Download - 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