G.R. No. 147377 - Vera vs. Rigor

On November 19, 1996, Ernesto F. Rigor, respondent, filed a complaint for sum of money with damages against Dr. Emmanuel Vera, petitioner, at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, Malolos, Bulacan, docketed as Civil Case No. 852-M-96.
The complaint centered on an alleged transaction wherein petitioner purchased a brand new Ultrasound Scanner, Model HS 120, for P410,000.00, having paid a downpayment of P120,000.00 and leaving a balance of P290,000.00 which petitioner allegedly failed to pay.

Respondent’s allegations stated that petitioner agreed to buy the ultrasound scanner and defaulted on the balance payment despite repeated demands.
In response, petitioner contended that he received the machine only on a trial basis and that its performance was unsatisfactory when tested; he further argued that the hospital where it was intended to be installed lacked sufficient funds, and when respondent offered an alternative model, it turned out to be an old version rather than a brand new one.

The RTC set a pre-trial conference for January 21, 1997.
During the pre-trial conference, an amicable settlement between the parties was not reached, prompting the termination of the pre-trial and the setting of an initial hearing session for March 6, 1997, at 9:00 AM.

The case was rescheduled, first to May 20, 1997, and then to July 17, 1997, due to motion by respondent’s counsel.
It was during the hearing on July 17, 1997 that petitioner’s counsel pointed out that respondent had failed to file the mandatory pre-trial brief, a requirement under the procedural rules.

On July 28, 1997, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of respondent’s failure to file a pre-trial brief.
On September 30, 1997, the trial court issued a Resolution granting the motion and dismissing the complaint.
Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated February 4, 1998.

The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on July 25, 2000, in respondent’s favor, essentially reversing the RTC’s dismissal by noting the unusual procedural lapse wherein the pre-trial conference was held despite the non-filing of the pre-trial brief.
Petitioner later filed a motion for reconsideration, which was eventually denied, leading to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals.

The trial court’s handling of the pre-trial – specifically, conducting the conference without the mandatory pre-trial brief and failing to issue an appropriate pre-trial order – was highlighted as a significant lapse.
An order directed Judge Candido R. Belmonte of the RTC, Branch 22, to explain in writing within ten (10) days why he should not face administrative charges for his ignorance of Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and his demonstrated gross inefficiency.

Whether the complaint in Civil Case No. 852-M-96 is dismissible due to respondent’s failure to file a pre-trial brief as mandated by Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

Determination of the effect of non-filing: Is the absence of the pre-trial brief sufficient to warrant dismissal with prejudice?
Analysis of whether the trial court should have enforced the pre-trial requirements immediately at the pre-trial conference rather than later at the initial hearing.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to respondent’s appeal which sought to overturn the RTC’s dismissal order.

The legal and factual nature of the issue raised: Is it purely a question of law or does it also involve issues of fact regarding procedural compliance?
Whether the reversal of the trial court’s dismissal order was proper in light of the mandatory nature of the pre-trial brief requirement.

The implications of the trial court’s error in handling the pre-trial proceedings and issuing the subsequent dismissal order.
Whether Judge Candido R. Belmonte’s alleged ignorance of the mandated pre-trial rules warrants administrative sanctions.