Rule 18

Pre-Trial

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 18

PRE-TRIAL
Pre-trial in criminal cases is Rule 118. In civil cases, is Rule 18. It used to be Rule 20.
Now, take note that no case can reach the trial stage without undergoing Pre-Trial after the
issues have been joined.
Section 1. When conducted. After the last pleading has been served and
filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the
case be set for pre-trial. (5a, R20)

In civil actions, after the last pleading has been filed (Reply or Answer) the plaintiff is
duty bound to move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial. No civil action can reach
the trial stage without passing the pre-trial period.
Pre-trial in criminal cases is only optionalthe accused and his lawyer have to agree.
In civil cases, the pre-trial is MANDATORY no case can reach the trial stage without
undergoing Pre-Trial. And it is the duty of the plaintiff and not of the clerk of court to move
to set the pre-trial. A motion for pre-trial can be filed ex parte, an exception to the rule
that no motion can be filed ex parte.
Sec. 2. Nature and purpose. The pre-trial is mandatory. The court shall
consider:
(a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to
alternative modes of dispute resolution;
(b) The simplification of the issues;
(c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;
(d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of
documents to avoid unnecessary proof;
(e) The limitation of the number of witnesses;
(f) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner;
(g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary
judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor be found to
exist;
(h) The advisability or necessity of suspending the proceedings; and
(i) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.
(1a, R20)

(a) THE POSSIBILITY OF AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OR OF A SUBMISSION TO

ALTERNATIVE MODES OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Remember that the policy of the law in civil cases is settlement to save time and
expense. Here, you get something from me and I get something from you. Then we will
submit out agreement to the court. In an amicable settlement, walang panalo and wala
ring talo. So everybody goes home happy.
There was an article where it says that one of the best gauge of a good lawyer is not
that he has many cases, but that he knows how to settle a case because he saves his
client from a lot of trouble. While a bad lawyer is one whose cases always end up in trial
he has many cases and he does not have the time anymore to study each cases. So, he
ends up inefficient.
As a matter of fact, even Abraham Lincoln who was a lawyer and became one of the
best presidents of the United State, gave an advice to lawyers: Discourage litigation.
Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the
nominal winner is often a real loser in fees, expenses and waste of time. As a
peacemaker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man there will still be
business enough. Meaning, if you are a lawyer, you have a strong influence to convince
your client to settle the problem with his opponent. You do not have to worry about losing
fees for there are still cases to come. Even if you will come out the winner in the case, you
are still the loser in terms of waste of time, money and effort.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 18
Pre-Trial

of a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution. how to dispose of the

case without passing to court, ba. This is similar to voluntary arbitration in the Labor Code
mas mabilis!. Kung sa court yan, matatagalan pa yan. Example is a controversy in the
construction industry. Pagawa ka ng building. You quarrel with your contractor whether
the building is properly constructed or not. That kind of dispute has to pass through
arbitration like contractors. They will be the one to judge because they are experts in
construction. So it is faster. Anong malay ng judges sa engineering? So, yan ang
tinatawag na alternative modes of dispute resolution.
Now, assuming that the parties cannot settle at the pre-trial stage, does it mean to say
that the pre-trial was a failure? NO, go to [b] to [i] on other ways to hasten the trial.
(b) THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ISSUES
Based on the answers filed, issue will be simplified or lessened/reduced to the most
important and relevant ones.
(c) THE NECESSITY OR DESIRABILITY OF AMENDING THE PLEADINGS;
Take note that there is already a complaint and answer and yet during the pre-trial, the
parties can still amend their complaint or answer. That means that amendments of
pleadings are favored even at this stage. Amendment is necessary which is favored by
the liberality principle, to adjudicate the case upon proper merits.
INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA vs. REPUBLIC
21 SCRA 887
BAR PROBLEM: Suppose A sued B. After pre-trial, it was determined that
there was a necessity for amending the complaint. It was amended. Is there a
need for a new pre-trial for the amended complaint?
ANS: Where a pre-trial has already been had, the fact that an amended
complaint is filed, does not mean the need for a new pre-trial. Pre-trial is not
mandatory. Exception to this is when the parties agree to conduct another pretrial.
(d) STIPULATION OF FACTS
Stipulation of facts means we can agree on some facts and there is no need of proving
them in court because we already agreed. Such will hasten the trial because matters
validly agreed upon can be dispensed with (e.g., size of the land, improvements thereon,
stipulations, due execution of documents, etc.)
Now, while the law encourages stipulation of facts, courts cannot compel the parties to
do stipulate facts under the threat of dismissal. In the 1988 case of:
FILOIL MARKETING CORP. vs. DY PAC & CO.
160 SCRA 333
HELD: There is no law which compulsorily requires litigants to stipulate at pretrial on the facts and issues that may possibly crop up in a particular case, upon
pain of dismissal of such case. The process of securing admissions whether of
facts or evidence is essentially voluntary, since stipulations of facts, like
contracts, bind the parties thereto who are not allowed to controvert statements
made therein.
(e)

