Rule 30

Trial

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 30

TRIAL
Section 1. Notice of trial. Upon entry of a case in the trial calendar, the
clerk shall notify the parties of the date of its trial in such manner as shall
ensure his receipt of that notice at least five (5) days before such date. (2a,
R22)

Of course, after the Pre-trial, the next step now is trial. And it is the duty of the clerk of
court to send notices to the parties about the date of the trial in such manner as shall
insure his receipt of that notice at least five (5) days before such date. But actually in real
practice, it will even take more than a month to give you ample time to prepare for it.
Now, it is mandatory that the notice should reach the party or its lawyer at least five
(5) days before such date. So, you should mail it earlier. Do not mail it on the day of or one
day before the trial because he may already have other engagement. Well, that is only a
very minor provision but it is now emphasized by the Rules.
Q: Define trial.
A: TRIAL is an examination before a competent tribunal of the facts or law put in issue
in a case, for the purpose of determining such issue. (Ballentines Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p.
1299) In a trial, there is always an issue where we cannot agree. Therefore, the purpose of
a trial is for the court to resolve that issue.
Sec. 2. Adjournments and postponements. A court may adjourn a trial from day
to day, and to any stated time, as the expeditious and convenient transaction of
business may require, but shall have no power to adjourn a trial for a longer
period than one month for each adjournment, nor more than three months in all,
except when authorized in writing by the Court Administrator, Supreme Court.
(3a, R22)

A court may adjourn a trial from day to day means that if the trial is not finished on
the scheduled date, that will be postponed on another day. That is how trials are being
conducted. It is by staggered basis. That is what you call adjournment. But everything is
recorded anyway. If you look at the transcript stenographic notes, it would seem that the
trial is continuous because everything unfolds there. But actually, these occurred on
different dates.
Now, Section 2 also provides that no party shall be allowed a postponement of more
than one (1) month per postponement and not more than three (3) postponements in all.
As a GENERAL RULE: Not more than one (1) month for its adjournment BUT a maximum of
three (3) postponements. In effect, it will be exactly 90 days.
And that jives with the SC Circular 3-90 which contains a mandatory continuous trial for
90 days. In other words, the case must terminate in 90 days.
The ONLY EXCEPTION is when authorized in writing by the court administrator. Meaning,
the judge can go to the court administrator to allow the court to go beyond the period
allowed by law. And I do not know if this provision is being followed strictly. There are
cases which have been here for more than a year. But you can do it provided you are
authorized in writing by the court administrator. Yan!
Sec. 3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for absence of evidence. A
motion to postpone a trial on the ground of absence of evidence can be granted
only upon affidavit showing the materiality or relevancy of such evidence, and
that due diligence has been used to procure it. But if the adverse party admits
the facts to be given in evidence, even if he objects or reserves the right to
their admissibility, the trial shall not be postponed. (4a, R22; Cir. No. 39-98)

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

36

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 30
Trial

Generally, there are two main reasons why parties ask for postponement. One is, (1)
absence of evidence like when the witness is not available or the document is not
available, or (2) somebody is sick either the party or counsel is sick.
Now, of course the requirements of the Rules are really strict although courts and
lawyers are very liberal on this. First of all, if you want to postpone a trial on the ground of
absence of evidence, there must be a verified affidavit. The affidavit must show the
materiality or relevancy of the evidence which is not available and that due diligence was
used to procure it. In other words, you tried your best to secure it earlier.
Now, what is the meaning of the second sentence: If the adverse party admits the
facts to be given in evidence, even if he objects or reserves the right to their admissibility,
the trial shall not be postponed?
EXAMPLE:
LAWYER: We are asking for postponement because our witness is not present.
He is not available and his testimony will be very material.
ADVERSE PARTY: Alright, what is going to be his testimony? What will he
testify about in court?
LAWYER: Well, this is his testimony . he will prove this or he will prove
that.
ADVERSE PARTY: OK. Admitted. I admit that if he is here, this is what he will
say. Although I may object to the admissibility of such
testimony.
Meaning, the other party may admit the evidence but object to its admissibility. That is
two different things admitting the evidence but objecting to its admissibility in court.
Meaning, objecting to the admissibility of the witness in court. Just like under the
Constitution, if a confession is made by a suspect without being afforded with the Miranda
warnings, such confession is not admissible. But such confession is evidence. Only, it is
inadmissible.
So, I admit that, although I reserve my right to its admissibility. Then in such case, you
have no more reason for postponement because in the first place, there is no need to
present your witness because the other party already admitted what will be the substance
of his testimony. Yaannn!
Sec. 4. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for illness of party or
counsel. A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of illness of a party or
counsel may be granted if it appears upon affidavit or sworn certification that
the presence of such party or counsel at the trial is indispensable and that the
character of his illness is such as to render his non-attendance excusable. (5a,
R22)

