Nature and Purpose of Pretrial
Pre-trial
is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases. Although
it was discretionary under the 1940 Rules of Court, it was made mandatory under
the 1964 Rules and the subsequent amendments in 1997. Hailed as "the most
important procedural innovation in Anglo-Saxon justice in the nineteenth
century, pre-trial seeks to achieve the following:
The possibility of an amicable settlement
or of a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution;
§
The
simplification of the issues;
§
The
necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;
§
The
possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents
to avoid unnecessary proof;
§
The
limitation of the number of witnesses;
§
The
advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner;
§
The
propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of
dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist;
§
The
advisability or necessity of suspending the proceedings; and
§
Such
other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.
In
light of these objectives, the parties are also required to submit a pre-trial
brief, which must contain the following:
- § A statement of their willingness to enter into amicable settlement or alternative modes of dispute resolution, indicating the desired terms thereof;
- § A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;
- § The issues to be tried or resolved;
- § The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the purpose thereof;
- § A manifestation of their having availed or their intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners; and
- § The number and names of the witnesses, and the substance of their respective testimonies. (Silvestre Tiu versus Daniel Middleton, G.R. No. 134998, 19 July 1999)
Pretrial is Mandatory
At
the outset, the Court emphasizes that pre-trial and its governing rules are not
technicalities which the parties may ignore or trifle with. As earlier stated,
pre-trial is essential in the simplification and the speedy disposition of
disputes.
Everyone
knows that a pre-trial in civil actions is mandatory, and has been so since
January 1, 1964. Yet to this day its placed in the scheme of things is not
fully appreciated, and it receives but perfunctory treatment in many court.
Some courts consider it a mere technicality, serving no useful purpose save
perhaps, occasionally to furnish ground for non-suiting the plaintiff, or
declaring a defendant in default, or, wistfully, to bring about a compromise.
The pre-trial device is not thus put to full use. Hence it has failed in the
main to accomplish the chief objective for it: the simplification, abbreviation
and expedition of the trial, if not indeed its dispensation. This is a great
pity, because the objective is attainable, and with not much difficulty, if the
device were more intelligently and extensively handled.
Pre-trial
is an essential device for the speedy disposition of disputes. Hence, parties
cannot brush it aside as a mere technicality. Where the pre-trial brief does
not contain the names of witnesses and the synopses of their testimonies as
required by the Rules of Court, the trial court, through its pre-trial order,
may bar the witnesses from testifying. However, an order allowing the
presentation of unnamed witnesses may no longer be modified during the trial
without the consent of the parties affected. (Silvestre Tiu versus Daniel
Middleton, G.R. No. 134998, 19 July 1999)
Duty to Promptly Move for Pretrial
After
the last pleading has been served and filed, it shall be the duty of the
plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pretrial. (R18:1).
The
notice of pretrial shall be served on counsel, or on the party who has no
counsel. The counsel served with such notice is charged with the duty of
notifying the party represented by him. (R18:3)
If no notice of
pre-trial is served, all the proceedings at the pre-trial et seq. are null and
void.13 Hence, the absence of the requisite notice of pre-trial to the
defendant’s counsel (or to the defendant himself, in case he has no counsel)
nullifies the order allowing the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte. (Rolando Agulto versus William Tecson, G.R.
No. 145276, 29 Nov.2005)
Duty to Appear For and During Pretrial
It
shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial.
The non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown
therefor or if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in
writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of
dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and
of documents. (R18:4)
Duty to File Pretrial Brief
The
parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, in such
manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3) days before the
date of the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain,
among others:
A statement of their willingness to enter
into amicable settlement or alternative modes of dispute resolution, indicating
the desired terms thereof;
A summary of admitted facts and proposed
stipulation of facts;
The issues to be tried or resolved;
The documents or exhibits to be presented,
stating the purpose thereof;
A manifestation of their having availed or
their intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to
commissioners; and
The number and names of the witnesses, and
the substance of their respective testimonies. (R18:6)
Effect of Failure to Appear for Pretrial
The
failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next
preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal
shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A similar
failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to
present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis
thereof. (R18:5)
Failure
to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at
the pre-trial. (R18:6)
Consistently with the
mandatory character of the pre-trial, the Rules oblige not only the lawyers but
the parties as well to appear for this purpose before the Court, and when a
party "fails to appear at a pre-trial conference (he) may be non-suited or
considered as in default." The obligation "to appear" denotes
not simply the personal appearance, or the mere physical presentation by a
party of one’s self, but connotes as importantly, preparedness to go into the
different subject assigned by law to a pre-trial. (Durban Apartments versus Pioneer
Insurance, G.R. No. 179419, 12 Jan. 2011)
Discretion to Declare Party as in Default Must
be Resorted Sparingly
In
a case (decided before the 1997 Rules), the Supreme Court had said that the
power to declare a party as in default must be used sparingly, thus:
Rule 20, Sec. 2 of the
[old]Rules of Court stipulates that "A party who fails to appear at a
pre-trial conference may be non-suited or considered as in default." But
the petitioners in the instant case did not fail to appear at the pre-trial
conference on July 26, 1978, as ordered by the trial court. They were there.
