0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
23 visualizzazioni9 pagine
The Supreme Court ruled that (1) petitioners substantially complied with procedural requirements in attaching relevant documents to their petition for review, and (2) petitioners' failure to attend the pre-trial conference meant they could not participate in trial or present evidence, as the court allowed the respondent to present evidence ex parte in such situations based on the rules. The Court affirmed the rulings against the petitioners, finding they received loan proceeds based on signatures on checks and vouchers.
The Supreme Court ruled that (1) petitioners substantially complied with procedural requirements in attaching relevant documents to their petition for review, and (2) petitioners' failure to attend the pre-trial conference meant they could not participate in trial or present evidence, as the court allowed the respondent to present evidence ex parte in such situations based on the rules. The Court affirmed the rulings against the petitioners, finding they received loan proceeds based on signatures on checks and vouchers.
The Supreme Court ruled that (1) petitioners substantially complied with procedural requirements in attaching relevant documents to their petition for review, and (2) petitioners' failure to attend the pre-trial conference meant they could not participate in trial or present evidence, as the court allowed the respondent to present evidence ex parte in such situations based on the rules. The Court affirmed the rulings against the petitioners, finding they received loan proceeds based on signatures on checks and vouchers.
to submit their position papers on the issue of 1. AGUILAR V. LIGHTBRINGERS CREDIT whether or not a party who had been COOPERATIVE (LCC) declared “as in default” might still participate G.R. NO. 209605 | January 12, 2015 | J. in the trial which was only complied by LCC. Mendoza In its Order, it ruled that petitioners had no Digested by: Alvarez, Marjorie L. right to participate and to cross-examine the witnesses. DOCTRINES: 6. LCC filed its formal offer of evidence. 1. Failure to attend the pretrial does not result in 7. MCTC dismissed the complaint against the “default” of the defendant. Instead, the Tantiangco because there was no showing failure of the defendant to attend shall be that she received the amount being claimed. cause to allow the plaintiff to present his However, it found that both Calimbas and evidence ex parte and the court to render Aguilar liable for their respective debts judgment on the basis thereof. because their receipts of the loan were 2. It is mandatory for the trial court to conduct proven by their signatures on the dorsal pretrial in civil cases in order to realize the portions of the checks and vouchers. paramount objective of simplifying, 8. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal and their abbreviating and expediting trial. joint memorandum before RTC of Bataan. Aguilar and Calimbas argued that had they FACTS: been allowed to present evidence, they would have established that the loan documents 1. This case stemmed from three (3) complaints were bogus. for sum of money filed by LCC against 9. RTC affirmed MCTC decisions and held that petitioners Aguilar, Calimbas and PNB checks were concrete evidence of the Tantiangco. The complaints alleged that petitioner’s indebtedness to LCC. Aguilar and Calimbas were members of the 10. Petitioners filed their joint motion for cooperative who borrowed money from the reconsideration/new trial and reiterated that funds: they did not receive the proceeds of the Tantiangco allegedly borrowed checks. They also moved that the RTC P206, 315 but net loan was only remand the case to MCTC for a new trial on P45,862. account of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Dela Calimbas allegedly borrowed Torre, the bookkeeper of LCC. P202, 800 but net loan was only 11. So petitioners filed a petition for review before P60,024. the CA which was dismissed. The CA stated Aguilar allegedly borrowed that the petition was formally defective as the P126,849 but net loan was only notary public failed to indicate his notarial P76,152. commission number and office address in the 2. The three filed their answers and uniformly jurat of the “verification and disclaimer of claimed that the discrepancy between the forum shopping” and the “affidavit of service.” principal amount of the loan evidenced by the Moreover, CA denied their motion for cash disbursement voucher and the net reconsideration because the petitioners still amount of loan as reflected in PNB checks failed to attach the entire records of the case showed that they never borrowed the which was a mandatory requirement under amounts being collected. Section 2, Rule 42. 3. On the scheduled pre-trial conference, only 12. Hence, this petition. LCC and its counsel appeared. 