TOPIC: RULE 18: PRE-TRIAL 5.
MCTC directed the counsels of both parties
1. AGUILAR V. LIGHTBRINGERS CREDIT
COOPERATIVE (LCC)
G.R. NO. 209605 | January 12, 2015 | J.
Mendoza
Digested by: Alvarez, Marjorie L.
DOCTRINES:
1. Failure to attend the pretrial does not result in
the “default” of the defendant. Instead, the
failure of the defendant to attend shall be
cause to allow the plaintiff to present his
evidence ex parte and the court to render
judgment on the basis thereof.
2. It is mandatory for the trial court to conduct
pretrial in civil cases in order to realize the
paramount objective of simplifying,
abbreviating and expediting trial.
FACTS:
1. This case stemmed from three (3) complaints
for sum of money filed by LCC against
petitioners Aguilar, Calimbas and
Tantiangco. The complaints alleged that
Aguilar and Calimbas were members of the
cooperative who borrowed money from the
funds:
 Tantiangco allegedly borrowed
P206, 315 but net loan was only
P45,862.
 Calimbas allegedly borrowed
P202, 800 but net loan was only
P60,024.
 Aguilar allegedly borrowed
P126,849 but net loan was only
P76,152.
2. The three filed their answers and uniformly
claimed that the discrepancy between the
principal amount of the loan evidenced by the
cash disbursement voucher and the net
amount of loan as reflected in PNB checks
showed that they never borrowed the
amounts being collected.
3. On the scheduled pre-trial conference, only
LCC and its counsel appeared.
4. MCTC issued an Order allowing LCC to
present evidence ex parte. The latter
presented its incumbent General Manager
Manalili. He explained that the discrepancy in
checks and cash disbursement vouchers
were due to the accumulated interests from
previous outstanding obligations, withheld
share capital, as well as service and
miscellaneous fees.
to submit their position papers on the issue of
whether or not a party who had been
declared “as in default” might still participate
in the trial which was only complied by LCC.
In its Order, it ruled that petitioners had no
right to participate and to cross-examine the
witnesses.
6. LCC filed its formal offer of evidence.
7. MCTC dismissed the complaint against
Tantiangco because there was no showing
that she received the amount being claimed.
However, it found that both Calimbas and
Aguilar liable for their respective debts
because their receipts of the loan were
proven by their signatures on the dorsal
portions of the checks and vouchers.
8. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal and their
joint memorandum before RTC of Bataan.
Aguilar and Calimbas argued that had they
been allowed to present evidence, they would
have established that the loan documents
were bogus.
9. RTC affirmed MCTC decisions and held that
PNB checks were concrete evidence of the
petitioner’s indebtedness to LCC.
10. Petitioners filed their joint motion for
reconsideration/new trial and reiterated that
they did not receive the proceeds of the
checks. They also moved that the RTC
remand the case to MCTC for a new trial on
account of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Dela
Torre, the bookkeeper of LCC.
11. So petitioners filed a petition for review before
the CA which was dismissed. The CA stated
that the petition was formally defective as the
notary public failed to indicate his notarial
commission number and office address in the
jurat of the “verification and disclaimer of
forum shopping” and the “affidavit of service.”
Moreover, CA denied their motion for
reconsideration because the petitioners still
failed to attach the entire records of the case
which was a mandatory requirement under
Section 2, Rule 42.
12. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
[PROCEDURAL]
1. Whether Section 2, Rule 42 requires that the
entire record of the case be attached to the
petition for review. NO
2. Whether petitioners may be allowed to
participate and to present evidence even
 though they failed to attend pretrial
conference. NO
[SUBSTANTIVE]
3. Whether there was a contract of loan
between the parties. YES
HELD:
1. NO. The provision enumerates the required
documents that must be attached to a petition
for review, to wit: (a) clearly legible duplicate
originals or true copies of the judgments or
final orders of both lower courts, certified
correct by the clerk of court of the Regional
Trial Court; (b) the requisite number of plain
copies thereof; and (c) of the pleadings and
other material portions of the record as would
support the allegations of the petition.
Clearly, the Rules do not require that the
entire records of the case be attached to the
petition for review. Only when these specified
documents are not attached in the petition will
it suffer infirmities under Section 3, Rule 42.
The Court in this case ruled that the petition
was in substantial compliance with the
requirements. The assignment of error in the
petition for review clearly raises questions of
fact as the petitioners assail the appreciation
of evidence by the MCTC and the RTC. Thus,
aside from the decisions and orders of the
MCTC and the RTC, the petitioners should
attach pertinent portions of the records such
as the testimony of the sole witness of
respondent, the copies of the cash
disbursement vouchers and the PNB checks
presented by respondent in the MCTC. In the
petition for review, the petitioners attached
respondent’s complaints before the MCTC
which contained the photocopies of the cash
disbursement vouchers and PNB checks.
