ANNOTATION

 
THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE
 
by
 
MAURICIO C. ULEP*
 
___________________
 
§ 1. The Law on Pre­Trial, p. 598
§ 2. Pre­Trial Defined, p. 598
§ 3. Purpose and objectives of a pre­trial
conference, p. 599
§ 4. Purpose of entering into stipulation of facts,
p. 600
§ 5. Pre­Trial is mandatory civil, criminal and
custody of minors cases, p. 600
§ 6. Duty and power of trial courts in the conduct
of a pre­trial conference, p. 603
§ 7. Parties must submit their respective pre­trial
briefs at least three days before the conference.
Effect of noncompliance, p. 606
§ 8. Contents of a Pre­Trial Brief, p. 606
§ 9. In the pre­trial guidelines, parties are
required to use the different modes of discovery, p.
607
§ 10. Duty of the court after the conduct of a pre­
trial conference, p. 607
§ 11. Purpose of a pre­trial order, p. 608
§ 12. Parties must honor the stipulations made in
a pre­trial order, p. 608

_______________

*  Former Associate Dean, UE College of Law; Professor of Law; Author

of Law Books; former President, IBP Manila Chapter III.

597

VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 597

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE
 § 13. A Pre­Trial Order is interlocutory, p. 609
§ 14. Stipulations of facts during the pre­trial
conference constitute judicial admissions, p. 610
§ 15. Issues at a pre­trial conference bars the
consideration of other questions on appeal.
Exceptions, p. 610
§ 16. A pre­trial order is not meant to be a detailed
catalogue of each issue, p. 611
§ 17. Conditions for a pre­trial agreement to be
binding on the accused, p. 612
§ 18. Effect of failure to appear during the pre­
trial conference, p. 612
§ 19. Both client and lawyer must be notified and
appear during the pre­trial conference, p. 613
§ 20. Reason why both client and counsel must
attend the pre­trial conference, p. 615
§ 21. Rule when a party or his counsel cannot
appear during the pre­trial conference, p. 615
§ 22. What constitutes a valid ground to excuse
litigants and their counsels at the pre­trial
conference, p. 615
§ 23. Pre­Trial order has the presumption of
veracity,
p. 616
§ 24. When is pre­trial unnecessary, p. 616
§ 25. Time to conduct a pre­trial conference, p. 617
§ 26. Concept of promptness of filing a motion for
pre­trial, p. 617
§ 27. Courts cannot compel parties to enter into
an agreement upon the facts during pre­trial, p. 618
§ 28. The State cannot be bound from mistakes of
its officials during the pre­trial conference, p. 618
§ 29. Pre­trial in criminal proceedings, p. 618

598

598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

§ 30. Pre­trial proceedings must be taken into

consideration in decision making, p. 619
§ 31. Pre­trial is directory not mandatory in court
martial proceedings, p. 619
§ 32. Parties are bound by their admissions and
marking of exhibits during the pre­trial conference,
p. 619
§ 33. Pre­trial is meant to expedite the trial
proper, p. 621
 § 34. Importance of filing a pre­trial brief, p. 621
§ 35. Remedy of a party who was declared as in
default for failure to appear during the pre­trial
conference,
p. 622
§ 36. A lawyer’s failure to file a pre­trial brief is a
dereliction of duty, p. 622
§ 37. A lawyer’s failure to advice a client about
scheduled pre­trial hearing constitutes negligence,
p. 623
§ 38. A lawyer is not required to present a written
authorization from a client during the pre­trial
stage, p. 623
§ 39. The significance of a party’s presence not
only during the pre­trial but also during the trial, p.
623
§ 40. Procedural aspect, p. 624
 
___________________
 
§ 1. The Law on Pre­Trial
The law on pretrial is found in Rule 18, Sections 1 to 7 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
 
§ 2. Pre­Trial Defined
Pretrial is a procedural device intended to clarify and
limit the basic issues between the parties. It thus paves the
way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of the case. Its
main objective is to simplify, abbreviate and expedite trial
or
599

VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 599

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

totally dispense with it. (Custodio v. Corrado, 435 SCRA

500 [2004]. See also Alarcon v. Court of Appeals, 323 SCRA
716 [2000])
 
§ 3. Purpose and objectives of a pre­trial
conference
The purpose of a pretrial conference is to compel the
parties to appear personally before the court to reach, if
possible, a compromise agreement. (Home Insurance Co. v.
United States Lines Co., 21 SCRA 863 [1967]; Rizal
Commercial Banking Corporation v. Magwin Marketing
Corporation, 402 SCRA 592 [2003])
 One of the objectives of pretrial procedure is to take the
trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering.
Pretrial is primarily intended to make certain that all
issues necessary to the disposition of a cause are properly
raised. Thus, to obviate the element of surprise, parties are
expected to disclose at a pretrial conference all issues of
law and fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except
such as may involve privilege or impeaching matter. The
determination of issues at a pretrial conference bars the
consideration of other questions on appeal. (Permanent
Concrete Products, Inc. v. Teodoro, 26 SCRA 332 [1968];
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Oñate, 713 SCRA 678
[2014]; Asian Terminals, Inc. v. First Lepanto­Taisho
Insurance Corporation, 726 SCRA 415 [2014])
A pretrial hearing is meant to serve as a device to clarify
and narrow down the basic issues between the parties, to
ascertain the facts relative to those issues and to enable
the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the
issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that
said trials are carried on in the dark. Pretrial is primarily
intended to make certain that all issues necessary to the
disposition of a case are properly raised. Thus, to obviate
the element of surprise, parties are expected to disclose at
a pretrial conference all issues of law and fact, which they
intend to raise at the trial, except such as may involve
privileged or impeaching
600