The same thing for illness (2nd ground). Kung may sakit, there must be affidavit or
sworn statement. So you must have a sworn medical certificate and that the presence of
such party or counsel is indispensable and the character of his witness is such as to render
his non-attendance excusable.
Now, of course the SC has already stated in some cases that when the sickness is
sudden and unexpected such as accident, you cannot require on the spot a medical
certificate. Meaning, how can I produce something if he got sick only an hour ago? So, the
court should take that into consideration. They cannot object to the requirement of
medical certificate.
So, a motion for postponement which is not verified upon the ground of illness of a
party or counsel without a medical certificate should be granted if it appears that the
claim of the movant is meritorious.

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

37

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 30
Trial

Normally, we just say that if the other party insists on a medical certificate, we will
submit it this afternoon or tomorrow because there are things in which we cannot get a
medical certification on time unless he has been sick for so long.
In the ultimate analysis, what is the policy of the SC on postponements? Motions for
postponements is always addressed to the sound discretion of the court (Casilan vs.
Gancayco, 56 O.G. 2799, March 28, 1960; People vs. Martinez, 57 O.G. 7923, Oct. 30,
1961).
So if the motion for postponement is denied or granted or either way, it is so hard to
have it overturn because the SC will always give way to the discretion and rarely will it
happen in court where it will interfere without discretion unless there is grave abuse of
discretion.
ORDER OF THE TRIAL
The order of trial in civil cases is a little bit more complicated compared to criminal
cases.
Sec. 5. Order of trial. Subject to the provisions of section 2 of Rule 31,
and unless the court for special reasons otherwise directs, the trial shall be
limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial order and shall proceed as
follows:
(a) The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his complaint;
(b) The defendant shall then adduce evidence in support of his defense,
counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaint;
(c) The third-party defendant, if any, shall adduce evidence of his defense,
counterclaim, cross-claim and fourth-party complaint;
(d) The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall adduce evidence of the
material facts pleaded by them;
(e) The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross-claim has been
pleaded, shall adduce evidence in support of their defense, in the order to be
prescribed by the court;
(f) The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting evidence only, unless
the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice, permits them to
adduce evidence upon their original case; and
(g) Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted for
decision, unless the court directs the parties to argue or to submit their
respective memoranda or any further pleadings.
If several defendants or third-party defendants, and so forth, having
separate defenses appear by different counsel, the court shall determine the
relative order of presentation of their evidence. (1a, R30)

Take note that the law says the trial shall be limited to the issues stated in the pretrial order. That is now emphasized under the Rule 30. That jives with Rule 18, Section 7
on what is the importance of a pre-trial order:
Sec. 7. Record of pre-trial. - The proceedings in the pre-trial shall be
recorded. Upon the termination thereof, the court shall issue an order which
shall recite in detail the matters taken up in the conference, the action taken
thereon, the amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements or
admissions made by the parties as to any of the matters considered. Should the
action proceed to trial, the order shall explicitly define and limit the issues
to be tried. The contents of the order shall control the subsequent course of
the action, unless modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice.
(5a,
R20)

The pre-trial order shall limit the issues and shall control the subsequent course of the
action. We already emphasized that the pre-trial order prevails over the pleadings. The
pre-trial order has the effect of superseding the complaint and the answer. Whatever
issues are stated in the pre-trial order shall be the issues to be tried during the hearing on
the case.