These should be considered as ample
compliance with Section 2, Rule 42 of the
Rules of Court.
2. NO. The rule is that a court can only consider
the evidence presented by respondent in the
MCTC because the petitioners failed to
attend the pretrial conference on August 25,
2009 pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of the
Rules of Court. The Court, however, clarifies
that failure to attend the pretrial does not
result in the “default” of the defendant.
Instead, the failure of the defendant to attend
shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present
his evidence ex parte and the court to render
judgment on the basis thereof.
The case of Philippine American Life &
General Insurance Company v. Joseph
Enario discussed the difference between
nonappearance of defendant in a pretrial
conference and the declaration of a
defendant in default in the present Rules of
Civil Procedure. Prior to the 1997 Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure, the phrase “as in
default” was initially included in Rule 20 of the
old rules which states that “a party who fails
to appear at a pretrial conference may be
nonsuited or considered as in default.”
However, it was amended. Justice Regalado,
in his book explained the rationale for the
deletion of the phrase “as in default.” The
amended provision now provides that instead
of defendant being declared “as in default” by
reason of his nonappearance, the procedure
will be to allow the ex parte presentation of
plaintiff’s evidence and the rendition of
judgment on the basis thereof. While actually
the procedure remains the same, the purpose
is one of semantical propriety or
terminological accuracy as there were
criticisms on the use of the word “default” in
the former provision since that term is
identified with the failure to file a required
answer, not appearance in court.
If the absent party is the plaintiff, then his
case shall be dismissed. If it is the defendant
who fails to appear, then the plaintiff is
allowed to present his evidence ex parte and
the court shall render judgment on the basis
thereof. Thus, the plaintiff is given the
privilege to present his evidence without
objection from the defendant, the likelihood
being that the court will decide in favor of the
plaintiff, the defendant having forfeited the
opportunity to rebut or present his own
evidence.
In the case at bench, the petitioners failed to
attend the pretrial conference. They did not
even give any excuse for their
nonappearance, manifestly ignoring the
importance of the pretrial stage. Thus, the
MCTC properly issued the Order allowing
respondent to present evidence ex parte. The
MCTC even showed leniency when it
directed the counsels of the parties to submit
their respective position papers on whether or
 not Aguilar and Calimbas could still
participate in the trial of the case despite their
absence in the pretrial conference. This gave
Aguilar and Calimbas a second chance to
explain their nonattendance and, yet, only
respondent complied with the directive to file
a position paper.
Thus, as it stands, the Court can only
consider the evidence on record offered by
respondent. The petitioners lost their right to
present their evidence during the trial and, a
fortiori, on appeal due to their disregard of the
mandatory attendance in the pretrial
conference.
[SUBSTANTIVE]
3. YES. The Court agrees with the findings of
fact of the MCTC and the RTC that a check
was a sufficient evidence of a loan
transaction. There is no dispute that the
signatures of the petitioners were present on
both the PNB checks and the cash
disbursement vouchers. The checks were
also made payable to the order of the
petitioners. Hence, respondent can properly
demand that they pay the amounts borrowed.
If the petitioners believe that there is some
other bogus scheme afoot, then they must
institute a separate action against the
responsible personalities. Otherwise, the
Court can only rule on the evidence on record
in the case at bench, applying the appropriate
laws and jurisprudence.
SC= WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. In accord with the discourse on the
substantive issue, the January 2, 2013 decision
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5,
Dinalupihan, Bataan, is AFFIRMED. The award
of attorney’s fees is, however, DELETED.
2. CHUA V. SPOUSES SANTIAGO
G.R. NO. 219309 | November 22, 2017 | J.
Caguioa
Digested by: Alvarez, Marjorie L.
DOCTRINE: The importance of pre-trial in civil
cases cannot be overemphasized. Time and
again, this Court has recognized "the importance
of pre-trial procedure as a means of facilitating
the disposal of cases by simplifying or limiting the
issues and avoiding unnecessary proof of facts at
the trial, and x x x to do whatever may reasonably
be necessary to facilitate and shorten the formal
trial.” The need for strict adherence to the rules
on pre-trial thus proceeds from its significant role
in the litigation process.
FACTS:
1. Jose, Santiago and Petra are siblings. They
are the registered owners of two parcels of
land in Iloilo City. On these lands stands a
rice mill housing several pieces of milling
equipment, also in the name of Cheng
siblings.
