Effect of Absence in Pre-Trial

See - The Pre-Trial Cannot Be Taken For Granted. It Is Not A Mere Technicality In Court Proceedings For It Serves A Vital Objective: The Simplification, Abbreviation And Expedition Of The Trial, If Not Indeed Its Dispensation... - The Lawyer's Post


"x x x.

The rule is that a court can only consider the evidence presented by respondent in the MCTC because the petitioners failed to attend the pre-trial conference on August 25, 2009 pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.⁠6 The Court, however, clarifies that failure to attend the pre-trial does not result in the “default” of the defendant. Instead, the failure of the defendant to attend shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.

The case of Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company v. Joseph Enario⁠7 discussed the difference between non-appearance of a defendant in a pre-trial conference and the declaration of a defendant in default in the present Rules of Civil Procedure. The decision states:

Prior to the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the phrase “as in default” was initially included in Rule 20 of the old rules, and which read as follows:


Sec. 2. A party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be non-suited or considered as in default.

It was however amended in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Justice Regalado, in his book REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, explained the rationale for the deletion of the phrase “as in default” in the amended provision, to wit:

1. This is a substantial reproduction of Section 2 of the former Rule 20 with the change that, instead of defendant being declared “as in default” by reason of his non-appearance, this section now spells out that the procedure will be to allow the ex partepresentation of plaintiff’s evidence and the rendition of judgment on the basis thereof. While actually the procedure remains the same, the purpose is one of semantical propriety or terminological accuracy as there were criticisms on the use of the word “default” in the former provision since that term is identified with the failure to file a required answer, not appearance in court.

If the absent party is the plaintiff, then his case shall be dismissed. If it is the defendant who fails to appear, then the plaintiff is allowed to present his evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment on the basis thereof. Thus, the plaintiff is given the privilege to present his evidence without objection from the defendant, the likelihood being that the court will decide in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant having forfeited the opportunity to rebut or present his own evidence.⁠8

The pre-trial cannot be taken for granted. It is not a mere technicality in court proceedings for it serves a vital objective: the simplification, abbreviation and expedition of the trial, if not indeed its dispensation.⁠9 More significantly, the pre-trial has been institutionalized as the answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases. Hailed as the most important procedural innovation in Anglo-Saxon justice in the nineteenth century, it paved the way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of the case. It is, thus, mandatory for the trial court to conduct pre-trial in civil cases in order to realize the paramount objective of simplifying, abbreviating and expediting trial.⁠10

In the case at bench, the petitioners failed to attend the pre-trial conference set on August 25, 2009. They did not even give any excuse for their non-appearance, manifestly ignoring the importance of the pre-trial stage. Thus, the MCTC properly issued the August 25, 2009 Order,⁠11 allowing respondent to present evidence ex parte.

The MCTC even showed leniency when it directed the counsels of the parties to submit their respective position papers on whether or not Aguilar and Calimbas could still participate in the trial of the case despite their absence in the pre-trial conference. This gave Aguilar and Calimbas a second chance to explain their non-attendance and, yet, only respondent complied with the directive to file a position paper. The MCTC, in its Order,⁠12 dated April 27, 2011, properly held that since the proceedings were being heard ex parte, Aguilar and Calimbas had no right to participate therein and to cross-examine the witness.

Thus, as it stands, the Court can only consider the evidence on record offered by respondent. The petitioners lost their right to present their evidence during the trial and, a fortiori, on appeal due to their disregard of the mandatory attendance in the pre-trial conference.

x x x."