Appearance of parties; effect of failure to appear | Pre-trial (RULE 18) | CIVIL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the rules and principles governing the appearance of parties and the effect of failure to appear at pre-trial under Rule 18 of the Philippine Rules of Court, along with insights on related jurisprudence, best practices, and relevant considerations.

I. OVERVIEW OF PRE-TRIAL UNDER RULE 18

  1. Nature and Purpose

    • Pre-trial is a mandatory proceeding intended to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action.
    • Under Rule 18 of the Rules of Court (as amended), the court and the parties identify and clarify the issues, consider the possibility of amicable settlement or compromise, and take other measures to simplify the trial.

  2. Mandatory Character

    • Pre-trial is not a mere procedural formality; it is an integral part of due process.
    • The court, motu proprio or upon motion, will not simply dispense with it except for compelling reasons.
    • Failure to set the case for pre-trial when mandated by the rules may lead to a ground for annulment of judgment or serious procedural irregularity.

  3. Scheduling and Notice

    • The court sets the pre-trial after the last pleading has been filed (e.g., Answer, Reply if allowed), and all issues are joined.
    • All parties and their respective counsels receive a notice of pre-trial, indicating the date and place. The notice is mandatory and must be served in due time.

II. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES: WHO MUST ATTEND

  1. Parties and Their Counsel

    • Both the plaintiff and the defendant must appear, along with their respective counsels.
    • If a party is a juridical entity (e.g., a corporation), it must be represented by a duly authorized corporate officer or representative who is fully empowered to enter into compromise or settlement.
    • If a party is the government or a government agency, a representative with written authority is likewise required.

  2. Authority to Enter into Compromise

    • One of the primary purposes of pre-trial is to explore settlement or compromise.
    • The person or representative who attends must have the authority to make binding decisions regarding settlement.
    • The counsel should bring proof of authority, if needed, to show the court that the party representative truly has the power to enter into a compromise agreement.

  3. Assistance of Counsel

    • The presence of the counsel is indispensable because of the various technical and legal matters to be tackled, including stipulations of fact, the marking of evidence, and other procedural agreements.

III. FAILURE TO APPEAR: EFFECTS AND SANCTIONS

A. Failure of the Plaintiff to Appear

  1. Ground for Dismissal of the Action

    • Rule 18, Section 5(a) provides that if the plaintiff fails to appear at the pre-trial, the court may dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.
    • Such dismissal is generally with prejudice, unless the court states otherwise. A dismissal with prejudice bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same cause of action.
    • In some cases, the court, in its discretion, may dismiss the case without prejudice if justified by attendant circumstances.

  2. Exceptions

    • The court has the prerogative to consider the reasons for the plaintiff’s absence. If there are compelling grounds (e.g., serious health emergency) and these are adequately proven, the court may reset the pre-trial once to give the plaintiff another opportunity. This, however, is purely discretionary.

B. Failure of the Defendant to Appear

  1. Ground for Allowing Plaintiff to Present Evidence Ex Parte

    • Rule 18, Section 5(b) states that if the defendant fails to appear, the plaintiff shall be allowed to present its evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment based on the evidence presented.
    • In effect, it is similar to a situation where the defendant loses the opportunity to fully defend, cross-examine witnesses, or object to the plaintiff’s documentary evidence.
    • Although not labeled “default” in the strict sense (since the defendant has already filed an Answer), the principle is akin to the effect of default for failure to appear at trial.

  2. No Automatic Waiver of Rights

    • Even if the defendant fails to appear, the court will still evaluate the plaintiff’s evidence to determine if it meets the required quantum of proof. The defendant does not automatically lose if plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient.
    • However, in practice, this is extremely disadvantageous for the absent defendant because they forfeit their chance to challenge plaintiff’s evidence in open court and possibly put forth their own evidence or defenses during trial.

C. Failure of Both Parties to Appear

  1. Double Dismissal or Sanctions
    • If both plaintiff and defendant fail to appear, the general rule is that the court may dismiss the case (on the ground of non-prosecution). Some courts, as a practical approach, also consider the plaintiff’s failure alone sufficient for dismissal with prejudice, unless reasoned otherwise.
    • The parties must remain vigilant and coordinate with their lawyers to avoid this serious procedural pitfall.