THE LIMITATION OF THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES;

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 18
Pre-Trial

During the pre-trial if there is no settlement, the court will ask, Mr. Plaintiff, how many
witnesses will you present? The plaintiff will say that he will present one hundred
witnesses. So the court will start asking, Why so many? Will it be possible to limit the
number of witnesses from 100 to 15 or 10? Anyway, what one witness will say will just be
the same as what the other witness will say.
That is allowed and that is part of the pre-trial because it will be shortened if the
number of witnesses will be reduced in number.
(f) THE ADVISABILITY OF A PRELIMINARY REFERENCE OF ISSUES TO A COMMISSIONER;
This refer to Rule 32 the title of which is Trial by Commissioners. A commissioner is a
person who may be appointed by a judge to assist the court in determining certain issues.
EXAMPLE: Two people dealing with each other ended up suing each other because
according to plaintiff, You secured these amounts from me and ito lang ang binayad mo.
So, may utang ka pa. But defendant said, No, no, no! Based on my record, overpaid pa
ako. That can happen where there has be confusion already on the invoices and receipts.
Now, if we will try this case in court it will take time because you have to present to the
judge every receipt, every invoice. And these invoices may number by hundreds. And
what is worse is that the judge is not an accountant so he will have a hard time reconciling
these receipts and invoices.
Suppose the judge will say, Alright, since this is a matter of accounting, I will appoint a
CPA to assist me. You can choose whoever this accountant or he may be appointed by
this court. Then you go to him and present all your documents. And then he will now
analyze and then submit to me his findings. Based on his findings we will find out whether
the defendant still owes the plaintiff or there is no more utang.
That is what you call, reference of issues to a commissioner. That will shorten the
proceedings because if the judge will go over the documents one by one it will take time.
EXAMPLE: A boundary dispute between two neighboring landowners. Plaintiff says,
Your fence has already encroached on my property. Defendant answers, No, no, no.
This is the boundary. So bakbakan na naman kayo. The court will ask, Is it true you
encroached on his property? How will the court know that? I think that is very technical.
It is a geodetic engineer surveyor to resolve the issue. He will plot the measurement and
then he will submit a sketch. Then we will find out if there is an encroachment or not.
As far as the judge is concerned, he does not know anything about description of the
land, he is not a surveyor, not a geodetic engineer. So it will be faster if a geodetic
engineer surveyor will be appointed.
What do you call this surveyor? He is a
commissioner.
(g) THE PROPRIETY OF RENDERING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, OR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, OR OF DISMISSING THE ACTION SHOULD A VALID GROUND THEREFORE BE
FOUND TO EXIST;
Q: What do you mean by judgment on the pleadings? What do you mean by summary
judgment?
A: That was already mentioned under Rule 17, Section 1. But we will not take them up
because they will be taken up when we reach Rule 34 and 35. Judgment on the pleadings
or summary judgment are remedies or procedure devised under the Rules of court for the
speedy determination of a civil case. It is one way of speedily terminating a civil case.
Once it is rendered, tapos na ang kaso.
The court, during a pre-trial, is authorized to render a judgment on the pleadings or a
summary judgment if there is a ground. In the same manner, the court may order the
dismissal of the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist because it is
possible that based on the complaint, there is no ground to dismiss but in the course of
pre-trial, the plaintiff may admit something which turns out to be a ground for dismissal.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 18
Pre-Trial