4. MCTC issued an Order allowing LCC to ISSUES: present evidence ex parte. The latter [PROCEDURAL] presented its incumbent General Manager Manalili. He explained that the discrepancy in 1. Whether Section 2, Rule 42 requires that the checks and cash disbursement vouchers entire record of the case be attached to the were due to the accumulated interests from petition for review. NO previous outstanding obligations, withheld 2. Whether petitioners may be allowed to share capital, as well as service and participate and to present evidence even miscellaneous fees. though they failed to attend pretrial shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present conference. NO his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof. [SUBSTANTIVE] The case of Philippine American Life & 3. Whether there was a contract of loan General Insurance Company v. Joseph between the parties. YES Enario discussed the difference between nonappearance of defendant in a pretrial HELD: conference and the declaration of a defendant in default in the present Rules of 1. NO. The provision enumerates the required Civil Procedure. Prior to the 1997 Revised documents that must be attached to a petition Rules of Civil Procedure, the phrase “as in for review, to wit: (a) clearly legible duplicate default” was initially included in Rule 20 of the originals or true copies of the judgments or old rules which states that “a party who fails final orders of both lower courts, certified to appear at a pretrial conference may be correct by the clerk of court of the Regional nonsuited or considered as in default.” Trial Court; (b) the requisite number of plain However, it was amended. Justice Regalado, copies thereof; and (c) of the pleadings and in his book explained the rationale for the other material portions of the record as would deletion of the phrase “as in default.” The support the allegations of the petition. amended provision now provides that instead Clearly, the Rules do not require that the of defendant being declared “as in default” by entire records of the case be attached to the reason of his nonappearance, the procedure petition for review. Only when these specified will be to allow the ex parte presentation of documents are not attached in the petition will plaintiff’s evidence and the rendition of it suffer infirmities under Section 3, Rule 42. judgment on the basis thereof. While actually the procedure remains the same, the purpose The Court in this case ruled that the petition is one of semantical propriety or was in substantial compliance with the terminological accuracy as there were requirements. The assignment of error in the criticisms on the use of the word “default” in petition for review clearly raises questions of the former provision since that term is fact as the petitioners assail the appreciation identified with the failure to file a required of evidence by the MCTC and the RTC. Thus, answer, not appearance in court. aside from the decisions and orders of the MCTC and the RTC, the petitioners should If the absent party is the plaintiff, then his attach pertinent portions of the records such case shall be dismissed. If it is the defendant as the testimony of the sole witness of who fails to appear, then the plaintiff is respondent, the copies of the cash allowed to present his evidence ex parte and disbursement vouchers and the PNB checks the court shall render judgment on the basis presented by respondent in the MCTC. In the thereof. Thus, the plaintiff is given the petition for review, the petitioners attached privilege to present his evidence without respondent’s complaints before the MCTC objection from the defendant, the likelihood which contained the photocopies of the cash being that the court will decide in favor of the disbursement vouchers and PNB checks. plaintiff, the defendant having forfeited the These should be considered as ample opportunity to rebut or present his own compliance with Section 2, Rule 42 of the evidence. Rules of Court. In the case at bench, the petitioners failed to 2. NO. The rule is that a court can only consider attend the pretrial conference. They did not the evidence presented by respondent in the even give any excuse for their MCTC because the petitioners failed to nonappearance, manifestly ignoring the attend the pretrial conference on August 25, importance of the pretrial stage. Thus, the 2009 pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of the MCTC properly issued the Order allowing Rules of Court. The Court, however, clarifies respondent to present evidence ex parte. The that failure to attend the pretrial does not MCTC even showed leniency when it result in the “default” of the defendant. directed the counsels of the parties to submit Instead, the failure of the defendant to attend their respective position papers on whether or not Aguilar and Calimbas could still issues and avoiding unnecessary proof of facts at participate in the trial of the case despite their the trial, and x x x to do whatever may reasonably absence in the pretrial conference. This gave be necessary to facilitate and shorten the formal Aguilar and Calimbas a second chance to trial.” The need for strict adherence to the rules explain their nonattendance and, yet, only on pre-trial thus proceeds from its significant role respondent complied with the directive to file in the litigation process. a position paper. FACTS: Thus, as it stands, the Court can only 1. Jose, Santiago and Petra are siblings. They consider the evidence on record offered by are the registered owners of two parcels of respondent. The petitioners lost their right to land in Iloilo City. On these lands stands a present their evidence during the trial and, a rice mill housing several pieces of milling fortiori, on appeal due to their disregard of the equipment, also in the name of Cheng mandatory attendance in the pretrial siblings. conference. 