600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

matters. The determination of issues at a pretrial

conference bars the consideration of other questions on
appeal. (Son v. Son, 251 SCRA 556, 564; Interlining
Corporation v. Philippine Trust Company, 378 SCRA 521
[2002]; Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Ybañez, 722
SCRA 1 [2014])
 
§ 4. Purpose of entering into stipulation of facts
The purpose of entering into stipulation of facts or
admissions of facts is to expedite the trial and to relieve the
parties and court, as well, of the costs of proving facts
which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which
can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry. (Alarcon v. Court
of Appeals, 323 SCRA 716 [2000])
 
 § 5. Pre­Trial is mandatory in civil, criminal and
custody of minors cases
Pretrial is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy
disposition of cases. It was made mandatory under the
1964 Rules and the subsequent amendments in 1997. The
first and fundamental concern of the rules of procedure is
to secure a just determination of every action. (Toshiba
Information Equipment [Phils.], Inc. v. CIR, 614 SCRA 526
[2010])
Under the Revised Rules of Court, pretrial is mandatory
and the parties as well as their counsel are required to
appear during the pretrial and submit their respective
pretrial briefs. A party who fails to appear at the pretrial
conference maybe nonsuited or considered as in default.
(American Insurance Company v. Manila Port Service, 22
SCRA 482 [1968]; Young v. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA
584 [1991]; Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 472
[1993]; Philippine Pryce Assurance Corp. v. Court of
Appeals, 230 SCRA 164 [1994])
Likewise, under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
during the pretrial, the court shall consider:

601

VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 601

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

(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. (Sec. 2, Rule 18)
In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,
Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and
within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter
period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the
Supreme Court, order a pretrial conference to consider the
following:
(a)  plea bargaining;
(b) stipulation of facts;
(c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;

602

602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;

(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits
the charge but interposes a lawful defense; and
(f)  such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious
trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case. (Sec. 1,
Rule 118, Revised Rules of Court)
Pretrial is also mandatory in criminal cases. The
purpose of entering into a stipulation or admission of facts
is to expedite trial and to relieve the parties and the court,
as well, of the costs of proving facts which will not be
disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained
by reasonable inquiry. These admissions during the
pretrial conference are worthy of credit. Being mandatory
in nature, the admissions made by appellant therein must
be given weight. (People v. Pepito, 413 SCRA 558 [2003];
Office of the Court Administrator v. Español, 440 SCRA 332
[2004])
Pretrial is also mandatory in custody of minors cases.
The rule says: “Within fifteen days after the filing of the
answer or the expiration of the period to file answer, the
court shall issue an order: (1) fixing a date from the pretrial
conference; (2) directing the parties to file and serve their
respective pretrial briefs in such manner as shall ensure
receipt thereof by the adverse party at least three days
before the date of pretrial; and (3) requiring the respondent
to present the minor before the court. The notice of its
order shall be served separately on both the parties and
their respective counsels.” (Sec. 9, A.M. No. 03­04­04­SC
entitled Proposed Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of
Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors dated
April 22, 2003)
603
 VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 603
THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

§ 6. Duty and power of trial courts in the conduct

of a pre­trial conference
Everyone knows that a pretrial in civil actions is
mandatory, and has been so since January 1, 1964. Yet to
this day its place in the scheme of things is not fully
appreciated, and it receives but perfunctory treatment in
many courts. Some courts consider it a mere technicality,
serving no useful purpose save perhaps, occasionally to
furnish ground for non­suiting the plaintiff, or declaring a
defendant in default, or, wistfully, to bring about a
compromise. The pretrial 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 intelligent and
extensively handled.”
In a pretrial, the judge is not a passive arbiter; he is an
active participant who constantly seeks avenues through
which trial can be expedited, simplified or even avoided by
a resort to alternative modes of dispute resolution. The role
and the authority of the trial court during pretrial has been
described by the court in this wise:
“Again, it is unquestionably within the trial court’s
power to require the parties at the pretrial to (a) state the
number of the witnesses in intended to be called to the
stand, their names, addresses, and a brief summary of the
evidence each of them is expected to give, as well as to (b)
formally disclose the number of the documents and things
to be submitted and to furnish copies thereof or a short
description of the nature of each. The tenor or character of
the testimony of the witnesses and of the writings to be
adduced at the trial being thus made known, in addition to
the particular issues of fact and law, it becomes reasonably
feasible to require the parties to state the number of trial
dates that will need to put