EXAMPLE: According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed money from him three
years ago and did not pay. But during the pre-trial, defendant said, Actually, judge, hindi
man yan three years ago. That was thirty years ago! Plaintiff answered, Actually, judge,
totoo yan. So judge said, My golly, the action has prescribed so I will order the
dismissal. These things can come out in the pre-trial.
(h) THE ADVISABILITY OR NECESSITY OF SUSPENDING THE PROCEEDINGS;
This means that the case will be suspended, nothing will happen in the meantime.
Hindi naman dismissed. The case will just be held in abeyance.
EXAMPLE: Suppose the parties will say, Judge, so far we cannot settle. But maybe if
you will give us one or two months we will be able to come up with a solution. We will
meet once every three days para mag-istorya. I think that is a good ground. In other
words, pwede pa silang mag-areglo, o sige! Because the law encourages amicable
settlement.
Q: Is there a provision in the Rules on the suspension of proceedings in relation to what
we are talking about now? What are the possible grounds for suspending the proceedings
in a civil case?
A: Rule 20, Section 8 on suspension of actions.
Sec. 8. Suspension of actions. - The suspension of actions shall be governed
by the provisions of the Civil Code. (n)

Actually, Section 8 points to Article 2030 of the New Civil Code:

Art. 2030. Every civil action or proceeding shall be suspended:
1. If willingness to discuss a possible compromise is expressed by one or
both parties; or
2. If it appears that one of the parties, before the commencement of the
action or proceeding, offered to discuss a possible compromise but the other
party refused the offer.
The duration and terms of the suspension of the civil action or proceeding
and similar matters shall be governed by such provisions of the rules of court
as the Supreme Court shall promulgate. Said rules of court shall likewise
provide for the appointment and duties of amicable compounders.

So a civil action may be suspended if at any time one of the parties offered to discuss a
possible compromise because the policy of the law is to have civil cases settled between
the parties amicably. Let the parties talk among themselves to come up with the
possibility of amicable settlement even if one of the parties refuse to accept such an offer.
(i) SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS ANY AID IN THE PROMPT DISPOSITION OF THE ACTION.
That is very broad any other matter which will hasten the case. Anything under the
sun can fall under this.
PURPOSE OF A PRE-TRIAL
A review of Section 2 will show that the primary purpose of a pre-trial is how to end the
case immediately because of amicable settlement. If the parties can settle, then there is
no need to proceed to trial. But if for valid or serious reason they cannot settle, because
the court can only encourage and not force a settlement, then they shall proceed with the
pre-trial to find out if we can have the case tried speedily and decided immediately by
talking about other things like amending the pleadings, stipulation of facts, admission of
documents to avoid unnecessary proofs, limitation in the number of witnesses. So if we
cannot settle, we can talk of other things to speedily terminate the case. Instead of trying
the case for two years, we can probably finish in six months.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 18
Pre-Trial

DEVELOPMENT BANK vs. COURT OF APPEALS

169 SCRA 409
NOTE: This case penned by Justice Narvasa, is practically all about pre-trial.
It is actually the bible on pre-trial. And this is what exactly Justice Narvasa said:
HELD: Everyone knows that a pre-trial in civil actions is mandatory, and has
been so since January 1, 1964 (effectivity of the Revised Rules of Court). Yet to
this day its place in the scheme of things is not fully appreciated, and it receives
but perfunctory treatment in many courts [Meaning, it is only complied with for
the sake of compliance.] Some courts consider it a mere technicality, serving no
useful purpose save perhaps, occasionally to furnish ground for non-suiting the
plaintiff, or declaring a defendant in default, or, wistfully, to bring about a
compromise. The pre-trial device is not thus put to full use. Hence it has failed in
the main to accomplish the chief objective for it: the simplification, abbreviation
and expedition of the trial, if not indeed its dispensation. This is a great pity,
because the objective is attainable, and with not much difficulty, if the device
were more intelligently and extensively handled.
The Supreme Court noted the inability of trial judges to properly apply and appreciate
the value of Rule 18.
Sec. 3. Notice of pre-trial. The notice of pre-trial shall be served on
counsel, or on the party who has no counsel. The counsel served with such notice
is charged with the duty of notifying the party represented by him. (n)