2. Santiago, together with his wife, sent Jose and Angelina Chua (wife) several written and [SUBSTANTIVE] verbal demands for the physical partition of lands, rice mill and equipment therein but were left unheeded. The Sps. Santiago filed a complaint against Jose and Angelina for 3. YES. The Court agrees with the findings of partition and damages before the RTC. fact of the MCTC and the RTC that a check 3. In their Answer, petitioners averred that they was a sufficient evidence of a loan advanced the funds necessary for the transaction. There is no dispute that the acquisition of these properties and that signatures of the petitioners were present on Santiago and Petra failed to reimburse them. both the PNB checks and the cash On such basis, they argued that Santiago, disbursement vouchers. The checks were Petra and their respective spouses do not also made payable to the order of the possess any right to demand partition. petitioners. Hence, respondent can properly 4. Judge Ruiz issued a Pre-Trial Order. None of demand that they pay the amounts borrowed. the parties manifested any intent to revise If the petitioners believe that there is some such order. other bogus scheme afoot, then they must 5. Respondents filed an Urgent Motion praying institute a separate action against the that Jose’s testimony be stricken from the responsible personalities. Otherwise, the records since he passed away before cross- Court can only rule on the evidence on record examination which was denied by Judge in the case at bench, applying the appropriate Ruiz. laws and jurisprudence. 6. During the hearing, herein petitioners orally manifested in open court that they would be SC= WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY presenting six (6) additional witnesses in GRANTED. In accord with the discourse on the place of Petra. These additional witnesses substantive issue, the January 2, 2013 decision were not among those listed in the Pre-Trial of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Order, nor were they identified in Jose's Pre- Dinalupihan, Bataan, is AFFIRMED. The award Trial Brief. of attorney’s fees is, however, DELETED. 7. In the interim, Judge Maniba denied petitioners’ oral motion. 2. CHUA V. SPOUSES SANTIAGO 8. Thus, petitioners filed the CA Petition. They G.R. NO. 219309 | November 22, 2017 | J. asserted that Jose, through counsel, Caguioa reserved the right to present additional witnesses in his Pre-Trial Brief and by Digested by: Alvarez, Marjorie L. completely ignoring such reservation made DOCTRINE: The importance of pre-trial in civil by Jose prior to his death, Judge Maniba cases cannot be overemphasized. Time and committed grave abuse of discretion again, this Court has recognized "the importance amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. of pre-trial procedure as a means of facilitating 9. CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. the disposal of cases by simplifying or limiting the Notwithstanding the reservation in Jose's Pre-Trial Brief, it held that the Pre-Trial Order 2. Oral manifestation of then counsel of categorically stated that only Jose's [Jose and Angelina], Atty. Leong, that he testimony, and that of Petra's, would be is reserving five (5) more witnesses presented on Jose's behalf. Considering that depending on the outcome of the cross- Atty. Leong (Jose’s counsel) did not take any examination of [Jose], without objection steps to amend the Pre-Trial Order to reflect interposed by [Respondents] at that time the general reservation appearing in Jose's as recorded in [the Transcript of Pre-Trial Brief, Judge Maniba could not be Stenographic Notes]; faulted for exercising his discretion to exclude 3. The fact that on July 17, 2006, [Judge Petitioners' additional witnesses from trial. Ruiz, then Presiding Judge of the RTC] allowed the presentation of additional ISSUE: Whether CA erred when it affirmed the witnesses for the [Petitioners] by setting RTC Resolution and Order denying Petitioners’ six (6) additional calendar dates for the oral motion to present witnesses not listed in the presentation of evidence of the Pre-Trial Order. (NO.) [Petitioners] even after the Pre-Trial Order had already been issued. HELD: In this case, neither Jose nor his counsel Atty. NO. Court finds no ascribable error on the