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

38

Rule 30
Trial

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Now going back to Rule 30, that is now emphasized. The trial shall be limited to the
issues stated in the pre-trial order. So, the pre-trial order will be a very important
document to determine what are the issues to be tried.
Q: How will the trial proceed? In what order?
A: Section 5, paragraphs [a] to [g], including the last paragraph of Section 5.
Q: What is the reason for the rule prescribing an order of trial?
A: The reason is for orderly procedure, which must be followed if injurious surprises
and annoying delays in the administration of justice are to be avoided. Evidence cannot
be given piece-meal. (Dir. of Lands vs. Archbishop of Manila, 41 Phil. 120)
You will notice the order of trial in civil cases follows more or less the same pattern with
the trial in criminal case. The pattern is the same although there may be cross-claims,
third (fourth, etc.) party complaints, especially when there are more than one defendant.
BASIC PATTERN (No cross-claim, counterclaim or 3rd-party complaint, etc.):
1.) Plaintiff presents evidence to prove his claim or cause of action. That is what
you call EVIDENCE IN CHIEF, also called as the MAIN EVIDENCE; (paragraph [a])
2.) Defendant presents evidence in chief or main evidence to prove his defense
negative or affirmative defense; (paragraph [b])
3.) Plaintiff will present what we call REBUTTAL EVIDENCE to rebut defendants main
evidence. (paragraph [f])
4.) Defendant is given the chance to present rebuttal evidence to rebut the rebuttal
of evidence of the plaintiff. In legal parlance, we call that SUR-REBUTTAL
evidence; (paragraph [f])
5.) ARGUMENTS. Normally, it is what we call the filing of MEMORANDUM (written
arguments) the parties will submit their respective memoranda, unless the
case will be submitted for decision without arguments or memorandum.
(paragraph [g])
So, normally, that is the basic pattern of the order of trial. Now, plaintiff presents
evidence ahead, after him defendant presents evidence to prove his defense.
Now, in the case of
YU vs. MAPAYO
44 SCRA 163
FACTS: The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant to collect a loan
which, according to the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid. The defendant filed
an answer admitting the loan but ang kanyang affirmative defense is, the
obligation is paid.
During the trial, the plaintiff said that he is no longer going to present any
evidence to prove his cause of action because anyway, the defendant has
admitted the obligation; and since the defendant is the one invoking payment, it
is, therefore, his burden to prove payment.
The trial court agreed with the plaintiff, Yes. Alright defendant, you present
evidence that the obligation is paid. Anyway, you are admitting that you
borrowed money.
Now, according to the defendant, the procedure is improper the order of the
trial being altered, Why will the defendant prove his defenses ahead. The
plaintiff is supposed to present evidence bago ako. Bakit uunahin ako? That is
the objection of the defendant.
ISSUE: Can the defendant present his evidence first?