This is in compliance with Rule 13. Notice should be given to counsel or to the parties
in order to comply with due process. Under Section 1, it is the duty of the plaintiff to
promptly move ex-parte that the case be set for trial and you will be given a notice of pretrial from the clerk of court. The notice of pre-trial shall be served on counsel or on the
party who has no counsel.
Under the PRIOR RULE, the procedure was, there must be notice to lawyer and notice
to the party dalawang notice notice to the lawyer is not notice to the party, as an
exception to the Rule 13. But NOW, to simplify the job of the court processor, the rule is,
notice to the counsel is now notice to the party.
ARCILLA vs. ARCILLA
138 SCRA 560
FACTS: There was a pre-trial conference on July 29, where all the parties are
notified through their lawyers pursuant to Section 3. They appeared but
somehow the pre-trial was terminated on July 29. The court decided to reset the
pre-trial on Oct. 2. The parties agreed. Normally, the procedure is, when that
happens, there will be another written notice. There should be another written
notice sent to the lawyers and parties.
In this case, no such written notice was issued. On Oct. 2, the defendant did
not appear. With that, he was declared to have lost his rights to present his side.
He was considered in default. He questioned the order on the ground that he did
not receive any notice on the Oct. 2 pre-trial conference. Therefore, all
subsequent proceedings, including the judgment rendered against the defendant
were void. Is he correct?
HELD: At first blush, petitioners aforesaid contention appears very tenable,
for indeed it is settled that a declaration of default, in the absence of a notice of
pre-trial constitutes denial of due process. But a deeper examination of the
pleadings and the record of the case would show that petitioner was present
during the pre trial conference on July 29, 1975 when the lower court re-set the
pre-trial to October 2, 1975. On the said date, however, although notified, both
petitioner and his counsel did not appear, hence, the declaration of default.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 18
Pre-Trial

So when the lower court reset the pre-trial on Oct. 2, the defendant although ratified
VERBALLY earlier, he failed to appear that is why he was penalized under Section 5. When
the court reset the pre-trial, he agreed. He already knew. Notification need not be too
technical. Despite the lack of a written notice, the defendant was penalized in the
ARCILLA case.
Sec. 4. Appearance of parties. It shall be the duty of the parties and their
counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The non-appearance of a party may be excused
only if a valid cause is shown therefor or if a representative shall appear in
his behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to
submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into
stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents. (n)

There must be notice of pre-trial which will be issued after you comply with Section 1.
Then there will be a schedule. The notice will be served upon the counsel or upon a party,
assuming that he is not represented by a lawyer. The counsel served with such notice is
charged with the duty of notifying the party represented by him.
And under Section 4, it shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at
the trial. Meaning, the lawyer alone who is there will not suffice. Kailangan dalawa kayo.
Q: Suppose the lawyer will say, Well, your honor, I am here. Anyway, appearance by
counsel is
appearance by party. Puwede ba yan?
A: Ah hindi yan puwede because in a pre-trial, the law requires the presence of the
party and his counsel because the purpose of a pre-trial is to consider the possibility of an
amicable settlement.
Q: Can the lawyer enter into an amicable settlement with the adverse party?
A: No, you cannot. The lawyer has no power or authority because amicable settlement
is a matter of bargaining.
EXAMPLE: Defendant says, Yung interest na na-due, hatiin na lang natin. You condone
half of it, and bayaran ko is fifty percent na lang. And give me 24 months to pay. The
lawyer says okay. Then pag sabi mo sa client, baka magalit yon, he might fire you! Pera
gud niya yon. That is why the parties and their counsel should both be present. And that
is also the reason why a notice of pre-trial should be given to the party.
Section 3 says a counsel served with such notice is charged with the duty of notifying
the party represented by him. That is new provision. The OLD LAW is, based on decided
cases, aside from notice to the lawyer, there must be another notice to the party. So if
you notify the lawyer but you did not send a separate notice to the party and therefore the
party did not appear, you cannot take it against him. Under Rule 13, notice to lawyer is
notice to party, except in pre-trial, sabi ng SC. That is the old jurisprudence OBSOLETE!
But the PRESENT RULE is: Notice to lawyer is notice to party.
Q: Is it possible for a party who will not appear a pre-trial but his appearance is not
necessary?
A: YES, Section 4, if a valid cause is shown like, he got sick. Or, if a representative shall
appear in his behalf duly authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to
submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, etc.
EXAMPLE: You tell your client, We will have a pre-trial next week and your presence is
necessary. Client: But I am leaving for America tomorrow. I cannot be there. Lawyer: Is
there anybody whom you can authorize, take your place? Client: Yes, my brother or my
manager. Lawyer: Okay, you write a written authority that you are authorizing your
brother to appear in your behalf with full power to settle. Yan and tinatawag na Power of
Attorney. Intiendes?
Meaning, you can delegate somebody who has a written authority. Sometimes it is the
lawyer who is given the Power of Attorney authorizing him to enter into an amicable

