SUBMITTED TO:

ATTY. ELEANOR MAGBANUA

SUBMITTED BY:

SAPON, FRITZ G.

Page 1
 PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

I) What is a Pre-Trial Brief?

A Pre-Trial Brief is a mandatory document filed by parties in both

criminal and civil cases, served on the adverse party, at least three
(3) days before the date of the pre-trial (Rule 18, Sec 6 of the
Rules of Court)

II) Laws Governing Pre-Trial Brief

1) Rule 18 Sec 6 of the Rules of Court
2) Pursuant to R.A. No. 8493 (otherwise known as the Speedy Trial
Act of 1998)

Under Section 2 of R.A. No. 8493, Pre-trial is a mandatory

requirement.

Mandatory Pre-Trial in Criminal Cases. - In all cases cognizable by

the Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Metropolitan
Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, and the Sandiganbayan, the
justice or judge shall, after arraignment, order a pre-trial
conference.

It is also in consonance with the constitutionally-guaranteed right of

the accused to speedy disposition of cases.

3) Constitution (Rights of an Accused)

III) What is the purpose of a Pre-trial?

The purpose is for the court to consider the: (1) the possibility of an
amicable settlement or submission to alternative mode of dispute
resolution; (2) the simplification of issues; (3) the necessity or
desirability of amendments to the pleadings; (4) the possibility of
obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to
avoid unnecessary proofs; (5) the limitation of the number of
witnesses; (6) the advisability of a preliminary reference of issues
to a commissioner, (7) the propriety of rendering judgment on the
pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing the action should
a valid ground therefore be found; (8) the advisability or necessity
of suspending the proceeding; and (9) such other matters as may
aid in the prompt disposition of the action. As may be seen, the
overall purpose is really to simplify, abbreviate, facilitate and
expedite the case.

IV) Who may file and where to file?

It is filed by both parties in a criminal or civil case at any criminal or

civil court.

Page 2
In civil cases,

* Within 5 days from date of filing of the Reply, the plaintiff must
promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial
conference. If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given
period, the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial.

In criminal cases,
* After the arraignment, the court shall forthwith set the pre-trial
conference within 30 days from the date of arraignment.

V) Period within which to file

At least three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial (Rule 18, Sec
6 of the Rules of Court).

VI) Effect of Failure to File

The Rule on Filing of Submission of Pre-Trial Briefs is a mandatory

rule of which, failure to comply may produce consequences.

It has the same effects as failure to appear at the pre-trial under

Rule 18 Section 5 of the Rules of Court:

* Failure of the plaintiff to file: Shall be cause for dismissal of the

action (with prejudice unless otherwise ordered by the court)

* Failure of the defendant to file: Shall be cause to allow the

plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render
judgment on the basis thereof.

The pre-trial brief’s indispensability is shown by the fact that failure

to file one has the same effects as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
However, there is no particular sanction against the submission of
an incomplete or non-complying pretrial brief.

As to presenting evidence not included in the pre-trial brief:

* A party is precluded to present such evidence.

Note: The parties are bound by the representations and statements

in their respective pre-trial briefs.

No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the

trial in support of a party’s evidence-in-chief other than those that
had been earlier identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial,
except if allowed by the court for good cause shown.

Page 3
As to the effect of presenting evidence other than those a party has
specified in the pre-trial brief, recent jurisprudence tends to
preclude a party from doing so because allowing him would defeat
the very purpose of the pre-trial brief which is the simplification,
abbreviation and expedition of trial. According to the Supreme
Court in the case of Tiu vs. Middleton, et al, 310 SCRA 580, judges
have the discretion to exclude witnesses and other pieces of
evidence not listed in the pre-trial brief, provided the parties are
given prior notice to this effect.

VII) Contents of the Pre-Trial

1) Caption (name of court, parties, docket no.)

2) Title
3) Introduction
4) Body
- A statement of their willingness to enter into amicable settlement
or alternative modes of dispute resolution, indicating the desired
terms thereof;
- A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;
- The issues to be tried or resolved;
- The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the purpose
thereof;
- A manifestation of their having availed or their intention to avail
themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners;
and,
- The number and names of witnesses, and the substance of their
respective testimonies.
5) Relief prayed for;
6) Attorney; and
7) Plus / Addendum
- Copy furnished; and
- Proof of service, if by registered mail with explanation

Page 4
 SAMPLE PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BINANGONAN, RIZAL
BRANCH 70

NINO A. TERESA,
Petitioner,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. JDRC

16-044
For: Declaration of
Absolute
Nullity of
Marriage

MARIA B. LEONORA
- TERESA,
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
(For the Petitioner)

Petitioner NINO A. TERESA, by counsel, in

compliance with the Order of this Honorable Court dated
13 July 2017 (copy received on 14 August 2017), most
respectfully submits this Pre-Trial Brief and states that:

I. POSSIBILITY OF COMPROMISE

1.1. The law prohibits any compromise between the

parties in a case for declaration of nullity of marriage on

Page 5
the ground of psychological incapacity as the instance
may be taken as collusion between the parties, the
matters of which should be threshed out through
adversarial proceedings.