604

604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

on his case, and maybe bring about a further agreement

as to other controverted facts, or an amendment of the
pleading.
What needs stressing is that the parties as well as the
trial court must realize that the parties are obliged not only
to make formal identification and specification of the issues
and their proofs, as above described — indeed, there is no
reason why the Court may not oblige the parties to set
these matters down in the separate writings and submit
them to the Court prior to the pretrial, and then to discuss,
refine and embody the matters agreed upon in a single
document at or shortly after the pretrial — but also and
equally as peremptorily, to directly address and discuss
with sincerity and candor and entire good faith each of the
other subjects enumerated in Section 1, Rule 20, i.e., the
‘possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to
arbitration,’ the ‘advisability of a preliminary reference of
issues to a commissioners,’ and such other matters as may
aid in the prompt disposition of the action,’ inclusive of a
resort to the modes of discovery.”
In light of the objectives of a pretrial and the role of the
trial therein, it is evident that judges have the discretion to
exclude witnesses and other pieces of evidence not listed in
the pretrial brief, provided the parties are given prior
notice to this effect.
In the present case, the Notice of Pretrial Conference
warned the parties that “witnesses whose names and
addresses are not submitted at the pretrial may not be
allowed to testify at the trial. In his Pretrial Brief,
petitioner merely stated that the intended to present four
(6) witnesses “whose direct testimony will be finished in an
average of one (1) hour each.” He furthermore requested
four hearing days to present his evidence. Evidently, he did
not comply with the above rules and the Notice of Pretrial
Conference, because he failed to give the names of his
witnesses and the synopsis of their testimonies.

605

VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 605

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

In his Pretrial Order, however, the trial judge did not

exercise his discretion to exclude the unlisted or unnamed
witnesses. Rather, it simply provided that the defendant
will present six witnesses.” It made no mention at all that
they would be barred from testifying unless they were
named. Significantly, it also stated that “plaintiffs will offer
ten witnesses,” without however naming them. Since the
Order allowed respondents (as plaintiffs before the trial
court) to present witnesses, it necessarily follows that it
should grant the same right to petitioner.
Indeed, the court and the parties must pay attention not
only the pretrial briefs, but also to the pretrial order.
Section 7 of the same Rule states:

SEC. 7. Record of pre­trial.—The proceedings in the pretrial

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 admission 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 action, unless modified before trial to
prevent manifest injustice.”

 
Hence, the provision in the Pretrial Order allowing
petitioner to present six witnesses “shall control the
subsequent course of action.” The court a quo proceeded
with the trial without modifying the Order. In the same
vein, respondents did not challenge it before the trial.
Neither did they invoke the power of the trial court to
compel the petitioner to submit the names of his witnesses
and summaries of their testimonies. By their silence,
respondents acquiesced to the Pretrial Order allowing the
presentation of petitioner’s unnamed witnesses. Modifying
a pretrial order during the trial or, worse, when the
defendant is about to present witnesses will indubitably
result in manifest injustice. This could not have been

606

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

the intention of the Rules. (Tiu v. Middleton, 310 SCRA

580 [1999])
 
§ 7. Parties must submit their respective pre­trial
briefs at least three days before the conference.
Effect of noncompliance
Parties must submit their respective pretrial briefs at
least three days before the conference otherwise, they may
be declared as in default. (Philippine Transmarine
Carriers, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 326 SCRA 18 [2000];
Vera v. Rigor, 529 SCRA 729 [2007]; Republic v. Oleta, 530
SCRA 534 [2007])
If the plaintiff is absent, the case will be dismissed.
(Benavidez v. Salvador, 712 SCRA 238 [2013])
The failure of the defendant to file a pretrial brief shall
have the same effect as failure to appear at the pretrial,
i.e., the plaintiff may present his evidence ex parte and the
court shall render judgment on the basis thereof. (Saguid v.
Court of Appeals, 403 SCRA 678 [2003])
 
§ 8. Contents of a Pre­Trial Brief
The trial court must require the parties to submit their
pretrial briefs and to state:
(a) The number of witnesses intended to be called to the
stand;
(b) Brief summary of the evidence each of them is
expected to present;
(c) Number of documents to be submitted with a
description and nature of each;
(d) The tenor and character of the testimony of the
witnesses and the documents to be deduced at the trial;
and

607

VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 607

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

(e) Issues of fact and law. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan,

406 SCRA 190 [2003]. See also Sec. 6, Rule 18, 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure)
 
§ 9. In the pre­trial guidelines, parties are
required to use the different modes of discovery
In the pretrial guidelines, the parties are required to use
the different modes of discovery and deposition under
Rules 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28 within five (5) days from the
filing of the answer. Petitioners can avail of written
interrogatories under Rule 25 to obtain information from
respondents on the proposed amendments or make use of
the request for admission by adverse party under Rule 26
to procure categorical answers under oath from the adverse
party relating to the alleged details. (Locsin v.
Sandiganbayan, 529 SCRA 572 [2007]; Soliman v.
Fernandez, 724 SCRA 525 [2014])
 
§ 10. Duty of the court after the conduct of a pre­
trial conference
 Within five (5) days after the termination of the
preliminary conference, the court shall issue an order
stating the matters taken up therein, including but not
limited to:
1. Whether the parties have arrived at an amicable
settlement, and if so, the terms thereof;
2. The stipulations or admissions entered into by the
parties;
3. Whether, on the basis of the pleadings and the
stipulations and admissions made by the parties, judgment
may be rendered without the need of further proceedings,
in which event the judgment shall be rendered within
thirty (30) days from issuance of the order;