Leong took the necessary steps to cause the part of the CA in affirming the RTC Resolution revision of the Pre-Trial Order to reflect the and Order, as these issuances merely general reservation in Jose's Pre-Trial Brief, enforce the rules governing pre-trial. notwithstanding the explicit directive to make Petitioners' reliance on the purported such necessary corrections in the Colatilla exception under paragraph A(2)(d) of A.M. portion of the Pre- Trial Order. This failure 03-1-09-SC, otherwise known as the binds the Petitioners as substitute parties, Proposed Rule on Guidelines to be Observed being mere representatives of the latter's by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in interests in the present case. Moreover, the the Conduct of Pre- Trial and Use of setting of additional hearing dates following Deposition-Discovery Measures (Pre-Trial the direct examination of Jose should not be Guidelines) is misplaced. As its introductory impliedly taken as a grant of leave to present phrase clearly indicates, paragraph A(2) enumerates the matters which parties are Petitioners' additional witnesses. To be sure, required to state in the pre-trial brief. Since the hearing dates in question were set on paragraph A(2) does not prescribe rules on July 17, 2006. Petitioners do not deny that admissibility and presentation of evidence, it they sought leave to present their six (6) should not be interpreted in this manner. additional witnesses only on January 16, In addition, paragraph (A)(2)(d) refers to 2008, one (1) year and five (5) months after documentary and object evidence, and not the additional hearing dates were set. If testimonial evidence, which, in turn, are Judge Ruiz did in fact grant Jose leave to treated separately under paragraph (A)(2)(f). present witnesses excluded in the Pre-Trial Accordingly, the scope of the specific Order, Petitioners would not have sought exception under paragraph A(2)(d) should such leave anew. Evidently, Petitioners' not be unduly extended to cover testimonial argument that Judge Ruiz already allowed evidence. Even assuming, arguendo, that the such presentation, and that Judge Maniba exception under paragraph A(2)(d) may be was bound to honor such previous directive, invoked as basis to allow the presentation of witnesses not listed in the pre-trial order, its is a mere afterthought. Lastly, Petitioners application remains contingent upon a neither furnished the Court with copies of the showing of good cause sufficient to justify the judicial affidavits of their additional witnesses, same. nor make any allegations detailing the The Court finds these circumstances grossly substance of their respective testimonies. insufficient to support Petitioners' cause. Hence, the Court is left without any 1. Presence of a written reservation by then opportunity to determine if the presentation of counsel of [Jose and Angelina] to present said witnesses is indeed necessary to "ferret additional witnesses as shown in their out the whole truth," as Petitioners claim. Pre-trial Brief; The rules governing pre-trial remain FACTS: controlling in this case 1. Fermida entered into a Contract of The importance of pre-trial in civil cases Agreement with Ultra Mar for the construction cannot be overemphasized. Time and again, of a warehouse in Zambales for P1.7M. Upon this Court has recognized "the importance of the latter’s request and instructions, Fermida pre-trial procedure as a means of facilitating made variations as to roof coverage, the disposal of cases by simplifying or limiting drainage canal, painting and electrical work. the issues and avoiding unnecessary proof of 2. Fermida sent the Billing Statement to Ulltra facts at the trial, and x x x to do whatever may Mar. Pursuant to their agreement, Fermida reasonably be necessary to facilitate and secured a Surety Bond to satisfy the 10% shorten the formal trial.” The need for strict retention to cover any defect in materials and adherence to the rules on pre-trial thus workmanship. proceeds from its significant role in the 3. Ultra Mar sent a letter expressing its litigation process. discontentment on some of Fermida’s work. It refused to pay because of Fermida’s This is not to say, however, that the rules alleged failure to submit the FDT Report and governing pre-trial should be, at all times, Building Permits, and substandard work and applied in absolute terms. While faithful delay in the completion of the Project. compliance with these rules is undoubtedly 4. Since Ultra Mar failed to comply with its desirable, they may be relaxed in cases obligation, Fermida commenced a Complaint where their application would frustrate, rather for Collection of Sum of Money with Prayer than facilitate, the ends of justice. The for Injunction with the RTC. relaxation of these rules, however, is 5. RTC ordered an ocular inspection and the contingent upon a showing of compelling and case was then set for pretrial conference. persuasive reasons to justify the same. Upon motion of Ultra Mar’s counsel, it was It