IV. RELATED REQUIREMENTS DURING PRE-TRIAL

  1. Pre-Trial Brief

    • Each party must file a pre-trial brief at least three days before the pre-trial (or within the time the court may prescribe).
    • The pre-trial brief includes:
      • A statement of willingness to enter into an amicable settlement or alternative modes of dispute resolution (ADR).
      • A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulations.
      • The issues to be tried.
      • The evidence to be presented and the purpose thereof.
      • The number and names of witnesses, plus their testimonies as required by relevant rules (e.g., judicial affidavits).
    • Failure to file the pre-trial brief may result in the same sanctions as failure to appear—dismissal if plaintiff, or ex parte presentation of evidence if defendant.

  2. Marking and Comparison of Evidence

    • During pre-trial, parties are expected to mark their documentary evidence, agree on the authenticity and due execution of documents when possible, and even consider the possibility of simplifying the testimonial evidence through admissions.

  3. Stipulations and Admissions

    • The court encourages stipulations of facts and admissions to limit what must be proven at trial.
    • These stipulations bind the parties throughout the proceedings unless shown to be made through palpable mistake or for some extraordinary reason rescinded.

  4. Referral to Mediation or Judicial Dispute Resolution

    • Rule 18 also contemplates the possibility of referring the case to mediation or JDR (Judicial Dispute Resolution).
    • Non-compliance with these ADR directives, when ordered by the court, can result in sanctions.

V. BEST PRACTICES AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Diligence and Communication

    • Lawyers must promptly inform their clients of the date, time, and importance of the pre-trial.
    • Counsel should prepare the client or the authorized representative thoroughly to ensure readiness to discuss settlement, admissions, and other matters.

  2. Authority and Preparedness

    • The client’s representative must have written and competent authority to enter into binding agreements during pre-trial. This ensures that any stipulation or compromise reached is enforceable.

  3. Candor and Good Faith

    • Both parties and counsels must negotiate in good faith and avoid frivolous or dilatory tactics. They must also respect the court’s instruction to come prepared for possible settlement.

  4. Avoiding Delays

    • Courts strictly enforce the rules on pre-trial to curb undue delay. Lawyers who habitually miss or attempt to postpone pre-trials may be administratively liable for improper conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility (to be replaced by the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability once fully in effect).

  5. Consequences of Failure

    • Continuous absences or failure to comply with pre-trial requirements can open lawyers to disciplinary actions, such as citation for contempt or referral to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for administrative proceedings.

VI. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE

  1. Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. vary)

    • Emphasized the mandatory nature of pre-trial and the requirement of good cause for non-appearance to avoid dismissal or ex parte proceedings.

  2. Sarmiento vs. Zaranta, 504 SCRA 180

    • Held that the pre-trial is an integral part of due process, and the parties’ failure to exercise their right to participate amounts to a waiver of such right.

  3. Heirs of Crisologo vs. IAC, 138 SCRA 99

    • Reiterated that courts should be liberal in resetting pre-trials only if the absence is justified, ensuring that justice is not sacrificed to speed but also not hampered by undue delay.

  4. Latest Supreme Court Circulars

    • Various circulars remind judges to strictly observe pre-trial proceedings and impose sanctions for non-compliance, in line with the judiciary’s effort to expedite case disposition.

VII. PRACTICAL TIPS FOR LITIGANTS AND COUNSEL

  1. Coordinate Early

    • Meet with the client or client’s representative well before the scheduled pre-trial. Gather evidence, identify witnesses, and finalize the pre-trial brief early.

  2. Submit the Pre-Trial Brief on Time

    • This document guides the entire proceeding. An inadequate or late brief risks sanctions. Make sure it is carefully prepared, consistent with the latest rules, and complete in detail.

  3. Attend Personally

    • Litigants or their authorized representatives should attend personally and not just rely on counsel. The rules are strict: the individual with the authority to settle must be physically present.

  4. Maintain Good Professional Standing

    • Counsel should show respect to the court by timely appearances, prompt filings, and well-researched submissions. This fosters goodwill and credibility.

  5. Consider ADR

    • Some cases are best resolved amicably. Pre-trial is the prime opportunity to avoid lengthy litigation through compromise or settlement, saving time, resources, and costs.

VIII. CONCLUSION

The appearance of parties at pre-trial under Rule 18 of the Philippine Rules of Court is critical. Failure to appear not only jeopardizes a party’s case—risking dismissal if the plaintiff is absent or ex parte proceedings if the defendant is absent—but also undermines the fundamental purpose of pre-trial: to facilitate a swift and fair resolution. Strict compliance with pre-trial rules, ethical conduct, and diligent preparation are vital to uphold due process, advance efficient case management, and ultimately serve the ends of justice.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login