescannotreasonablybeexpectedtoknowthedateofthepre-trial.

Therefore,itisimperativeforthetrialcourttoservenoticeofpre-trialoncounsel.Itisonlyafterbeingnotifiedofthepre-trialthatthetwindutiestofilethepre-trialbriefandtoappearatthepre-trialarise.Withoutsuchnotice,apartycannotbefaultedforandmadetosuffertheadverseconsequencesofhisfailureeithertofilethepre-trialbriefortoappearatthepre-trial.

TherelevantportionsoftheSeptember24,1999orderoftheRTCdenyingpetitioners'motionforreconsiderationandmotionstocitecounselincontemptofcourtandtosetasideitsdecision,asquotedbytheCAinitsSeptember27,2000decision,curiouslyread:

.Itmustbenotedthatthedefendantsweredeclaredasindefaultnotonlybecausetheyfailedtoappearatthepre-trialonJune17,1999butduetotheirfailuretofiletheirpre-trialbriefwhichhasthesameeffectasfailuretoappearatthepre-trial.

xxxxxxxxx

36

Furthermore,theCourtfindstheexplanationofAtty.Mapalad,counselforthedefendants,[on]whytheyfailedtoappearatthepre-trialtobeuntenable.Admittedly,thepre-trialonJune17,1999wassuggestedbyAtty.Mapaladherself.Suchbeingthecase,saidcounselisdeemedalreadynotifiedofthesettinganditisnolongernecessarytosendanoticetoher.Atanyrate,itismoreprudentorincumbentuponAtty.MapaladtoinquirefromtheCourtwhetherornotthepre-trialwasscheduledonthedatechosenbyherinsteadofpresumingthatsaiddatewasnotapprovedsinceshereceivednoofficialnoticefromtheCourt.[15](Emphasissupplied)

Thus,theRTCcategoricallystatedthatitdidnotserveanoticeofpre-trialonpetitioners'counsel.However,theRTCdeemedcounselofpetitionersasalreadynotifiedofthepre-trialandthesendingofanoticeofpre-trialnolongernecessary,bythemerefactthatshesuggestedthedateofpre-trial.TherulingoftheRTC,however,hadnolegalbasis.

Whatcounselofpetitionersmadewasameresuggestion.Asaproposal,itwasonlyprovisionalandsubjecttothescheduleofthecourt.TheRTCcouldhaveadoptedherproposal(asitdid)oritcouldhavescheduledanotherdateforthepre-trial.Inanyevent,theRTCshouldhaveservedanoticeofpre-trialonpetitioners'counselinaccordancewiththemandatorynatureofsuchnotice.

ItisnoteworthythattheSeptember24,1999decisionoftheRTCdidnotrefutetheallegationofpetitionersthatthecourtemployeetowhomcounselforpetitionerssuggestedJune17,1999asthedateofpre-trialwasnottheclerkofcourt.UnderSection1,Rule20ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,itistheclerkofcourt,underthedirectsupervisionofthejudge,whohasthedutytokeepthecalendarofcasesforpre-trial.Onentryinthecalendarofcasesforpre-trial,thenoticeofpre-trialshouldthenbeservedonthecounselsofthepartiesor,iftheyhavenocounsel,onthepartiesthemselves.

Here,thedatesuggestedbycounselofpetitionerswasnotyetfinaluntilthecasewascalendaredbytheclerkofcourt.Petitioners'counselwasnotnotifiedthatthecasewas

37

finallycalendaredonthedatethatsheproposed.Nonoticeofpre-trialwasservedonpetitioners'counsel.Furthermore,onlyrespondentsignedtheminutesoftheApril29,1999pre-trialconferencestatingthatthepre-trialconferencewasresettoJune17,1999.[16]WhileitwouldhavebeenmoreprudentforcounselofpetitionerstoinquirefromtheRTCwhetherornotthepre-trialhadinfactbeenscheduledonthedatesuggestedbyher,thedutyofthecourttoservenoticeofpre-trialshouldnotbeshiftedtothecounselsoftheparties(ortothepartiesthemselves).Otherwise,themandatorycharacterofthenoticeofpre-trialwillbefornaught.