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

39

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 30
Trial

HELD: AH YES! Anyway, by admitting the obligation, you are invoking the
affirmative defense of payment. So, it is incumbent upon you to prove that it is
paid.
Under Rule 16, the defendant is not obliged to file a motion to dismiss. That is
optional. In fact, the defendant is allowed, instead of filing a motion to dismiss,
to file an answer invoking the ground for a motion to dismiss as an affirmative
defense. And then the defendant could even ask for a preliminary hearing for his
affirmative defenses as if a motion to dismiss has been filed.
Therefore, in the hearing for a motion to dismiss, the defendant is now
converting his defense into a ground for a motion to dismiss. In which case, the
affirmative defense will be heard ahead of the main action. So, that is allowed
under Rule 16.
So, there is nothing basically wrong with an affirmative defense being heard
ahead of the plaintiff, especially when the plaintiff has nothing to prove
anymore.
Well, of course that is more apparent in criminal procedure. In the order of trial in
criminal procedure, the court may even direct the accused to present evidence ahead of
the prosecution when the accused is already admitting the facts constituting the crime but
only invokes a defense such as self-defense when you are accused of homicide and your
defense is that you acted in self-defense. So, wala ng i-prove ang prosecution.
Automatically, you are admitting that you killed the victim. The burden now is shifted to
you to justify the killing. Thats what they call TRIAL IN REVERSE.
So, in criminal cases where the law authorizes a reversed trial where the accused is
directed to present evidence ahead of the prosecution, there is no reason why the same
procedure cannot also apply in civil cases. That is the essence of the MAPAYO ruling. So,
more or less, that is the deviation from the normal order of trial.
Section 5 [f]: The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting evidence
only, unless the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice,
permits them to adduce evidence upon their original case;

Paragraph is actually presentation of rebuttal evidence.

Q: What is the difference between the evidence mentioned in paragraph [f] and the
evidence mentioned in paragraphs [a] and [b]?
A: Paragraphs [a] and [b] refer to what we call EVIDENCE IN CHIEF to prove your main
cause of action or your defense. In paragraph [f], the evidence is not evidence in chief but
REBUTTAL EVIDENCE to dispute the side of the other party.
Q: Is a party allowed to present evidence in chief in the rebuttal stage?
A: GENERAL RULE: NO, because paragraph [f] provides that the parties may then
respectively adduce rebutting evidence only. In other words, you do not go back to
paragraphs [a] and [b]. If you have evidence to prove your cause of action or defense,
you should have done it earlier.
So generally, evidence in chief is not allowed during the rebuttal stage. But there is an
exception: EXCEPTION: Unless the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of
justice permits them to adduce evidence upon their original case. Meaning, it permits
them to adduce evidence in chief. But you need the permission of the court because
normally, you should have done that under paragraphs [a] and [b] and not in paragraph
[f].
Q: Give instances when the court may allow the party to present additional evidence in
chief during rebuttal to prove his cause of action.
A: In the following instances:
1.) When it is newly discovered;

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

40

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 30
Trial

2.) When the evidence was omitted through inadvertence or mistake;

3.) When the purpose is to correct evidence previously offered; (Lopez v s. Liboro,
81 Phil. 429)
4.) When the additional evidence offered is material and not merely cumulative or
impeaching (64 C.J. 160-163)
Those are the possible instances when the court in the interest of justice may allow the
parties to present evidence in chief during the rebuttal stage which is normally not
allowed.
And that is what I saw exactly years ago how this paragraph [f] operates. There was
case here we were watching before. There was a veteran trial lawyer from Manila who
tried a case here. I think it was a damage suit against KLM Royal Airlines for breach of
contract of carriage because some of the passengers were from Davao City. Alright when
they are already in the rebuttal stage, the lawyer for the Airlines was presenting evidence
and the counsel for the plaintiff argued, Objection Your Honor, it is not rebuttal evidence.
It is evidence in chief which he is presenting. So it is not proper during this stage.
And the trial court agreed, Yes, it is improper. The evidence in chief should have been
presented earlier. Therefore, objection is sustained. Lawyer for the Airlines, So, you
honor, may we move for a reconsideration because we believe it is rebuttal evidence and
it is very important. So, balik na naman sila sa argument. And then the court said, The
motion for reconsideration is denied, you are not allowed.
So, patay siya. And its really true that what was presented was evidence in chief and
not rebuttal evidence. So, hindi siya ba makalusot or hindi siya makapasok. So, for a while,
he closed his eyes and said, Your Honor, in the interest of justice may we be allowed to
present evidence in chief for the rebuttal stage. And the court said granted, Sure pare
basta ikaw! [Mas OK pa sa ALRIGHT]! So pasok na naman!
In other words, saan niya kinuha ito? When I looked at the Rules, iyon pala! He knows
how to invoke it. In other words, you can see the skill of a veteran lawyer. The rules are at
his fingertips. So, that is how I saw this provision operates.
Section 5 [g]: Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed
submitted for decision, unless the court directs the parties to argue or to
submit their respective memoranda or any further pleadings.

