QuestionsQuestions (CAG.R. CV No. 97756)
The RTC dismissed the complaint due to the plaintiff’s failure to file the required pre-trial brief, applying the rule that such failure has the same effect as failure to appear at pre-trial.
Pre-trial is mandatory and is intended to simplify, abbreviate, and expedite the trial by facilitating matters such as admissions of facts, stipulations, and the orderly presentation of claims and defenses.
The notice of pre-trial shall be served on counsel, or on the party who has no counsel. The counsel served is charged with notifying the party represented.
The parties must file with the court and serve on the adverse party their respective pre-trial briefs such that they ensure receipt at least three (3) days before the date of pre-trial.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief has the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
The failure of the plaintiff to appear when required is cause for dismissal of the action with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court.
Because the May 4, 2011 order directed service to counsel at a specific address, but the registry receipt showed it was sent to a different address, supporting the counsel’s claim of non-receipt and that she did not know the person who actually received it.
Even assuming other parties were notified, the records showed they received the order only on May 10, 2011—just one day before pre-trial—making it too difficult or impossible to prepare and file the pre-trial brief at least three days before the hearing.
It agreed that since there was no motion for withdrawal on record, the counsel remained counsel of record; thus, the withdrawal claim was not sufficient to excuse the pre-trial brief/appearance issues.
The court ordered Attys. Haide B. Vista-Gumba and Joselito FandiAo to immediately apprise the trial court of the extent of their representation concerning the case.
The appellate court noted apparent miscommunication between counsel regarding standing, and that Atty. FandiAo did not file any entry of appearance before filing an answer to the counterclaim.
No. While rules on pre-trial are mandatory and must generally be strictly followed, the court recognized exceptions in proper cases—such as when there was no proper notice or circumstances made compliance impossible.
It cited that mandatory pre-trial is needed to achieve procedural objectives, and that rules are tools to facilitate adjudication; thus parties and courts should generally comply strictly, with relaxation only in justifiable and proper circumstances.