Thedesideratumofaspeedydispositionofcasesshouldnot,ifatallpossible,resultintheprecipitatelossofaparty'srighttopresentevidenceandeithertheplaintiff'sbeingnon-suitedorthedefendant'sbeingheldliableunderanexpartejudgment.[17]Itisafarbetterandmoreprudentcourseofactionforacourttoexcuseatechnicallapseandaffordthepartiesareviewofthecaseonthemeritsratherthandisposeofthecaseontechnicalityandcauseagraveinjusticetotheparties.Thisgivesafalseimpressionofspeedydispositionofcaseswhileactuallyresultinginmoredelay,ifnotmiscarriageofjustice.[18]

Hence,asintheissuanceofordersofdefault,courtsshouldguardagainsttheprecipitaterenditionofordersallowingtheplaintifftopresenthisevidenceexparteincasethedefendantfailstofilethepre-trialbriefortoappearatpre-trial.Suchanorderhastheeffectofdenyingalitigantthechancetobeheard.Ittendstoundulyrestrictthefundamentalpurposeofproceduralrules:toaffordeachlitiganteveryopportunitytopresentevidenceonhisbehalfinorderthatsubstantialjusticemaybeachieved.[19]

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyGRANTEDandtheSeptember27,2000decisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCA-G.R.SPNo.55955isREVERSEDandSETASIDE.TheJune17,1999order,aswellasallsubsequentproceedingsandorders,includingtheJuly12,1999decisionandSeptember24,1999order,oftheRTCofQuezonCity,Branch79inCivilCaseNo.Q-97-31977arelikewiseSETASIDE.

TheRTCofQuezonCity,Branch79isherebyORDEREDtodirectthepartiesandtheircounselsofrecordinCivilCaseNo.Q-97-31977toappearbeforeitforapre-trial

38

conferenceinstrictcompliancewiththerulesandthereafter,toproceedtotrialasnecessary.

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.176706:October8,2008

MANIGOK.RAMOS,Petitioners,v.SPOUSESPURITAG.ALVENDIA1andOSCARALVENDIAandSPOUSESJOSEandARACELISEVERINO,Respondents.

DECISION

CARPIOMORALES,J.:

AssailedviaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari2aretheAugust29,2006Decision3andFebruary16,2007Resolution4oftheCourtofAppealsaffirmingtheOrderdatedOctober1,1998andResolutiondatedJune6,2000ofBranch253,RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),LasPiasCityinCivilCaseNo.LP-97-0107,"ManigoK.Ramosv.SpousesPuritaG.AlvenidaandOscarAlvenidaandSpousesJoseSeverinoandAraceliSeverino,"whichdeclaredtheplaintiff-hereinpetitionernon-suitedandaccordinglydismissedhiscomplaintforfailureofhiscounseltoappearduringthescheduledpre-trialandtofileapre-trialbrief.

PetitionerandhisbrotherJoseOrlandoRamos,Jr.(Orlando)wereregisteredownersofthreeparcelsoflandcoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNos.336585,33875and24162-AoftheLasPias,RizalRegisterofDeeds,theowners'copiesofwhichwereinthepossessionofOrlando.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibary

PetitionerclaimedthatafterOrlandodiedonDecember25,1987,theowners'copiesofthetitlescouldnolongerbefound;thatontheofferofHermilinaCalasan(Hermilina),aneighbor,petitionerallowedhertoreconstitutethem;andthatHermilina,representingthatfundswereneededtopursuethereconstitutionoftitles,madehersigndocumentswhichhewasmisledintobelievingthattheyweredeedsofmortgage.6chanroblesvirtuallawlibary