What they failed to do was to submit a pre-trial brief three days before the
date which the Rules of Court do not require. In fact, the Court of Appeals
correctly observed: "There is some merit to the claim that the petitioner
was declared as in default somewhat hurriedly, just because he had failed to
submit a pre-trial brief, three days before the scheduled date. Trial courts
should use sparingly the power to declare a party as in default, because party
thereby loses the right to offer evidence. (Atty. Reynaldo Dimayacyac versus CA, G.R.
No. L-50907, 27 Sept. 1979)
[Note that under the old
Rules, the court may declare a defendant "as in default" for failure
to appear for Pretrial. The new Rules now authorizes the court to declare
such defendant "in default."]
Extrinsic Fraud Not Ground to Lift Order of Non-Suit
It
bears stressing that when petitioner's counsel filed the Manifestation and
Motion asking for reconsideration of the Order declaring the Spouses Arcenas
non-suited, the reason stated was honest mistake or excusable
negligence, xxx and that his failure to attend the hearings and to file a
motion for reconsideration of the declaration of petitioner as non-suited was
because of his mistaken belief that respondent bank was earnestly seeking a
settlement. There was nothing in the Manifestation and Motion which alluded the
commission of extrinsic fraud to respondent bank's counsel. xxx
Moreover,
since petitioner claimed that there was extrinsic fraud committed by respondent
bank's counsel, she could have filed a petition for relief under Rule 38 within
the period provided for by the Rules of Court, but she did not. Section 2, Rule
47 clearly states that extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground for
annulment of order if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a
motion for new trial or petition for relief. Thus, extrinsic fraud is
effectively barred if it could have been raised as a ground in an available
remedial measure.
Petitioner tries to
justify her failure to avail of the appropriate remedies on a promise of
settlement. However, such promise was not an excuse for petitioner's counsel
not to lift the order of non-suit and to file a petition for relief. (Oscar Arcenas versus Queen City
Development, G.R. No. 166819,
16 June 2010)
When Failure to Appear and File Pretrial Brief Excused
The
Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court had "no
discretion" on the matter of a party’s failure to file a pre-trial brief.
If the trial court has discretion to dismiss the case because of plaintiff’s
failure to appear at pre-trial,13 then the trial court also has discretion to
dismiss the case because of plaintiff’s failure to file the pre-trial brief.
Moreover, whether an order of dismissal should be maintained under the
circumstances of a particular case or whether it should be set aside depends on
the sound discretion of the trial court.14
In
this case, petitioner sufficiently explained that the pre-trial brief was sent
by registered mail to the trial court and respondent on 8 June 2001. That the
trial court and respondent did not receive the pre-trial brief at least three
days prior to the pre-trial was already beyond petitioner’s control. Therefore,
the trial court had discretion to lift the order of dismissal after giving
credence to petitioner’s explanation.
Moreover,
in Calalang v. Court of Appeals,19 the Court ruled that "unless a party’s
conduct is so negligent, irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory as to provide
substantial grounds for dismissal for non-appearance, the courts should
consider lesser sanctions which would still amount into achieving the desired
end." In this case, there is also no showing that petitioner willfully and
flagrantly disregarded the trial court’s authority. There is also no indication
that petitioner had manifested lack of interest to prosecute or acted
deliberately with the intention to delay the proceedings. Therefore, the trial
court acted accordingly when it set aside the order of dismissal and ordered the
reinstatement of petitioner’s complaint.
