Question & AnswerQ&A (CAG.R. CV No. 97756)
The complaint was dismissed due to the plaintiff-appellant's failure to file his pre-trial brief as required by the rules, which is considered equivalent to failure to appear at the pre-trial.
The notice of pre-trial should be served on the counsel of the party or on the party if unrepresented. The counsel served is responsible for notifying the party they represent.
Failure of the plaintiff to appear at pre-trial is a cause for dismissal of the action with prejudice unless otherwise ordered by the court. Failure of the defendant to appear allows the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment based on that.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief has the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial, which can lead to dismissal of the case.
The dismissal was reversed because there was no proper notice served to the counsel of record, Atty. Gumba, due to the pre-trial notice being sent to a different address. This lack of proper notice made it difficult for the plaintiff and counsel to prepare the pre-trial brief timely.
Counsels have the duty to ensure proper receipt of notices, timely file necessary documents like pre-trial briefs, and properly inform the court of their extent of representation and withdrawals. They are bound to follow procedural rules to serve the interest of justice.
Pre-trial is mandatory in civil cases to simplify, abbreviate, and expedite the trial process. Parties are required to present pre-trial briefs to facilitate case adjudication effectively.
Rules on pre-trial can be relaxed, but only in proper cases and under justifiable circumstances. Relaxation is not intended to permit violation of procedural rules with impunity.
The failure of the plaintiff to appear at pre-trial results in dismissal of the case with prejudice unless the court orders otherwise, while the failure of the defendant to appear allows the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and the court may render judgment on that basis.