608

608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

4. A clear specification of material facts which remain

controverted; and
5. Such other matters intended to expedite the
disposition of the case. (See Sec. 9, Rule 70, 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure)
 
§ 11. Purpose of a pre­trial order
A pretrial order of the court controls the subsequent
course of action in a case. The issues for trial must be
limited to those not disposed of by admissions or
agreements of counsel. In other words, the court has no
discretion to exclude from trial, issues not resolved by
voluntary agreement between the parties. (Phil.
Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Court of Appeals, 159
SCRA 24 [1988])
In the same token, where the prosecution and the
accused agreed during the pretrial conference to adopt
their respective evidence in the civil case to the criminal
case and reduced to writing the agreement, the accused
cannot subsequently disavow the contents of said
agreement. (Chua­Burce v. Court of Appeals, 331 SCRA 1
[2000])
 
§ 12. Parties must honor the stipulations made in a
pre­trial order
That a pretrial is indispensable in any civil or criminal
action in this jurisdiction is clearly laid out in Rules 18 and
118 of the Rules of Court. It is a procedural device meant to
limit the issues to be tackled and proved at the trial. A less
cluttered case environment means that there will be fewer
points of contention for the trial court to resolve. This
would be in keeping with the mandate of the Constitution
according every person the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases. If the parties can agree on certain facts prior to
trial — hence, the prefix “pre” — the court can later
concentrate on those which are seemingly irreconcilable.
The purpose of pretrial is the simplification, abbreviation
and expedition of the trial, if

609

VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 609

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

not indeed its dispensation. The stipulations are

perpetuated in a pretrial order which legally binds the
parties to honor the same. (Lucenta v. Court of First
Instance of Bukidnon, 162 SCRA 197 [1988]; Abubakar v.
Abubakar, 317 SCRA 264 [1999]. See also Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 144 [1999]
Sec. 4, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure provides: After the pretrial conference, the court
shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts
stipulated and evidence marked. Such order shall bind the
parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and
control the course of the action during the trial, unless
modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice. (People
v. Guzman, 513 SCRA 156 [2007])
  In fact, a party is deemed to have waived the
delimitations in a pretrial order if he failed to object to the
introduction of evidence on an issue outside of the pretrial
order as well as in cross­examining the witness in regard to
said evidence. (Son v. Son, 251 SCRA 556 [1995])
Likewise, all agreements and admissions made or
entered during the pretrial conference shall be reduced in
writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise,
they cannot be used against the accused. (People v. Likiran,
725 SCRA 217 [2014])
 
§ 13. A Pre­Trial Order is interlocutory
A party assailed the pretrial order of the Sandiganbayan
via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. This is
not appropriate because a pretrial order is interlocutory.
This is so because it is one “which does not finally
determine a cause of action but only decides some
intervening matter pertaining to the cause and which
requires further steps to be taken in order to enable the
court to adjudicate the cause on the merits. (Del Rosario,
Jr. v. People, 492 SCRA 170 [2006])
 

610

610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

§ 14. Stipulations of facts during the pre­trial

conference constitute judicial admissions
Admissions made by the parties in the pleadings, or in
the course of the trial or other proceedings do not require
proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown
to have been made through palpable mistake. (Marmont
Resort Hotel Enterprises v. Guiang, 168 SCRA 373 [1988];
Alano v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 269 [1997])
Likewise, agreements reached at the pretrial conference
and embodied in the pretrial order shall control the
subsequent course of the trial and should not be disturbed
unless there would be manifest injustice. (Dy, Jr. v. Court
of Appeals, 198 SCRA 468 [1991])
Upon the other hand, unauthorized admissions during
the pretrial made by counsel should not bind the client.
(Macaraeg v. Court of Appeals, 169 SCRA 259 [1989];
Development Bank of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, 169
SCRA 409 [1989])
 
§ 15. Issues at a pre­trial conference bars the
consideration of other questions on appeal.
Exceptions
Pretrial is primarily intended to make certain that all
issues necessary to the disposition of a case are properly
raised. Thus, to obviate the element of surprise, parties are
expected to disclose at a pretrial conference all issues of
law and fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except
such as may involve privileged or impeaching matter. The
determination of issues at a pretrial conference bars the
consideration of other questions on appeal.
The specific exceptions are:
 (1) Trial courts have authority and discretion to dismiss
an action on the ground of prescription when the parties’
pleadings or other facts on record show
611

VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 611

 THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

it to be indeed time­barred; and it may do so on the basis

of a motion to dismiss, or an answer which sets up such
ground as an affirmative defense; or even if the ground is
alleged after judgment on the merits, as in a motion for
reconsideration; or even if the defense has not been
asserted at all, as where no statement thereof is found in
the pleadings, or where a defendant had been declared in
default. What is essential only, to repeat, is that the facts
demonstrating the lapse of the prescriptive period, be
otherwise sufficiently and satisfactorily apparent on the
record; either in the averments of the plaintiff’s complaint
or otherwise established by the evidence. (Bergado v. Court
of Appeals, 173 SCRA 497 [1989]
(2) Where the issue on the nature of the property was
embodied in the pleadings failed by the parties subsequent
to the complaint and was actively litigated by them without
any objection on the part of the private respondents. (Heirs
of Vicente Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 519 SCRA 250 [2007])
 