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 18
Pre-Trial

settlement. Walang Problema yan. Otherwise, you will see in the next section what is the
effect if you fail to appear in a pre-trial automatic, talo ka sa kaso.
Q: Suppose one of the parties in the case is a CORPORATION. A corporation cannot
appear because it has no physical existence. Who is authorized to appear in a pre-trial in
order to enter into an amicable settlement? Are the managers or vice-president,
authorized to appear in a pre-trial in behalf of the bank which is a party to the case?
A: NO! Even the president or the chairman of the board has no power.
Q: Who can bind a Corporation?
A: Only the Board of Directors has the authority to bind a corporation.
Q: If there will be a pre-trial of a case involving one of the banks in Manila but the case
is in Davao, am I saying that everytime there is a pre-trial all the members of the Board
will fly to Davao to attend the pre-trial and pass a resolution inside the courtroom?
A: No. The Board can pass a resolution naming the person who will represent the
corporation. So, the manager for example, can appear in the pre-trial provided he is
authorized through a board resolution.
Again, the RULE is: Both the lawyer and the party should appear in the pre-trial
because the first purpose of pre-trial is the possibility of an amicable settlement and the
lawyer alone has no authority to enter into an amicable settlement.
Non-appearance may be EXCUSED only if:
1. A representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing (e.g. SPA)
2. For a valid cause example, if you are sick.
Q: If it is a corporation, what is that authority?
A: It is a board resolution because only the board of directors has the authority to bind
the corporation.
EFFECTS OF FAILURE TO APPEAR IN PRE-TRIAL
Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear. The failure of the plaintiff to appear
when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for
dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise
ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be
cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to
render judgment on the basis thereof. (2a, R20)

Q: What happens if it is the plaintiff who failed to appear in the pre-trial?

If the PLAINTIFF fails to appear, his case will be dismissed for not appearing. And as a
rule, the dismissal is with prejudice. Pag dismiss, that is the end of the case. It has the
same effect as Rule 17, Section 3: Failure to appear during the trial for the presentation of
his evidence-in-chief. So, if the plaintiff fails to appear during the trial when it is his turn to
present his evidence, under Rule 17, his case shall be dismissed and generally the
dismissal is with prejudice, an adjudication upon the merits. (Res Adjudicata applies).
The old rule was that the plaintiff will be declared non-suited. NOW, it shall be a cause
for dismissal of the action.
Q: Is there any difference between non-suited and dismissal of action?
A: There is suppose to be a difference based on the case of
BA FINANCE CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
224 SCRA 163 [OBSOLETE!]
HELD: When the defendant moves to dismiss the case, then you are also
killing your counterclaim. If you are, the defendant you should not move for the
dismissal. You only move to declare the plaintiff as non-suited because when the
plaintiff is non-suited, he is barred from proving his cause of action but the case