is the Court's considered view that postponed and was again reset. Despite several resettings, the counsel failed to Petitioners have failed to sufficiently show attend the pretrial conference and failed to file that such compelling and persuasive reasons the required pretrial brief. exist in this case. Consequently, the Petition 6. RTC declared Ultra Mar in default and must be denied. allowed Fermida to present its evidence ex parte. SC= WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 7. Ultra Mar, through counsel, filed an Omnibus petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Motion to Lift Order of Default, Admit Assailed Decision dated November 27, 2014 and Attached Pre-Trial Brief and Set the Case for Resolution dated May 25, 2015 issued by the Pre-Trial Conference (Omnibus Motion) Court of Appeals Eighteenth Division in CA- G.R. alleging that his failure to file the Pre-Trial SP. No. 07194 are hereby AFFIRMED. Brief was due to intermittent nausea he was experiencing. RTC required a supporting Medical Certificate but counsel failed to do comply. 3. ULTRA MAR AQUA RESOURCE, INC. V. 8. RTC denied Ultra Mar’s Omnibus Motion and FERMIDA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ruled in favor of Fermida. G.R. NO. 191353| APRIL 17, 2017 | J. TIJAM 9. Since Ultra Mar’s motion for reconsiderations Digested by: Alvarez, Marjorie L. were denied, it then elevated the case to the CA. DOCTRINE: The failure of a party to appear at 10. CA found no error on the part of RTC when it pretrial has adverse consequences: if the absent denied Ultra Mar’s Omnibus Motion. It noted party is the plaintiff then he may be declared that the counsel failed to provide a plausible nonsuited and his case is dismissed; if the absent justification why he failed to submit the party is the defendant, then the plaintiff may be required pretrial brief. It also found that allowed to present his evidence ex parte and the Fermida was able to preponderantly court to render judgment on the basis thereof. establish that it entered into a construction agreement with Ultra Mar and that despite demands, the latter failed to pay. ISSUE: Whether Ultra Mar should be allowed to 4. Vergara v. Otadoy, Jr. present its evidence. (NO.) G.R. No. 192320 | April 4, 2016 | J. Brion Digested by: Alvarez, Marjorie L. HELD: DOCTRINE: Under Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, NO. Section 4, Rule 18 requires the parties the counsels and the parties are mandated to and their counsel to appear at the pretrial appear at pretrial. Their nonappearance may be conference. The effect of their failure to excused only if there is a valid cause or if a appear is spelled under Section 5 of the same representative appears on their behalf. rule. Hence, the failure of a party to appear at pretrial has adverse consequences: if the FACTS: absent party is the plaintiff then he may be declared nonsuited and his case is 1. This case stemmed from a petition for habeas dismissed; if the absent party is the corpus decided by the Court. In that case, the defendant, then the plaintiff may be allowed petitioners were arrested for indirect to present his evidence ex parte and the court contempt because they refused to comply to render judgment on the basis thereof. with the probate court’s order to pay rentals By way of exception, the nonappearance of a to Allers’ estate and the Court ruled that the party and counsel may be excused if (1) a imprisonment was unwarranted as it violated valid cause is shown; or (2) there is an the constitutional prohibition against appearance of a representative on behalf of imprisonment for nonpayment of debt. a party fully authorized in writing to enter into 2. Armed with this ruling, petitioners filed a civil an amicable settlement, to submit to action for damages against Atty. Otadoy who alternative modes of dispute resolution, and served as the administratrix’s counsel to enter into stipulations or admissions of (habeas corpus case) and three other facts and of documents. What constitutes a persons. They alleged that they were unjustly valid cause is subject to the court’s sound detained as a result of his fraudulent discretion and the exercise of such discretion practices. shall not be disturbed except in cases of clear 3. Defendants failed to file their answers so and manifest abuse. petitioners moved to declare them in default In this case, Court find no convincing ground and to allow presenting evidence ex parte to apply the policy of liberality. Ultra Mar’s which the RTC granted. counsel advanced no plausible justification 4. RTC also granted Atty. Otadoy’s motion to why he failed to submit the Pre-Trial Brief the set aside the default order. It scheduled a court a quo had directed him in its Preliminary pretrial conference on March 12, 2007. Pre-Trial Order. court a quo still gave the 5. Atty. Otadoy filed a motion to postpone the counsel a chance albeit with the condition pretrial conference as he was invited to that he submit a Medical Certificate. deliver a lecture at