Title
Supreme Court
Vera vs. Rigor
Case
G.R. No. 147377
Decision Date
Aug 10, 2007
Ernesto Rigor sued Dr. Vera for unpaid ultrasound scanner balance; complaint dismissed due to Rigor's failure to file pre-trial brief, upheld by Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 147377)

Factual Background

On November 19, 1996, Ernesto Rigor filed a complaint against Dr. Emmanuel Vera regarding a sum of money related to an Ultrasound Scanner purchased for P410,000, of which only P120,000 was paid as a down payment. Rigor asserted that despite demands for payment on the remaining balance of P290,000, Vera failed to comply. In response, Vera contended that he only received the machine on a trial basis, which exhibited poor performance, and also cited financial constraints at the intended installation site. Following an unsuccessful pre-trial conference held on January 21, 1997, the case was set for trial, subsequently postponed multiple times.

Procedural History

During a hearing on July 17, 1997, it was revealed that Rigor had not submitted a required pre-trial brief. Consequently, on July 28, 1997, Vera moved to dismiss the complaint citing this failure. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the case on September 30, 1997. Rigor's motion for reconsideration was denied on February 4, 1998. Upon appealing to the Court of Appeals, the court ruled in favor of Rigor on July 25, 2000, determining that the trial court had erred by dismissing the case without considering the circumstances surrounding the pre-trial process.

Legal Issues

The fundamental legal issue concerns whether the failure of Rigor to file a pre-trial brief warranted the dismissal of the complaint, as per the provisions outlined in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Section 6 of Rule 18 mandates the filing of pre-trial briefs by all parties and states that failure to do so is tantamount to failing to appear at the pre-trial.

Court Ruling

The Supreme Court analyzed the procedural events, noting that while Rigor failed to comply with the requirement of submitting a pre-trial brief, the RTC conducted the pre-trial conference and allowed the case to proceed without addressing this absence. The Court underscored that the trial judge's actions reflected a misunderstanding of the procedural rules, particularly regarding Rule 18, and emphasized that the tr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.