2. Santiago, together with his wife, sent Jose
and Angelina Chua (wife) several written and
verbal demands for the physical partition of
lands, rice mill and equipment therein but
were left unheeded. The Sps. Santiago filed
a complaint against Jose and Angelina for
partition and damages before the RTC.
3. In their Answer, petitioners averred that they
advanced the funds necessary for the
acquisition of these properties and that
Santiago and Petra failed to reimburse them.
On such basis, they argued that Santiago,
Petra and their respective spouses do not
possess any right to demand partition.
4. Judge Ruiz issued a Pre-Trial Order. None of
the parties manifested any intent to revise
such order.
5. Respondents filed an Urgent Motion praying
that Jose’s testimony be stricken from the
records since he passed away before cross-
examination which was denied by Judge
Ruiz.
6. During the hearing, herein petitioners orally
manifested in open court that they would be
presenting six (6) additional witnesses in
place of Petra. These additional witnesses
were not among those listed in the Pre-Trial
Order, nor were they identified in Jose's Pre-
Trial Brief.
7. In the interim, Judge Maniba denied
petitioners’ oral motion.
8. Thus, petitioners filed the CA Petition. They
asserted that Jose, through counsel,
reserved the right to present additional
witnesses in his Pre-Trial Brief and by
completely ignoring such reservation made
by Jose prior to his death, Judge Maniba
committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
9. CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Notwithstanding the reservation in Jose's
 Pre-Trial Brief, it held that the Pre-Trial Order
categorically stated that only Jose's
testimony, and that of Petra's, would be
presented on Jose's behalf. Considering that
Atty. Leong (Jose’s counsel) did not take any
steps to amend the Pre-Trial Order to reflect
the general reservation appearing in Jose's
Pre-Trial Brief, Judge Maniba could not be
faulted for exercising his discretion to exclude
Petitioners' additional witnesses from trial.
ISSUE: Whether CA erred when it affirmed the
RTC Resolution and Order denying Petitioners’
oral motion to present witnesses not listed in the
Pre-Trial Order. (NO.)
HELD:
 NO. Court finds no ascribable error on the
part of the CA in affirming the RTC Resolution
and Order, as these issuances merely
enforce the rules governing pre-trial.
 Petitioners' reliance on the purported
exception under paragraph A(2)(d) of A.M.
03-1-09-SC, otherwise known as the
Proposed Rule on Guidelines to be Observed
by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in
the Conduct of Pre- Trial and Use of
Deposition-Discovery Measures (Pre-Trial
Guidelines) is misplaced. As its introductory
phrase clearly indicates, paragraph A(2)
enumerates the matters which parties are
required to state in the pre-trial brief. Since
paragraph A(2) does not prescribe rules on
admissibility and presentation of evidence, it
should not be interpreted in this manner.
 In addition, paragraph (A)(2)(d) refers to
documentary and object evidence, and not
testimonial evidence, which, in turn, are
treated separately under paragraph (A)(2)(f).
Accordingly, the scope of the specific
exception under paragraph A(2)(d) should
not be unduly extended to cover testimonial
evidence. Even assuming, arguendo, that the
exception under paragraph A(2)(d) may be
invoked as basis to allow the presentation of
witnesses not listed in the pre-trial order, its
application remains contingent upon a
showing of good cause sufficient to justify the
same.
 The Court finds these circumstances grossly
insufficient to support Petitioners' cause.
1. Presence of a written reservation by then
counsel of [Jose and Angelina] to present
additional witnesses as shown in their
Pre-trial Brief;
2. Oral manifestation of then counsel of
[Jose and Angelina], Atty. Leong, that he
is reserving five (5) more witnesses
depending on the outcome of the cross-
examination of [Jose], without objection
interposed by [Respondents] at that time
as recorded in [the Transcript of
Stenographic Notes];
3. The fact that on July 17, 2006, [Judge
Ruiz, then Presiding Judge of the RTC]
allowed the presentation of additional
witnesses for the [Petitioners] by setting
six (6) additional calendar dates for the
presentation of evidence of the
[Petitioners] even after the Pre-Trial
Order had already been issued.
 In this case, neither Jose nor his counsel Atty.