We
are not saying that adherence to the Rules could be dispensed with. However,
exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their
application.20 In this instance, substantial justice can be best served if both
parties are given the full opportunity to litigate their claims in a full-blown
trial. (Republic of the Phils. versus Ildefonso
Oleta, G.R. No. 156606, 17 Aug. 2007)
When Heavy Workload of Counsel a Justification for His
Failure to File Pretrial Brief
The
counsel of BPI invokes "heavy pressures of work" to explain his
failure to file the Pre-Trial Brief with the RTC and to serve a copy thereof to
Dando at least three days prior to the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference.36 True,
in Olave v. Mistas,37 we did not find "heavy pressures of work" as
sufficient justification for the failure of therein respondents’ counsel to
timely move for pre-trial. However, unlike the respondents in Olave,38 the
failure of BPI to file its Pre-Trial Brief with the RTC and provide Dando with
a copy thereof within the prescribed period under Section 1, Rule 18 of the
Rules of Court, was the first and, so far, only procedural lapse committed by
the bank in Civil Case No. 03-281. BPI did not manifest an evident pattern or
scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe a
mandatory requirement of the Rules. In fact, BPI, for the most part, exhibited
diligence and reasonable dispatch in prosecuting its claim against Dando by
immediately moving to set Civil Case No. 03-281 for Pre-Trial Conference after
its receipt of Dando’s Answer to the Complaint; and in instantaneously filing a
Motion for Reconsideration of the 10 October 2003 Order of the RTC dismissing
Civil Case No. 03-281.
The
Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply
disregarded for these prescribed procedures insure an orderly and speedy
administration of justice. However, it is equally true that litigation is not
merely a game of technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the
prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most
mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an
end to litigation speedily and the parties’ right to an opportunity to be
heard.
This
is not to say that adherence to the Rules could be dispensed with. However,
exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their
application.30 In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the rigid application
of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully
ventilate their cases on the merit. This is in line with the time-honored
principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance
to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection
should, thus, not serve as basis of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice
would be better served. For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to
facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending
parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote
the administration of justice.31
In Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, the Court
restated the reasons that may provide justification for a court to suspend a
strict adherence to procedural rules, such as: (a) matters of life, liberty,
honor or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances;
(c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault
or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack
of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f)
the fact that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. (Bank of the Phil. Islands versus Domingo
Dando, G.R. No. 177456, 04 Sept. 2009)
Pretrial Order Controls Subsequent Proceedings
Indeed,
the court and the parties must pay attention not only to the pre-trial briefs,
but also to the pre-trial order. Section 7 of the same Rule states:
Sec. 7. Record
of pre-trial. — The proceedings in the pre-trial shall be recorded. Upon
the termination thereof, the court shall issue an order which shall recite in
detail the matters taken up in the conference, the action taken thereon, the
amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements or admissions made by
the parties as to any of the matters considered. Should the action proceed to
trial, the order shall explicitly define and limit the issues to be tried. The
contents of the order shall control the subsequent course of action, unless
modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice. (Emphasis supplied.)
Hence,
the provision in the Pre-trial Order allowing petitioner to present six
witnesses "shall control the subsequent course of action." The court
a quo proceeded with the trial without modifying the Order. In the same vein,
respondents did not challenge it before the trial. Neither did they invoke the
power of the trial court to compel the petitioner to submit the names of his
witnesses and summaries of their testimonies. By their silence, respondents
acquiesced to the Pre-trial Order allowing the presentation of petitioner's
unnamed witnesses. Modifying a pre-trial order during the trial or, worse, when
the defendant is about to present witnesses will indubitably result in manifest
injustice. This could not have been the intention of the Rules.
Unnamed Witnesses Barred to Testify
Pre-trial*
is an essential device for the speedy disposition of disputes. Hence, parties
cannot brush it aside as a mere technicality. Where the pre-trial brief does
not contain the names of witnesses and the synopses of their testimonies as
required by the Rules of Court, the trial court, through its pre-trial order,
may bar the witnesses from testifying. However, an order allowing the
presentation of unnamed witnesses may no longer be modified during the trial
without the consent of the parties affected. (Silvestre Tiu versus Daniel
Middleton, G.R. No. 134998, 19 July 1999)
