part 6 pre-trial
DESCRIPTION
civpro materialsTRANSCRIPT
-
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