§ 16. A pre­trial order is not meant to be a detailed
catalogue of each issue
A pretrial order is not meant to be a detailed catalogue
of each and every issue that is to be or may be taken up
during the trial. Issues that are impliedly included therein
or may be inferable therefrom by necessary implication are
as much integral parts of the pretrial order as those that
are expressly stipulated. (Velasco v. Apostol, 173 SCRA 228
[1989])
In the same manner, failure to ask for correction of a
pretrial order, if any, is fatal. (People v. Abelita, 210 SCRA
497 [1992])
612

612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

§ 17. Conditions for a pre­trial agreement to be

binding on the accused
For a pretrial agreement to be binding on the accused, it
must satisfy the following conditions:
(1) The agreement or condition must be in writing; and
(2) It must be signed by both the accused and their
counsel. (Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, 391 SCRA 415 [2002])
 
 § 18. Effect of failure to appear during the pre­
trial conference
In a pretrial conference, the parties to the case are
notified of the date of the pretrial hearing and are obliged
to obey the orders of the court to that effect. The case can
be dismissed upon failure of the plaintiff to appear at a
pretrial conference. On the other hand, if the defendant
refuses to appear in the pretrial hearing, the court, as a
matter of equity and impartiality, may also order the
plaintiff to present evidence on the merits of the case. Once
jurisdiction has been acquired over the person and the
subject of the case, the trial court has the full control and
disposition thereof. To allow a defendant to appear or not
in a pretrial hearing would be to submit a pretrial
conference at the whims and caprice of the defendant
without any corresponding sanction and action against him
in Court (Province of Pangasinan v. Palisoc, 6 SCRA 299
[1962]. Likewise, a party who fails to appear may be
nonsuited or considered in default (American Insurance Co.
v. Republic, 21 SCRA 464 [1967]; Arcuino v. Aparis, 22
SCRA 407 [1968]; Radiowealth Trading Corp. v. Abastillas,
33 SCRA 93 [1970]; Dionisio v. Sioson Puerto, 60 SCRA 471
[1974]; Miwa v. Medina, 412 SCRA 275 [2003] and the
court may subsequently render a decision thereon after
presentation of evidence ex parte by the plaintiff (Fabar
Incorporated

613

VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 613

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

v. Rodelas, 79 SCRA 638 [1977]; Leonardo v. S.T. Best,

Inc., 422 SCRA 347 [2004])
 
§ 19. Both client and lawyer must be notified and
appear during the pre­trial conference
Both client and lawyer must appear during the pretrial
conference. This is mandatory. Failure of the client to
appear is a ground for dismissal. (Saulog v. Custombuilt
Manufacturing Corporation, 26 SCRA 1 [1968]; Pioneer
Insurance & Surety Corp. v. Hontanosas, 78 SCRA 447
[1977]; Peoples Realty Brokerage Corporation v. Lustre, 85
SCRA 545 [1978], Patalinjug v. Peralta, 90 SCRA 50
[1979]; Fountainhead International Phils., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 194 SCRA 12 [1991])
For this reason, both the client and his lawyer must be
separately notified of the dates of the pretrial conference,
stating therein the time and place and requiring said party
and his counsel to appear thereat. The service to the party
may be made directly to him or through his counsel who
shall be required to serve the notice upon the party. (Lim v.
Animas, 63 SCRA 408 [1975]; Taroma v. Sayo, 67 SCRA
508 [1975]; Ng v. Alfaro, 238 SCRA 486 [1994]; Golden
Flame Sawmill v. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 272 [1995];
De Guia v. De Guia, 356 SCRA 287 [2001])
However, a party may not be declared in default for
failure to appear in the pretrial where only his counsel was
notified of the pretrial schedule. (Pineda v. Court of
Appeals, 67 SCRA 228 [1975])
Likewise, there is no valid pretrial where notice thereof
was not sent to the party­litigant but only to his counsel
(Sagarino v. Pelayo, 77 SCRA 402 [1977]). Absence of a
separate notice of pretrial to the counsel of record, makes
the order of default against petitioner and proceedings are
null and void. (Peoples Realty Brokerage Corporation v.
Lustre, 85 SCRA 545 [1978])

614

614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

Moreover, counsel and client must be given ample

opportunity to appear having in view not only the distance
of the place of hearing but also the time that would be
needed to reach the same from where the party notified
may be at the time of notice and the circumstances in
which they are at the time of service — that is, whether or
not said circumstance would reasonably enable them to
comply with the notice. (Heirs of Jose Fuentes v. Macandog,
83 SCRA 648 [1978])
Hence, if notice of pretrial was not sent and a party was
declared in default thereafter, it constitutes a denial of due
process (Samson v. Court of Appeals, 105 SCRA 781
[1981]). Likewise, a party is denied of due process when the
trial court failed to calendar a case for pretrial conference
(Paz v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 26 [1990]). Procedural
due process demands that such notice be served upon the
parties in the same manner as other orders, resolutions
and decisions of the court in order that they may become
binding upon the parties. (Western Agro Industrial
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 188 SCRA 709 [1990])
Under the present Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, the notice of pretrial should be served
on counsel. The counsel served with notice is charged with
the duty of notifying the party he represents. It only when
a party has no counsel that the notice of pretrial is required
to be served personally on him. (Agulto v. Tecson, 476
SCRA 395 [2005])
However, under Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules, the
nonappearance of a party at the pretrial may be excused
when there is a valid cause shown or when a representative
shall appear in his behalf, and is 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. (Vette
Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. Cheng, 509 SCRA 532 [2006])
615

VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 615

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

§ 20. Reason why both client and counsel must

attend the pre­trial conference
The reason for the presence of the parties during the
pretrial conference is to consider the possibility of an
amicable settlement of the case. Attorneys, without special
authority, cannot compromise their client’s litigation.
(Barde v. Posiquit, 164 SCRA 304 [1988])
 
§ 21. Rule when a party or his counsel cannot
appear during the pre­trial conference
When a party cannot appear and another party or his
lawyer appears not only as his counsel but also as his
representative, it is imperative for that representative to
have “special authority” to make such substantive
agreements as only the client otherwise has capacity to
make. The “special authority” should ordinarily be in
writing or at the very least be duly established by evidence
other than the self­serving assertion of counsel (or the
proclaimed representative). Without the “special
authority,” the lawyer or representative cannot be deemed
capacitated to appear in place of the parties; hence, it will
be considered that the latter has failed to put in
appearance at all, and he may therefore be nonsuited or
considered as in default, notwithstanding his lawyer’s or
delegate’s presence. (Fountainhead International Phils.,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 12 [1991]; Ang Ping v.
Court of Appeals, 310 SCRA 343 [1999]; Alcaraz v. Court of
Appeals, 497 SCRA 75 [2006])
 
 § 22. What constitutes a valid ground to excuse
litigants and their counsels at the pre­trial
conference
What constitutes a valid ground to excuse litigants and
their counsels at the pretrial under Rule 18, Section 4 of
the Rules is subject to the sound discretion of a judge. In
case the

616

616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

defendant fails to attend the scheduled pretrial

conference, the court shall render judgment based on the
evidence presented ex parte by the plaintiff. (Khonghun v.
United Coconut Planters Bank, 497 SCRA 320 [2006])
 
§ 23. Pre­trial order has the presumption of
veracity
Where a pretrial order merely reflected the working
amicable settlement agreed upon by the parties and the
same does not, with finality, adjudicate their claims and
counterclaims against one another, said order cannot be set
aside on the bare allegation that the complaining petitioner
did not understand its terms and import. For a pretrial
order has the presumption of veracity and that the judge
who issued it is presumed to have performed his duty
regularly and faithfully, in the absence of competent proof
to the contrary. (Lao v. Moya, 22 SCRA 471 [1968])
 
§ 24. When is pre­trial unnecessary
A pretrial is unnecessary where the case could not be
settled and that the fact that an amended complaint was
later file with leave of court did not, under the
circumstances, necessitate another pretrial. (Sta. Maria,
Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 45 SCRA 596 [1972])
Pretrial may be dispensed with when only legal
questions are involved. (Trocio v. Labayo, 53 SCRA 97
[1973])
In the same token, once a party attends a pretrial and
manifests its opposition to settling the case amicably, said
party may no longer be compelled to attend a second
pretrial conference. (Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp. v.
Hontanosas, 78 SCRA 447 [1977]; Viron Transportation
Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 400 SCRA 570 [2003])
617
 VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 617
THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

§ 25. Time to conduct a pre­trial conference

The pretrial conference must be conducted from the time
a last pleading is filed. Under the rules of pleading and
practice, the answer is ordinarily the last pleading, but
when the defendant’s answer contains a counterclaim,
plaintiff’s answer to it is the last pleading. When the
defendant’s answer has a cross­claim, the answer of the
cross­defendant to it is the last pleading. Where the
plaintiff’s answer to a counterclaim contains a
counterclaim against the opposing party or a cross­claim
against a co­defendant, the answer of the opposing party to
the counterclaim or the answer of the co­defendant to the
cross claim is the last pleading. And where the plaintiff
files a reply alleging facts in denial or avoidance of new
matter by way of defense in the answer, such reply
constitutes the last pleading. (Pioneer Insurance & Surety
Corp. v. Hontanosas, 78 SCRA 447 [1977]; Peggy v.
Tapucar, 88 SCRA 785 [1979]; Calalang v. Court of
Appeals, 217 SCRA 462 [1993])
 
§ 26. Concept of promptness of filing a motion for
pre­trial
The concept of promptness of a motion to set case for
pretrial is a relative term and must necessarily be a
flexible one. Promptness connotes an action without
hesitation and loss of time. However, promptness is
consistent with delays depending upon circumstances. As
to what constitutes “prompt” filing of a motion to set case
for pretrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court, depending upon the circumstances of each case.
(Olave v. Mistas, 444 SCRA 479 [2004])
618