Now, of course, pag tapos na kayo, main evidence and rebuttal, tapos na ang kaso.
Meaning, the case is ready for decision. But normally, the lawyer of the parties would say,
We would like to argue. And the argument is normally not oral but in writing where you
will be asked to file what you call MEMORANDUM.
A MEMORANDUM is practically a thesis where you will summarize your position and you
argue why you should win. That is where you cite evidence. You convince the court that
you have proven your cause of action or defense. Then you cite the testimonies, the
exhibits, the transcripts and of course, the argument, the jurisprudence, the law. That is
where you argue. You do not argue in your pleading. Pleadings, complaint, answer is not
the time to argue. There, you only state the facts. You argue after the trial where you
interpret now the evidence and convince the court.
Sec. 6. Agreed statement of facts. The parties to any action may agree, in
writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and submit the case for
judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence.
If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial shall be
held as to the disputed facts in such order as the court shall prescribe. (2a,
R30)

Alright, why do the parties present evidence 1, 2, 3, 4. What is the purpose there? To
prove facts. Normally, we cannot agree on the facts. I say something and you will say

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

41

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 30
Trial

that is not true and this is what happened. So, normally, cases arise because of the issue
of what happened.
Q: Now, is there a possibility that the court will decide whether there is trial or no more
evidence?
A: YES! If the parties agree in writing upon the facts involved in the litigation and they
will submit the agreed facts or the case for decision. That is what we call JUDGEMENT ON
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS or the more popular term: JUDGEMENT BASED ON
STIPULATION OF FACTS.
EXAMPLE: The plaintiff and the defendant agree on all the facts. These are the facts,
sabi ng plaintiff. Then sabi ng defendant, Yes, I agree those are the facts. Now if we
agree on the facts, there is nothing more to prove. And what we are now quarreling is who
should win based on the facts agreed upon. So, ano ngayon ang kaso? That is purely a
legal question. There is nothing to prove because everything is admitted. They disagree
only on the conclusion.
So, with that, par. 1, 2, 3, 4 all these steps are useless. There is nothing to prove. In
which case, we will go immediately to step no. 5. So, if the parties agree in writing upon
the facts involved in the litigation and they will submit the agreed facts for decision, that is
JUDGEMENT BASED ON STIPULATION OF FACTS which is encouraged by the law. This is
one of the purposes of Pre-Trial (Rule 18, Section 2 [d]) where the parties are encouraged
to stipulate on facts, because really, it would save a lot of time.
The best example of agreed facts would be examination problems. The facts are
already given this is what happened. You cannot change that anymore. And you will be
asked, DECIDE: Is A correct or is B correct. So in other words, you simply apply the law.
You do not apply anymore the issue of what happened because it is already agreed. Your
answer would be similar to a JUDGMENT BASED ON STIPULATION OF FACTS.
Q: Why is an agreed statement of facts sufficient basis for a judgment?
A: The reason is that an agreed statement of facts is conclusive on the parties, as well
as on the court. Neither of the parties may withdraw from the agreement, nor may the
court ignore the same. (McGuire vs. Manufactures Life Ins. Co., 87 Phil. 370)
Q: Now suppose they can agree on some facts but they cannot agree on others.
A: There is no problem. You can have a partial stipulation of facts and then we can try
the rest with respect to the other disputed facts.
That is why the second paragraph says, If the parties agree only on some of the facts
in issue, the trial shall be held as to the disputed facts in such order as the court shall
prescribe. At least, it would still be faster because the disputed facts are now limited.
Rather than proving ten (10) issues of facts, it will be reduced to 3 or 4. So, the trial would
still be faster.
The court is not bound to find out what happened when the parties already agreed on
what happened. EXAMPLE: The parties will stipulate, This case involves a piece of land
with an area of 50 hectares, planted with coconut trees of about 5,000. So, parties
agreed and then the court says, No, I do not believe you. It might be more than 59
hectares. NO. When the parties agree, sundin mo yan because they themselves agree
on the facts. You only determine the facts if they cannot agree. That is why the court is
bound by the stipulations made by the parties.
Sec. 7. Statement of judge. During the hearing or trial of a case any
statement made by the judge with reference to the case, or to any of the
parties, witnesses or counsel, shall be made of record in the stenographic
notes. (3a, R30)