PetitionerfurtherclaimedthatHermilinacolludedwithrespondentPuritaAlvendia(Purita)bymakingitappearthatpetitionerandhisdeceasedbrotherOrlandodonatedtoPuritatheparcelsoflandcoveredbythetitlesviatwoDeedsofDonationexecutedonNovember13,19957andNovember29,1995;8thatPuritaandherco-respondenthusbandOscarAlvendiathereaftercausedthecancellationofthetitlesofpetitionerandhisbrotheroverthelandsandtheissuancetothemoftitlesintheirname;andthatPuritaandherhusbandlatertransferredalsoviadonationtheparcelsoflandtorespondentspousesJoseandAraceliSeverinowhoweresubsequentlyissuedTCTNos.51342,51343and51344intheirnames.9chanroblesvirtuallawlibary

PetitionerwasthuspromptedtofileonApril24,1997aComplaint10againstrespondentsbeforetheRTCofLasPiasfor,interalia,thecancellationofthetitlesofrespondentspousesSeverino'sandreconveyanceoftheparcelsofland.

39

TotheComplaint,petitionerattachedasAnnex"E,"amongotherdocuments,aphotocopyofaReportdatedNovember19,199611ofNedyL.Tayag,aClinicalPsychologistoftheNationalCenterforMentalHealth,concludingthatpetitionerisnot"competentenoughtostandonhisown"basedonthefollowingfindings:

CurrentlevelofintelligencefallsalongtheModerateMentalRetardationlevel.(Imbecile)withanumericalratingof52,andwithamentalagebetween9to10yearsold.SocialIQmaybealittlehigherbuthecouldnotperformcomplextaskswhichwillrequireanalyticalandlogicalreasoning.Inlinewiththis,capacitytorenders[sic]soundjudgementcongruentwithhiscurrentchronologicalageisnotpossible.Likewise,deduction-induction,conceptual-perceptualcapacityandplanningarealsoaffected.

Hemayacceptresponsibilitybutheisnotawareofhowtogoaboutorganizingandperformingitnorcome-upwithaproductive[sic]output.Helackspre-planningsothatchoremaybehaphazardlydone,justforthesakeofobeyingandhavingitdone.Hereactsonimpulse,beingdeprivedonintellectualresourcesthatcouldhelphimtocontrolorregulatehisactionsandemotions.Havinglowintelligencehetendstobegullibleandeasypreytoallurementsofpleasureandsatisfaction.(Underscoringsupplied)

RespondentspousesAlvendia,intheirAnswerwithCompulsoryCounterclaim,12claimedtohaveacquiredthesubjectlotsbyDeedsofAbsoluteSaleexecutedbypetitionerwiththeconsentofhiswife,insupportofwhichtheysubmittedphotocopiesthereof.13cra

Ontheotherhand,thespousesSeverinoclaimedtohaveacquiredthelotsbypurchasefromthespousesAlvendia,insupportofwhichtheyalsosubmittedphotocopiesofreceiptsofpaymentforthepurpose.14cra

Thepre-trialofthecasewassetonSeptember7,1998duringwhichpetitionerwaspresentaswellasthedefendantsspousesSeverinobutitwasresettoOctober1,1998at8:30inthemorningduetotheabsenceofthethereindefendantspousesAlvendia.15chanroblesvirtuallawlibary

Ontherescheduledpre-trialonOctober1,1998,afterpetitioner'scomplaintwascalledinopencourt,thetrialcourtissuedanOrderdeclaringpetitionernon-suitedfor"failureofhiscounseltoappear"andtofilepre-trialbrief,andaccordinglydismissingtheComplaint.16chanroblesvirtuallawlibary

Petitioner,throughcounsel,filedaMotionforReconsiderationandfortheReinstatementoftheCasewithApologyandPrayerforCompassion,17explainingthathiscounselarrivedforthepre-trialalrightbutwaslate,andgivinganaccountofthenon-filingincourtofapre-trialbrief,viz:

xxx

2.Thatwithrespecttohislatearrival[duringthepre-trialonOctober1,1998],theundersignedarrivedat8:55anditwashisintentiontoarriveatexactly8:30a.m.buthewaspreventedbyanunusualheavytrafficalongtheBaclaran/CoastalRoadandhewasnotabletoestimatehisarrivaltime;

40

3.Thathedidnothavetheintent