Friday, March 9, 2012

Absence of parties during pretrial - G.R. No. 181368

G.R. No. 181368

"x x x.



          Sections 4 and 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 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.
    
Section 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.


          From the foregoing, the failure of a party to appear at the pre-trial has adverse consequences.  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 its own evidence.[9]
         

          In the case at bar, the trial court gave petitioners every chance to air their side and even reconsidered its first order declaring petitioners in default.  Notwithstanding, petitioners and their counsel failed to take advantage of such opportunity and disregarded the legal processes, by continuously failing to appear during the pre-trial of the case without any valid cause.  Clearly, when the trial court allowed the respondents to present evidence ex parte due to the continued failure of the petitioners to attend the pre-trial conference, it did so in accordance with Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and with due regard to the constitutional guarantee of dueprocess.  Plainly, petitioners cannot complain that they were denied dueprocess. What the fundamental law prohibits is total absence of opportunity to be heard.  When a party has been afforded opportunity to present his side, he cannot feign denial of due process.[10]

          In The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company v. Enario,[11] the Court held that 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 Court said that:

            The importance of pre-trial in civil actions cannot be overemphasized.  In Balatico v. Rodriguez, the Court, citing Tiu v. Middleton, delved on the significance of pre-trial, thus:

Pre-trial is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases. Although it was discretionary under the 1940 Rules of Court, it was made mandatory under the 1964 Rules and the subsequent amendments in 1997. Hailed as "the most important procedural innovation in Anglo-Saxon justice in the nineteenth century," pre-trial seeks to achieve the following:

(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.[12]


          Petitioners' repeated failure to appear at the pre-trial amounted to afailure to comply with the Rules and their non-presentation of evidence before the trial court was essentially due to their fault.

x x x."