618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

§ 27. Courts cannot compel parties to enter into an

agreement upon the facts during pre­trial
Courts cannot compel parties to enter into an agreement
upon the facts. Where the parties are unable to arrive at a
stipulation of agreed facts and do not reach an amicable
settlement of their controversy, the court must close the
pretrial proceedings and go forward with the trial of the
case. (Filoil Marketing Corporation v. Dy Pac & Co., Inc.,
160 SCRA 133 [1988])
§ 28. The State cannot be bound from mistakes of
its officials during the pre­trial conference
The State cannot be bound from mistakes of its officials
during the pretrial conference, much more be nonsuited as
a result thereof. This is because the State as a persona in
law is the judicial entity which is the very source of any
asserted right. (Republic v. Alagas, 169 SCRA 455 [1989])
§ 29. Pre­trial in criminal proceedings
In criminal cases, a pretrial may be held by the trial
court only where the accused and his counsel agree. Such
pretrial shall cover plea bargaining, stipulation of acts,
marking for identification of evidence of the parties, waiver
of objections to admissibility of evidence and such other
matters as may promote a fair and expeditious trial. After
pretrial, the trial court shall issue an order reciting the
actions taken, the facts stipulated, and evidence marked,
and thereafter the trial on the merits shall proceed which
shall be limited to matters not disposed of during the
pretrial. (People v. Santiago, 174 SCRA 143 [1989])

619

VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 619

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

§ 30. Pre­trial proceedings must be taken into

consideration in decision making
The pretrial constitutes part and parcel of the
proceedings, and hence, matters dealt with therein may not
be disregarded in the process of decision­making.
Otherwise, the real essence of compulsory pretrial would be
insignificant and worthless. (Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete, 66
SCRA 425 [1975]; Ramos v. Dizon, 498 SCRA 17 [2006])
In fact, if the stipulation of the parties made during the
pretrial appears indubitable, the court can very well
resolve the case without the need of a trial. (Penticostes, Sr.
v. Development Bank of the Philippines, 187 SCRA 424
[1990])
 
§ 31. Pre­trial is directory not mandatory in court
martial proceedings
A failure to conduct a pretrial investigation does not
deprive a general court­martial of jurisdiction. The better
accepted concept of pretrial investigation is that it is
directory, not mandatory and in no way affects the
jurisdiction of a court­martial. (Comendador v. De Villa,
200 SCRA 80 [1991])
 
§ 32. Parties are bound by their admissions and
marking of exhibits during the pre­trial conference
Pretrial is meant to simplify, if not fully dispose of, the
case at its early stage. It is therefore important that the
parties take active roles in the proceedings. The Rules on
Criminal Procedure provide that if the counsel for the
accused and/or the prosecutor do not appear at the pretrial
and do not offer an acceptable excuse for their lack of
cooperation, the court may impose proper sanction or
penalties.
Verily, during pretrial, attorneys must make a full
disclosure of their positions as to what the real issues of the
trial would be. They should not be allowed to embarrass or
incon­

620

620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

venience the court or to injure the opposing litigant by

their careless preparation for a case; or by their failure to
raise relevant issues at the outset of a trial; or, as in this
case, by their unilateral withdrawal of valid stipulations
that they signed and that their clients fully assented to.
The records reveal that the parties were the ones who
volunteered to make the Joint Stipulation of the Facts of
the case.
Thus, the anti­graft court can rightfully expect both
parties arrived upon it with fairness and honesty.
Therefore, petitioners may not assail it on the mere ground
that it would allegedly put the accused at a disadvantage.
Furthermore, a new counsel cannot justify such withdrawal
by the simple expedient of passing the blame on the
previous counsel, who had supposedly not sufficiently
discharged his duty to the client.
If we allow parties to renege on stipulations they validly
entered into during the course of pretrial proceedings,
there would be no end to litigations. Lawyers can wiggle in
and out of agreements the moment they are disadvantaged.
Lawyers should remember, however, that they are not
merely representatives of the parties but, first and
foremost, officers of the court. As such, one of their duties
— assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice — is more significant than that of acquitting their
client, rightly or wrongly.
We stress that candor in all dealings is the very essence
of membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are obliged
to observe rules of procedure in good faith, not to misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice. They should realize that
the earlier they dispose of their cases, especially at the
pretrial stage, the better for them. In doing so, they can
now concentrate and work more efficiently on their other
cases. (Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, 391 SCRA 415 [2002])

621

VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 621

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

§ 33. Pre­trial is meant to expedite the trial proper

 
Then, there is Circular No. 1­89 dated January 19, 1989.
It emphasizes the mandatory nature of continuous trial
and this could be achieved in an elaborate contents of a
pretrial brief which includes “x  x  x d. Copies of all
documents intended to be presented.” In the second
paragraph of the Guidelines of said circular, the Supreme
Court stated:
“The continuous trial system envisioned under
Administrative Circular No. 4 is a mode of judicial fact­
finding and adjudication conducted with speed and
dispatch so that trials are held on the scheduled dates
without needless postponement, the factual issues for trial,
well defined at pretrial and the whole proceedings
terminated and ready for judgment within ninety (90) days
from the date of initial hearing, unless for meritorious
reasons, an extension is permitted, as hereinafter provided
for.”
 