Take note that the trial is a formal court proceeding. Everything is recorded there the
statement of parties, their lawyers, including the statement of the judge. Any statement

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

42

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 30
Trial

made by the judge with reference to the case or to any of the parties, witnesses, or
counsel shall be made of record in the stenographic notes.
Sec. 8. Suspension of actions. The suspension of actions shall be governed
by the provisions of the Civil Code. (n)

This is mentioned in Rule 18, Section 2 [h] which discusses the possibility of suspension
of the proceedings.
Meaning, huwag munang gumalaw ang kaso in suspended
animation baah!
Q: And what is the possible good legal ground for the parties to ask for suspension of
the hearing? Meaning, held in abeyance ba. What would be the best possible ground?
A: The best possible ground is the one mentioned in Article 2030 of the New Civil Code:
Art. 2030. Every civil action or proceeding shall be suspended:
1. If willingness to discuss a possible compromise is expressed by one or
both parties; or
2. If it appears that one of the parties, before the commencement of the
action or proceeding, offered to discuss a possible compromise but the other
party refused the offer.
The duration and terms of the suspension of the civil action or proceeding
and similar matters shall be governed by such provisions of the rules of court
as the Supreme Court shall promulgate. Said rules of court shall likewise
provide for the appointment and duties of amicable compounders. (n)

According to Article 2030 of the civil code, if at anytime while the case is going on, one
of the parties would like to discuss a POSSIBLE AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OR COMPROMISE,
they can ask for the suspension of proceedings. Why? The court of the law favors
compromises or amicable settlements in civil cases.
So at anytime that one party expresses its desire to settle, even in the middle of the
case, the court is authorized to suspend the action to give the parties opportunity to settle
because of the policy of the law to encourage the parties to settle amicably.
That is why even former U.S. President Lincoln, who is more remembered as president
rather than as a lawyer, was quoted, Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbor to
compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often the real
loser in fees, expenses and waste of time. As a peace-maker [Long Live the
PeaceMakers!], the lawyer has the superior opportunity of being a good man. There
would still be business enough.
Meaning, aregluhin ba hanggang maari, you better settle. When you settle, nobody is
loser and nobody is winner. Both of you win. Walang masakit ang loob ba. And marami
pang negosyo, marami pang kaso. Do not make such money out of one case. If you can
settle, i-settle muna. Huwag mong sabihing sayang iyong income dahil marami pang
kaso na darating. That was what he said.
Now, of course, what happens if the party cannot agree to settle? Well, the procedure
is, let the trial go on. That is why in the 1992 case of
GOLDLOOP PROPERTIES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
212 SCRA 498 [1992]
FACTS: The parties in a civil action manifested the possibility of submitting
amicable settlement. The court gave them 15 days to submit their compromise
agreement. 15 days passed, no amicable settlement was submitted by the
parties. With that, the court dismissed the case.
ISSUE: Was the court correct in dismissing the case when the parties cannot
settle?