the National Annual Unfortunately, he failed to comply. Pointedly, Lectureship of the Church of Christ on March Ultra Mar’s counsel repeatedly moved for the 11-14. Without waiting for a ruling on his postponement of the pretrial conference, and motion, he proceeded to attend the lecture in yet still failed to appear. The justifications Zamboanga. advanced by the counsel do not constitute a 6. At the pretrial conference, petitioners’ valid cause to excuse such noncompliance. counsel opposed the motion to postpone arguing that Atty. Otadoy failed to file a SC= WHEREFORE, premises considered, the pretrial brief and that his motion was filed late. Court resolves to DENY the petition. The He also moved that he be allowed to present Decision dated July 28, 2009 and Resolution evidence ex parte as provided in Section 5, dated February 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in Rule 18 of the Rules of Court. C.A.-G.R. CV No. 86540 are AFFIRMED with 7. RTC granted his motions and considered the MODIFICATION that the payment of case submitted for resolution. Php1,106,038.82 is no longer made subject to the 8. Atty. Otadoy filed his pretrial brief only on 10 percent retention in favor of Ultra Mar Aqua April 11, 2007. He also filed an MR on April Resource, Inc. 20 which the RTC denied. Hence the filing of a petition for certiorari with the CA. 9. CA granted Atty. Otadoy’s petition. It noted that he should be blamed for not appearing at the pretrial and for presuming that his motion In Philippine Transmarine Carriers, the Court would be granted ipso facto. Nevertheless, considered that the motion was the first he only asked once for the postponement of postponement that the defendants requested the pretrial during the entire duration of the only after finding that there was a valid cause case. to postpone. In this petition, although Atty. 10. CA denied petitioners’ MR; hence, this Otadoy requested for postponement only petition. once, he failed to show a valid cause to justify his request; thus, the RTC did not legally err ISSUE: Whether Atty. Otadoy presented a valid in denying his motion to postpone. cause to postpone the pretrial conference. (NO.) SC= WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. HELD: RTC Decision is hereby REINSTATED. NO. In the present case, the RTC had legal basis to deny the motion for postponement. This Court has ruled that a motion for 5. DAACO V. YU postponement is a privilege and not a right. G.R. NO. 183398 | June 22, 2015| J. Peralta The movant should not assume that his Digested by: Alvarez, Marjorie L. motion would be granted. In deciding whether DOCTRINE: Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules to grant or deny a motion to postpone the of Civil Procedure requires that notice of pretrial pretrial, the court must take into account two conference be served on counsel. The counsel factors: (a) the reason given, and (b) the served with notice is charged with the duty of merits of the movant’s case. notifying the party he represents. However, when The Court note that Atty. Otadoy’s failure to a party has no counsel, as in this case, the notice attach proof that he attended the alleged of pretrial is required to be served personally on lectureship weighs heavily against him. He him. had many opportunities to submit proof of his attendance. He could have attached this FACTS: proof in his motion for reconsideration, in his petition before the CA, or in this petition. Yet, 1. A complaint was filed by Clodualda Daaco he failed to do so. Thus, the Court find that he against Valeriana Yu, Faustina Daaco and did not sufficiently establish a valid cause to Register of Deeds of Tacloban City for postpone the pretrial conference, giving the Annulment of Title, Recovery of Property and RTC a firm legal basis to deny his motion and Damages. to declare him in default. 2. After the answer had been filed, the RTC set the pretrial conference on October 4, 2007. Strict application of procedural rules However, upon motion, the RTC dismissed In the present case, Atty. Otadoy not only the case as against Yu for petitioner’s failure failed to appear during pretrial; he also failed to appear thereat. to file the mandatory pretrial brief within the 3. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration prescribed time. alleging that (a) she was not properly notified To be sure, judicial action must be guided by of the pretrial conference scheduled at the principle that a party-litigant must be 8:30am on October 4, 2007 as she received given the fullest opportunity to establish the notice thereof only at 5:30pm of October 3, merits of his case. Rules of procedure, 2007 or merely 15 hours before the however have their own reasons for their scheduled conference and thus, the order of existence; they are with us to ensure prompt, dismissal was invalid; and (b) there is still an speedy, and orderly dispensation of justice. unresolved Motion to Consider the Answer of This competing reason must be weighed and Respondent as Not Filed which she