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 18
Pre-Trial

is not dismissed. Since the case is not dismissed, it is like the plaintiff who is in
default.
Ngayon wala na yan because now, you can have the case dismissed but your
counterclaim is still alive. So, the ruling in BA FINANCE CORP. is now OBSOLETE.
Q: What happens if it is the plaintiff who failed to appear in the pre-trial?
A: If it is the DEFENDANT who failed to appear, the law says, it shall be a cause to allow
the plaintiff to present his evidence ex-parte and the court to render judgment on the
basis thereof.
You will notice that if it is the defendant who failed to appear under the old law, he will
be considered as in default. NOW, the word default is avoided it shall be a cause to
allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on
the basis thereof. That is the same effect as the old rule.
Q: Why is the new rules avoiding the word default?
A: Because, strictly you cannot really have the defendant declared in default when he
has filed an answer. Kaya nga the Rules of Court was very clear in the 64 Rules by saying
considered as in default to distinguish it. But the confusion is still there eh. In other
words, to avoid confusion, the plaintiff will be allowed to present evidence ex parte. Para
na ring in default without using the word default.
Q: Defendant failed to appear in the pre-trial. Plaintiff was allowed to present his
evidence ex parte. So parang in default ang defendant. Now, what is the REMEDY of the
defendant? Because if you look at Rule 9 on default, the proper motion for the defendant
in default is to file a motion to lift the order of default on the ground of F.A.M.E. and that he
has a meritorious defense. Is that also the remedy for the defendant who failed to appear
in the pre-trial?
A: NO, that is the case of
JUNGCO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
179 SCRA 213 [1989]
HELD: Under Rule 9 on default, if you are declared in default, you only file a
motion to lift the order of default and you have to allege that you have a
meritorious defense. But in Rule 18, when you file a motion, it is a simply a
motion for reconsideration where you will state the reason why you failed to
appear and ask that the order be reconsidered and that the judgment be set
aside.
Under Rule 18, there is no use to say that you have a meritorious because
you have already filed an answer. The defense is already there. Unlike in
defaulted defendant, the court has no idea what is your answer kaya nga you
must convince the court that you have a meritorious defense.
So a simple MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION is sufficient.
Q: Assuming that the plaintiff is already presenting evidence, and the defendant filed a
motion for reconsideration. The court reconsidered and recalled the plaintiffs ex-parte
presentation of evidence. Do they have to go back to pre-trial.
A: GENERAL RULE: NO. (DBP vs. CA, 169 SCRA 409)
EXCEPTION: YOUNG vs. CA, 204 SCRA 584
General Rule: DEVELOPMENT BANK vs. COURT OF APPEALS
169 SCRA 409 [1989]
HELD: When a pre-trial is terminated, you do not go back to it. The court shall
let the plaintiff continue and just let the defendant cross-examine the plaintiffs
witnesses. As a general rule a second pre-trial cannot be granted, the remedy
instead is to go to trial.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

10

Rule 18
Pre-Trial

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition
Exception: YOUNG vs. COURT OF APPEALS
204 SCRA 584 [1991]

HELD: The pre-trial stage is completed after a party had been ordered nonsuited and the complaint is dismissed or after the court allows the plaintiff to
present his evidence ex-party. The order lifting it does not revert the action to its
pre-trial stage, or authorize, much less, a second pre-trial UNLESS the parties
themselves had voluntarily agreed that the case be set anew for pre-trial.
Neither the Rules nor the doctrine bars the parties from agreeing, after such
lifting, to hold a pre-trial and to effectively accomplish its objectives.
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
Sec. 6. Pre-trial brief. The parties shall file with the court and serve on
the adverse party, in such manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least
three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial
briefs which shall contain, among others:
(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into amicable settlement or
alternative modes of dispute resolution, indicating the desired terms thereof;
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;
(c) The issues to be tried or resolved;
(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the purpose thereof;
(e) A manifestation of their having availed or their intention to avail
themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners; and
(f) The number and names of the witnesses, and the substance of their
respective testimonies.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to
appear at the pre-trial. (n)

