Dismissal reversed for lack of proper pre-trial

The decision is an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s verified complaint.
The trial court’s dismissal was based on the alleged failure to comply with pre-trial requirements, specifically the filing of a pre-trial brief.
The appellate court identifies the central issue as whether the trial court correctly dismissed the case for failure to file the pre-trial brief within the period required by the rules.
The appellate court disregards a procedural lapse in the framing of the appealed order in the broader interest of justice to reach the merits.
The appellate court grants the appeal.

Rule 18, Section 3 requires that the notice of pre-trial shall be served on counsel, or on the party who has no counsel.
Rule 18, Section 3 charges counsel served with the notice with the duty of notifying the party represented by him.
Rule 18, Section 4 requires parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial.
Rule 18, Section 4 allows non-appearance only if a valid cause is shown or if a fully authorized representative appears in writing to enter into stipulations or admissions, submit to alternative dispute resolution, and enter into an amicable settlement.
The appellate court finds there was no proper notification to Atty. Haide Vista-Gumba of the pre-trial scheduled on May 11, 2011 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.

Rule 18, Section 6 requires the parties to file with the court and serve on the adverse party their respective pre-trial briefs in a manner that ensures receipt at least three (3) days before the pre-trial date.
Rule 18, Section 6 requires the pre-trial briefs to contain, among others, the required content for pre-trial briefs (as contemplated by Rule 18).
Rule 18, Section 6 provides that failure to file the pre-trial brief has the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
Rule 18, Section 5 provides that the failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required shall be cause for dismissal of the action with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court.
The appellate court reverses the dismissal because the required notice and timing made compliance with the pre-trial brief requirement impracticable in the circumstances of the case.

The appellate court treats the trial court’s dismissal as erroneous due to defective pre-trial notice to counsel of record for purposes of preparing the pre-trial brief.
The trial court’s order directing furnishing a counsel with the pre-trial order at a specified address conflicts with the sending that used a different address, supporting lack of proper notice to Atty. Haide Vista-Gumba.
The appellate court also considers that even if some parties or counsel were notified, the pre-trial brief deadline could not be met because receipt of the order occurred only a day away from the scheduled pre-trial date.
The appellate court does not sustain the dismissal when proper notice failures undermine meaningful compliance with the three (3) days receipt requirement for pre-trial briefs.
The appellate court remands the case for hearing on the merits rather than maintaining the dismissal.

The appellate court agrees that without a filed motion for withdrawal, counsel remains counsel of record even if counsel later asserts withdrawal.
The appellate court directs Atty. Haide B. Vista-Gumba and Atty. Joselito FandiAo to immediately apprise the trial court of the extent of their representation insofar as the case is concerned.
The appellate court observes miscommunication between Atty. Haide B. Vista-Gumba and the plaintiff-appellant regarding counsel’s position in the case.
The appellate court notes Atty. Joselito FandiAo did not file an entry of appearance before filing an answer to the defendants-appellees’ counterclaim.
The appellate court reminds both counsels, as officers of the court, of the duty to follow rules on proper dealings with the courts.

The appellate court emphasizes that pre-trial in civil cases is mandatory to realize the paramount objectives of simplifying, abbreviating, and expediting trial.
The appellate court reiterates that parties are mandatorily required to submit their respective pre-trial briefs.
The appellate court recognizes that failure to submit pre-trial briefs is a ground for dismissal with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court.
The appellate court states that rules on pre-trial require religious adherence because they are tools designed to facilitate adjudication.
The appellate court applies the rules with liberality only in proper cases and under justifiable circumstances, and finds such circumstances exist due to the lack of proper notice and the resulting inability to timely prepare the pre-trial brief.

The appeal is GRANTED.
The orders dated May 11, 2011 and August 3, 2011 in Civil Case No. RTC 2010-0037 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The case is remanded to the trial court.
The trial court is directed to proceed with hearing with utmost dispatch.
Atty. Haide B. Vista-Gumba and Atty. Joselito FandiAo are ordered to immediately apprise the trial court of their representation status in the case.