balanced against the admittedly weightier previously filed in 2006. need to give litigants their day in court. When 4. RTC denied the Motion in the following wise: procedural rules are at the point of being Plaintiff and her counsel have abused, such as when the litigant fails to had notice of the pretrial establish a valid cause to postpone the conference that if prudence, proceedings, procedural rules cannot and diligence and respect for the must not be brushed aside. court had been observed there was sufficient time still for both to come to court on October 4, petition, she even faults the trial 2007 at 8:30 AM. court for repeatedly referring to San Jose District, Tacloban City her counsel when it is clear that where plaintiff and her counsel no such counsel exists. Thus, resides is just fifteen (15) to contrary to her allegation, this twenty (20) minutes ride to the Court is under the impression court thru public utility vehicle. that petitioner never really Veritably, under the intended on securing the circumstance, plaintiff’s not services of counsel. going to court to appear in the o Second, during said period when pretrial conference despite she was supposedly preparing notice showed nothing more but for the conference, petitioner abandonment of their cause not was able to file 3 motions in a to mention their deliberate span of 6 months. defiance to the notice of the court It is clear, therefore, that petitioner’s rather for them to appear in the active participation in the proceedings during scheduled pretrial conference. the period leading up to the pretrial It is not correct to claim that there conference contradicts her defense of is still a pending motion filed by unpreparedness. Petitioner cannot plaintiff which this court failed to persistently file multiple motions before the resolve. The motion was filed on trial court, diligently participating in the October 2006. Yet, as early as hearings thereon, and yet claim to need more May 2006, she filed a motion for time to prepare for the pretrial conference, judgment on the pleadings which the proceeding wherein she may rightly was denied by the court. assert the rights for which she had originally 5. Hence, this petition. filed her complaint. Also, her need to secure counsel and prepare documents necessary for the case were only asserted in the instant ISSUE: Whether the RTC’s dismissal of the case petition before this Court. for Daaco’s failure to appear in pretrial As to petitioner’s allegation that the RTC’s conference is contrary to law, rules and existing order is patently void because the RTC jurisprudence. (NO.) erroneously included the absence of her HELD: counsel despite due notice as reason to dismiss the case when the records reveal that NO. In this case, petitioner harps on the fact she is not actually represented by any that the notice of pretrial was sent to her 15 counsel, the same is rather flawed. hours before the scheduled conference. She Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil maintained that said amount of time rendered Procedure requires that notice of pretrial it impossible for her to appear thereat since conference be served on counsel. The she had yet to secure counsel to represent counsel served with notice is charged with her as well as prepare documents necessary the duty of notifying the party he represents. for the case. Thus, the 15- hour notice is However, when a party has no counsel, as in deemed no notice at all, resulting in the this case, the notice of pretrial is required to invalidity of the trial court’s dismissal of the be served personally on him. In view of the case. This is untenable. fact that petitioner was, and still is, not o First, this Court finds petitioner’s represented by counsel, and that as reasoning that she had yet to petitioner herself admitted, notice of the secure the services of a counsel pretrial conference was served on her, the rather specious. Had this been mandate of the law was sufficiently complied the case, she should already be with. Thus, the fact that the trial court represented by one at this stage mistakenly referred to her counsel when no in the proceedings. Yet, as the such counsel exists is immaterial. For as long records bear, petitioner comes to as notice was duly served on petitioner, in this Court by herself, via Petition accordance with the rules, the trial court’s for Certiorari, unrepresented by order of dismissal cannot be invalidated due any counsel. In fact, in her to statements referring to her counsel, for the same have no bearing on the validity of the notice of pretrial. In view of the foregoing, this Court does not find that the facts in the case at hand warrant a liberal construction of the rules. SC= WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Order dated October 4, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, of Tacloban City in Civil Case No. 2006-12-16 dismissing the case for annulment of title, recovery of property under Transfer Certificate (TCT) No. T-28120 and damages is AFFIRMED.