This is a new provision not found in the 1964 Rules. However, the requirement of a
pre-trial brief is not new because this was a requirement in SC Circular No. 1-89 which was
issued on January 19, 1989. The submission of pre-trial briefs by lawyers has been
required by that Circular. This circular is now incorporated.
Take note that at least three(3) days before the date of pre-trial the parties lawyers
should file pre-trial briefs to be furnished with each other. In that brief, you summarize
everything covered by your pleadings. It contains cause of action, defenses, etc. The
court, instead of reading the pleadings and answer, only the document where you
condensed everything will be read. It contains: Cause of action; defenses; issued to be
tried; admitted facts; facts you believe should be stipulated; the documents or exhibits
you would like the present; or who are the witnesses and what are they going to testify,
etc. Thats a summary of everything that is going to happen from the beginning of the trial
up to the end.
Q: What happens if a party fails to file a pre-trial brief?
A: Last paragraph, Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure
to appear a the pre-trial conference. So, if it is the PLAINTIFF who failed to file a pre-trial
brief, his complaint may be ordered dismissed. If it is the DEFENDANT who failed to file a
pre-trial brief, that would be a cause for the court to allow the plaintiff to present his
evidence ex-parte.
Q: Up to this point, let us try to summarize. What are the instances where the
PLAINTIFF may be penalized by the court with a dismissal of his complaint?
A: In the following instances:
1.) Where plaintiff fails to appear during the presentation of his evidence-in-chief to
prove his cause of action (Rule 17, Section 3);
2.) Failure to appear in the pre-trial conference (Rule 18, Section 5);
3.) Failure to file a pre-trial brief (Rule 18, Section 6)
Q: On the other hand, when would the DEFENDANT be penalized by the penalty that
plaintiff be allowed to present his evidence ex parte and judgment be rendered based
purely on such evidence?

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

11

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 18
Pre-Trial

A: In the following instances:

1.) Failure to file an answer under Rule 9 on Default;
2.) Failure to appear in a pre-trial conference (Rule 18, Section 5);
3.) Failure to file a pre-trial brief (Rule 18, Section 6)
Sec. 7. Record of pre-trial. The proceedings in the pre-trial shall be
recorded. Upon the termination thereof, the court shall issue an order which
shall recite in detail the matters taken up in the conference, the action taken
thereon, the amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements or
admissions made by the parties as to any of the matters considered. Should the
action proceed to trial, the order shall explicitly define and limit the issues
to be tried. The contents of the order shall control the subsequent course of
the action, unless modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice. (5a,
R20)

A pre-trial conference although it is less formal than a trial, thats why in most cases,
pre-trial is not done in open court but inside the chamber of the judge where the
atmosphere is more relaxed because you are going to talk about settlement, eh. However,
do not believe that that is just a decoration. That is an official proceeding. Everything
there is recorded. According to section 7, after a pre-trial conference is terminated, the
court will issue what is known as pre-trial order. That is now expressly required by the
rules.
A pre-trial order should state or should summarize everything what was taken up in a
pre-trial conference, the issues to be resolved, the facts to be admitted, etc. what is
important there is the third sentence: Should the action proceed to trial, the order shall
explicitly define and limit the issues to be tried. The contents of the order shall control the
subsequent course of the action, unless modified before trial to prevent manifest
injustice. It may be an ordinary sentence but the effect of that is terrible.
Suppose here is the complaint and it is answered. Based on the complaint and the
answer, you can determine the issues based on the admissions and denials in the answer.
For instance, there are five issues, they are to be stated in a pre-trial brief. During the pretrial conference, the court may reject other issues which are not important with the
agreement of the parties. Thus, there may be only one real issue like whether or not the
loan has been paid. The court may then issue a pre-trial order containing such issue. The
defendant may have also several defenses in his answer. After the pre-trial order is
issued, such order should be followed. Forget the complaint and the answer.
In effect, the complaint and the answer has already been superseded by the pre-trial
order. This section in effect says that the pre-trial order supersedes the pleadings.
That is why the case of DBP vs. CA, supra, where the Court through Justice Narvasa,
emphasized the importance of a pre-trial. The Court noted that if there is a pre-trial order
because the judge followed Rule 18 religiously, during the trial the judge will not have a
hard time in determining what is the issue to be resolved. And babasahin lang niya ay ang
pre-trial order. Everything is to be based there. Without the pre-trial order, you will still
have to look at the pleadings of both parties. The pre-trial order is a very important piece
of document.
There was a case years ago, Plaintiff vs. Defendant. Banggaan ba. In a vehicular
collision, the plaintiff is claiming damages from the defendant. His allegations naturally
would point out that all fault and negligence is caused by the defendant. As usual, when
the defendant files his answer, he is denying that. As a matter of fact, he will claim that
the one negligent is the plaintiff. Chances are, since his vehicle was also damaged, the
defendant will file a counterclaim. So, pasahan yan!
What happened in the pre-trial conference is that, the lawyers were asked to define the
issues. The plaintiffs lawyer asked the defendants lawyer to define the issues: (1.) Is
the plaintiff liable for actual damages on defendants counterclaim? (2.) Is the plaintiff
liable to the defendant on his counterclaim for exemplary damages? (3.) Is plaintiff liable
to the defendant on his counterclaim for attorneys fees and expenses for the litigation?
12
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