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

43

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 30
Trial

HELD: The dismissal is WRONG. Since there is nothing in the Rules that
imposes the sanction of dismissal for failing to submit a compromise agreement,
then it is obvious that the dismissal of the complaint on the basis thereof
amounts no less to a gross procedural infirmity. While a compromise is
encouraged, very strongly in fact, failure to consummate one does not warrant
any procedural sanction, much less an authority to jettison a civil complaint.
What the court should have done was to continue the action.
In other words, why should you dismiss the complaint when the parties cannot settle?
By that, technically, natalo ang plaintiff. Kung hindi magkaareglo, then go on with the trial.
You have no authority to dismiss the case simply because the parties cannot settle.
However, there are certain matters which cannot be the subject of compromise.
Practically, compromise is allowed on anything under the sun, except certain matters such
as those mentioned in Article 2035.
Q: What are the matters that cannot be the subject of compromise?
A: Under the Article 2035, New Civil Code, the following:
(1)
(2)

The civil status of persons; (whether legitimate or illegitimate)

The validity of a marriage or a legal separation; (w/n a marriage settlement
exists)
(3)
Any ground for legal separation;
(4)
Future support; (always depends on the means of the party giving support)
(5)
The jurisdiction of courts;
(6)
Future legitime.
So you cannot agree on these. You cannot compromise as a legitimate when in fact you
are illegitimate. Where is the basis of that? You cannot compromise that the marriage is
valid when in fact it is not, or it is null and void. These things cannot be the subject of
agreement.
Sec. 9. Judge to receive evidence; delegation to clerk of court. The judge
of the court where the case is pending shall personally receive the evidence to
be adduced by the parties. However, in default or ex parte hearings, and in any
case where the parties agree in writing, the court may delegate the reception of
evidence to its clerk of court who is a member of the bar. The clerk of court
shall have no power to rule on objections to any question or to the admission of
exhibits, which objections shall be resolved by the court upon submission of his
report and the transcripts within ten (10) days from termination of the hearing.
(n)

The Rules now expressly allows the court to delegate the reception of evidence to the
clerk of court who must be a member of the bar. Thereby confirming the doctrine in
GOTINGCO vs. CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL and junking forever the ruling in LIM TANHU
vs. REMOLETE because in the case of REMOLETE, it was ruled that the judge cannot
delegate the reception of evidence to the clerk of court. Now, puwede na.
A good example is DEFAULT. But actually, it could also be a case where the parties
agreed in writing or other cases where it can be heard ex-parte other than default.
Because there are many cases na to my mind that the judge does not really need to be
there listening.
Like for example, a petition for the issuance of lost or transfer of certificate yung
titulo mo nawala your title is lost or you misplaced it and you will prove na nawala. That
should be heard in court but to my mind that is not a controversy, eh because there is only
one party there. So it is possible for the court to delegate that to the clerk of court in order
that they (judges) can attend to other controversial cases.
Now, please connect this provision with Section 3 of Rule 9 on Default:

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

44

Rule 30
Trial

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Sec. 3. Default; declaration of. - If the defending party fails to answer

within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming
party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the
defending party in default.
Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render
judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless
the court, in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence.
Such
reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court. (1a, R18)

So in default hearing, it is now the discretion of the court either to conduct an ex-parte
reception of evidence which can be delegated to the clerk of court, or the court may
render judgment based on the pleadings. So, it is optional.
Now, to my mind, kung ang case is a collection case or any other cases which are
simple, pag na-default ang defendant, puwede na decision dayon. Pero kung controversial
cases, do not render judgment based on the pleadings. You better conduct an ex-parte
reception of evidence and you may delegate the reception of evidence to the clerk of
court.
Yun iyong mga out of ordinary cases which are really controversial where the court
should require the presentation of evidence. Pero yong mga kaso na not so complicated,
no need of reception of evidence in order to expedite the process of adjudication.

LAKAS ATENISTA 20012002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez Jessamyn Agustin Judee Uy Janice
Joanne Torres Genie Salvania Pches Fernandez Riezl Locsin Kenneth Lim Charles Concon Roy Acelar
Francis Ampig Karen Cacabelos Maying Dadula Hannah Examen Thea Guadalope Myra Montecalvo
Paul Ongkingco Michael Pito Rod Quiachon Maya Quitain Rina Sacdalan Lyle Santos Joshua Tan
Thaddeus Tuburan John Vera Cruz Mortmort

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

45