§ 34. Importance of filing a pre­trial brief
The filing of a pretrial brief is important because:
1. They eliminate haphazard preparation. Since pretrial
is a serious business of the court, preparation of the
lawyers and parties for the pretrial in both questions of fact
and of law cannot be over emphasized as an essential
requirement for a pretrial conference.
2. They enable both parties to view the documentary
evidence of the other even before they are presented in
court.
3. They enable the parties to know the testimonies of
each other’s witnesses.
 4. They apprise the courts of the additional points the
parties are willing to stipulate upon, or the addi­
622

622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

tional points which could be inquired into for the

purpose of additional stipulations.
5. They also apprise the court of the respective demands
of the parties, thus, enabling the court to discuss more
intelligently an amicable settlement between or among the
parties. (Soriano v. Reyes, 489 SCRA 328 [2006])
 
§ 35. Remedy of a party who was declared as in
default for failure to appear during the pre­trial
conference
A motion to Set Aside Order of Default is not the proper
remedy of a party who has been declared as in default but a
Motion for Reconsideration. (Jungco v. Court of Appeals,
179 SCRA 213 [1989])
 
§ 36. A lawyer’s failure to file a pre­trial brief is a
dereliction of duty
A lawyer’s failure to submit a pretrial brief is fatal to the
case of the client, as in fact it could result to the dismissal
of the case. His failure to submit the pretrial brief within
the given period constitutes negligence which entails
disciplinary action. Not only is it a dereliction of duty to his
client but to the court as well.
The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on
the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the
surrounding facts. The penalties for a lawyer’s failure to
file the required brief or pleading range from reprimand,
warning with fine, suspension and in grave cases,
disbarment. In one case, a lawyer was suspended for six
months. In this case, the lawyer was suspended from the
practice of law for one year. (Soriano v. Reyes, 489 SCRA
328 [2006])
623

VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 623

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE
 § 37. A lawyer’s failure to advice a client about
scheduled pre­trial hearing constitutes negligence
Sec. 3, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court states that: The
notice of pretrial 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. It is incumbent on the lawyer to advise his client of
any schedule for a pretrial conference. His failure to do so
constitutes negligence which binds his client. (Diaz v. Court
of Appeals, 496 SCRA 468 [2006])
 
§ 38. A lawyer is not required to present a written
authorization from a client during the pre­trial stage
A lawyer is not required to present a written
authorization from a client during the pretrial stage, such
that even the absence of a formal notice of entry of
appearance will not even invalidate the acts performed by
counsel in the client’s name. (Absolute Management
Corporation v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, 730
SCRA 539 [2014])
 
§ 39. The significance of a party’s presence not
only during the pre­trial but also during the trial
An almost lifetime of experience in litigation is the best
witness to the indispensability of a party’s presence (aside
from his lawyer, in case he has the assistance of counsel) in
order to litigate with any reasonable opportunity of success
x  x  x especially during the cross­examination of adverse
party’s witnesses — where the truth must be determined
— every counsel worth his salt must have the assistance
and presence of his client on the spot, for the client
invariably knows the facts far better than his counsel. In
short, even in civil cases, the presence of party (as
distinguished from his
624

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

lawyer alone) is essential to due process. (Republic v.

Sandiganbayan, 239 SCRA 529 [1994])
 
§ 40. Procedural aspect
1. In one case, a pretrial was had, after which the case
was set for trial when the case could not be settled. The
fact that an amended complaint was later, with leave of
court, filed did not necessitate, under the circumstances,
another pretrial. It would have been impractical, useless
and time consuming to call another pretrial, considering
that the government merely adopted and repleaded all the
pleadings of the parties. (Insurance Company of North
America v. Republic, 21 SCRA 887 [1967])
2. It is error for the trial court to dismiss the complaint
for failure of the plaintiff to appear at the pretrial
conference where it appears that the defendant has
previously filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
and the trial court has granted plaintiff a certain number
of days within which to file the opposition. (St. Paul Fire &
Marine Insurance Company v. United States Lines
Company, 42 SCRA 54 [1971])
3. The trial court may narrow down the issue of amount
of recoverable damages at the pretrial if it believes that
plaintiff’s claim for damages had been exaggerated. (Enerio
v. Alampay, 64 SCRA 142 [1975])
4. Where the case is substantially controversial and
involves huge tract of valuable land, courts are cautioned
against unreasonable strictness in matters of pleas for
postponements of pretrial. (Heirs of Jose Fuentes v.
Macandog, 83 SCRA 648 [1978])
5. It is grave abuse of discretion on the part of a trial
judge to declare a party in default for failure of his
625

VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 625

THE IMPORTANCE OF A PRE­TRIAL CONFERENCE

counsel to appear during the first pretrial conference

due to illness. He should have reset the same in the
broader interest of justice. (Tejero v. Rosete, 137 SCRA 69
[1985])
6. The lifting of an order of default does not revert the
action to the pretrial stage, much less render a second
pretrial mandatory. (Development Bank of the Phils. v.
Court of Appeals, 169 SCRA 409 [1989])
7. There is nothing in the Rules that empowers or
authorizes the court to call a second pretrial hearing after
it has called a first pretrial duly attended by the parties.
(Young v. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 584 [1991])
8. Grant or denial of a motion to postpone pretrial
hearing is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
(Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 472 [1993])
9. A dismissal for failure to appear at the pretrial
hearing is deemed an adjudication on the merits, unless
 otherwise stated in the order. (Mondonedo v. Court of
Appeals, 252 SCRA 28 [1996])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.