Rule 18
Pre-Trial

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

So, those were the issues. The plaintiffs lawyer, siguro hindi nakikinig ba. Judge
asked, O, do you agree panyeros? Yes, Okay. When the pre-trial order was issued, those
issues were contained. Wheres the defendants liability to the plaintiff? Wala na! The issue
is whether or not the plaintiff is liable to the defendant. During the trial, the plaintiff
presented his evidence to prove the defendants liability. The defendants lawyer objected
on the ground that there was no issue contained in the order on the liability of the
defendant. The only issue is whether plaintiff is liable to the defendant. Naisahan ang
plaintiff akala kasi niya ang pre-trial order is not important.
(Dean did not know how the case ended, but commented: The plaintiff asked for the
amendment of the pre-trial order because this is a manifest injustice. Plaintiff is the one
suing and how he is to be held liable. Now, if I were the judge, I will really modify because
its unfair no! You are the one suing and now you end up as a defendant. But I will stress
to the plaintiff na huwag kang tatanga-tanga sa pre-trial! [gago!])
Now, an example of the last sentence of Section 7 UNLESS modified before trial to
prevent manifest injustice is the case of SESE vs. IAC (152 SCRA 585 [1987]) where even
if the pre-trial order does not recite the issue, it can still be proven. Under Section 5 of Rule
10, even if an issue was not raised in a pre-trial order and no one objected to the issue
raised, it can be tried and later the pre-trial order can be amended to conform with issue/s
raised.

published by
LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles Glenda Buhion Joseph
Martin Castillo Aaron Philip Cruz Pearly Joan Jayagan Anderson Lo
Yogie Martirizar Frecelyn Mejia Dorothy Montejo Rowena Panales Regina Sison
Ruby Teleron Marilou Timbol Maceste Uy Perla Vicencio Liberty Wong Jude Zamora
Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena
SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong Emily Alio Karen Allones Joseph Apao
Melody Penelope Batu Gemma Betonio Rocky Cabarroguis Charina Cabrera
Marlon Cascuejo Mike Castaos Karen de Leon Cherry Frondozo Jude Fuentes Maila Ilao
Ilai Llena Rocky Malaki Jenny Namoc Ines Papaya Jennifer Ramos Paisal Tanjili

LAKAS ATENISTA 20012002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez Jessamyn Agustin

Judee Uy Janice Joanne Torres Genie Salvania Pches Fernandez Riezl Locsin
Kenneth Lim Charles Concon Roy Acelar Francis Ampig Karen Cacabelos
Maying Dadula Hannah Examen Thea Guadalope Myra Montecalvo Paul Ongkingco
Michael Pito Rod Quiachon Maya Quitain Rina Sacdalan Lyle Santos Joshua Tan
Thaddeus Tuburan John Vera Cruz Mortmort

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

13