II. ADMISSION OF FACTS

AND STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

2.1. This is a case for Declaration of Nullity of

Marriage between the petitioner and respondent;

2.2. The petitioner and respondent were married in

a civil ceremony on 11 December 1999 at the East Ridge
Golf Course in Rizal;

2.3. The regime of “Absolute Community of

Properties” governs the property relations of the parties;

2.4. The petitioner and respondent have one (1)

child, namely: Johnny Martin Teresa who was born on 10
June 2000;

2.5. Johnny Martin Teresa has always been in the

custody of the respondent from the time of the parties’
separation;

2.6. Before, at the time, and after the celebration of

marriage of the parties on 11 December 1999, the
respondent was and still is psychologically incapacitated
to comply with the essential obligations of marriage;

2.7. The Clinical Psychologist, Dr. Jessica Tayag,

found the respondent to be suffering from a psychological
disorder- “NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY
DISORDERS” and concluded the failure of the
respondent to conform to her role as a wife has marred
their marriage vows that eventually resulted in the
parties’ separation;

2.8. The marriage between the petitioner and

respondent is null and void ab initio on the ground of
psychological incapacity of the respondent, thus resulting
in her failure to perform the fundamental obligations of
marriage;

Page 6
Claims of the Respondent

2.9. The respondent failed to file an Answer.

III. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

3.1. The pertinent provisions of the Family Code,

particularly Article 36 thereof and the provisions on child
custody;

3.2. The applicable cases relating to the declaration

of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity and the pertinent and prevailing jurisprudence
over the matter such as, but not limited to: Santos vs.
CA (G.R. No. 112019, 4 January 1995), Te vs. Te
(G.R. No. 161793, 13 February 2009), Marcos vs.
Marcos (G.R. No. 136490, 19 October 2000),
Bernardino vs. CA, G.R. No. 141917, 7 February
2007) and Republic vs. Molina (G.R. No. 108763, 13
February 1997) and others.

IV. PROPOSAL FOR STIPULATION

AND ADMISSION OF FACTS

4.1. That petitioner and respondent were married

on 11 December 1999 under civil ceremony at the East
Ridge Golf Course in Rizal;

4.2. The petitioner and respondent have one (1)

child, namely: Johnny Martin Teresa who was born on 10
June 2000;

4.3. The custody of the children since the parties’

separation- in-fact has always been with the respondent;

4.4. The parties have been separated-in-fact since

January 2004;

4.5. That the petitioner and respondent have no

existing properties belonging to the absolute community
regime acquired during the marriage as the same merely

Page 7
comprised of items of insignificant value which have
depreciated over time.

V. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Exhibit Document Nature and Purpose

National
Statistics copy
To prove that the petitioner
of the
and respondent were married
Certificate of
“A” on 11 December 1999 at East
Marriage
Ridge Golf Course in Angono,
between the
Rizal
petitioner and
respondent
National
To prove that Johnny Martin
Statistics copy
Teresa is the only child of the
of the Birth
“B” petitioner and the respondent
Certificate of
and was born during the
Johnny Martin
existence of their marriage.
Teresa
To prove that the respondent
is psychologically
incapacitated to perform the
A Report on the essential obligations of
Psychological marriage because the
Assessment of respondent is suffering from a
both NINO disorder known as
TERESA, the “Narcissistic Personality
petitioner for Disorders”.
Nullity of
Marriage To prove that the personality
against disorder of the respondent,
“C”
respondent which amounts to her
MARIA B. psychological incapacity to
LEONORA- perform the essential
TERESA, dated obligations of marriage, is
15 March 2016, grave and severe enough to
prepared by debilitate her from assuming
Clinical the essential obligations of
Psychologist Dr. marriage, has juridical
Jessica Tayag antecedence, deeply rooted,
and incurable by any available
treatment.

Page 8
 5.1. Petitioner reserves the right to present
additional documentary evidence, with leave of the
Honorable Court, during the course of the trial which
may prove to be relevant and material to the above-
entitled case.

VI. WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED

6.1. The petitioner himself, Nino Teresa, who shall

testify as to the material allegations made in the instant
Petition.

6.2. The Clinical Psychologist, Jessica Tayag, who

shall testify as to the clinical findings made in relation to
the material allegations made in the Petition.

6.3. The petitioner and respondent’s only child,

Johnny Martin Teresa, who shall testify as to material
allegations in the Petition which are personally known to
him.

6.4. Petitioner reserves the right to present such

other witnesses, with leave of the Honorable Court,
during trial if the need arises or should their testimony
prove relevant and material to the above-entitled case.

VII. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

7.1. Whether or not the respondent is

psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage to the petitioner.

7.2. Whether or not the marriage between

petitioner and respondent is null and void ab initio on the
ground of psychological incapacity as provided for in
Article 36 of the Family Code.

7.3. Whether or not the sole custody of their minor

child, Johnny Martin Teresa should be granted to the
petitioner.

Page 9
 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Pasig City for Binangonan, Rizal; 25 September

2017.

SAPON & GIRAO

LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Petitioner Nino
Teresa
th
Suite 429, 4 Floor, One Corporate
Center,
Doña Julia Vargas Ave. cor.
Meralco Ave.
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Contact Numbers: (02) 6353512 /
(02) 7313123

By:

JESSICA A. PEARSON
Roll No. 63124
IBP No. 1055616 01.03.17; RSM
PTR No. 2513185; 01.03.17; Pasig City
MCLE Compliance No. V- Admitted to the Bar on 22 June
2016

Copy furnished:

THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Binangonan, Rizal

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Office of the Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street
Legaspi Village, Makati City

MARIA B. LEONORA-TERESA
Respondent
Phase 2B Grapes St.,

Page 10
Vista Verde Subd., Cainta, Rizal

EXPLANATION

Branch Clerk of Court

Regional Trial Court
Branch 70
Binangonan, Rizal

Greetings:

Copy of the foregoing Pre-Trial Brief was served to

the Respondent and the Office of the Solicitor General by
registered mail due to the distance involved and
temporary lack of personnel to effect personal service.

JESSICA A. PEARSON

Page 11