Leong took the necessary steps to cause the
revision of the Pre-Trial Order to reflect the
general reservation in Jose's Pre-Trial Brief,
notwithstanding the explicit directive to make
such necessary corrections in the Colatilla
portion of the Pre- Trial Order. This failure
binds the Petitioners as substitute parties,
being mere representatives of the latter's
interests in the present case. Moreover, the
setting of additional hearing dates following
the direct examination of Jose should not be
impliedly taken as a grant of leave to present
Petitioners' additional witnesses. To be sure,
the hearing dates in question were set on
July 17, 2006. Petitioners do not deny that
they sought leave to present their six (6)
additional witnesses only on January 16,
2008, one (1) year and five (5) months after
the additional hearing dates were set. If
Judge Ruiz did in fact grant Jose leave to
present witnesses excluded in the Pre-Trial
Order, Petitioners would not have sought
such leave anew. Evidently, Petitioners'
argument that Judge Ruiz already allowed
such presentation, and that Judge Maniba
was bound to honor such previous directive,
is a mere afterthought. Lastly, Petitioners
neither furnished the Court with copies of the
judicial affidavits of their additional witnesses,
nor make any allegations detailing the
substance of their respective testimonies.
Hence, the Court is left without any
opportunity to determine if the presentation of
said witnesses is indeed necessary to "ferret
out the whole truth," as Petitioners claim.
The rules governing pre-trial remain
controlling in this case
 The importance of pre-trial in civil cases
cannot be overemphasized. Time and again,
this Court has recognized "the importance of
pre-trial procedure as a means of facilitating
the disposal of cases by simplifying or limiting
the issues and avoiding unnecessary proof of
facts at the trial, and x x x to do whatever may
reasonably be necessary to facilitate and
shorten the formal trial.” The need for strict
adherence to the rules on pre-trial thus
proceeds from its significant role in the
litigation process.
 This is not to say, however, that the rules
governing pre-trial should be, at all times,
applied in absolute terms. While faithful
compliance with these rules is undoubtedly
desirable, they may be relaxed in cases
where their application would frustrate, rather
than facilitate, the ends of justice. The
relaxation of these rules, however, is
contingent upon a showing of compelling and
persuasive reasons to justify the same.
 It is the Court's considered view that
Petitioners have failed to sufficiently show
that such compelling and persuasive reasons
exist in this case. Consequently, the Petition
must be denied.
SC= WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The
Assailed Decision dated November 27, 2014 and
Resolution dated May 25, 2015 issued by the
Court of Appeals Eighteenth Division in CA- G.R.
SP. No. 07194 are hereby AFFIRMED.
3. ULTRA MAR AQUA RESOURCE, INC. V.
FERMIDA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
G.R. NO. 191353| APRIL 17, 2017 | J. TIJAM
Digested by: Alvarez, Marjorie L.
DOCTRINE: The failure of a party to appear at
pretrial has adverse consequences: if the absent
party is the plaintiff then he may be declared
nonsuited and his case is dismissed; if the absent
party is the defendant, then the plaintiff may be
allowed to present his evidence ex parte and the
court to render judgment on the basis thereof.
FACTS:
1. Fermida entered into a Contract of
Agreement with Ultra Mar for the construction
of a warehouse in Zambales for P1.7M. Upon
the latter’s request and instructions, Fermida
made variations as to roof coverage,
drainage canal, painting and electrical work.
2. Fermida sent the Billing Statement to Ulltra
Mar. Pursuant to their agreement, Fermida
secured a Surety Bond to satisfy the 10%
retention to cover any defect in materials and
workmanship.
3. Ultra Mar sent a letter expressing its
discontentment on some of Fermida’s work.
It refused to pay because of Fermida’s
alleged failure to submit the FDT Report and
Building Permits, and substandard work and
delay in the completion of the Project.
4. Since Ultra Mar failed to comply with its
obligation, Fermida commenced a Complaint
for Collection of Sum of Money with Prayer
for Injunction with the RTC.
5. RTC ordered an ocular inspection and the
case was then set for pretrial conference.
Upon motion of Ultra Mar’s counsel, it was
postponed and was again reset. Despite
several resettings, the counsel failed to
attend the pretrial conference and failed to file
the required pretrial brief.
6. RTC declared Ultra Mar in default and
allowed Fermida to present its evidence ex
parte.
7. Ultra Mar, through counsel, filed an Omnibus
Motion to Lift Order of Default, Admit
Attached Pre-Trial Brief and Set the Case for
Pre-Trial Conference (Omnibus Motion)
alleging that his failure to file the Pre-Trial
Brief was due to intermittent nausea he was
experiencing. RTC required a supporting
Medical Certificate but counsel failed to do
comply.
8. RTC denied Ultra Mar’s Omnibus Motion and
ruled in favor of Fermida.
9. Since Ultra Mar’s motion for reconsiderations
were denied, it then elevated the case to the
CA.
10. CA found no error on the part of RTC when it
denied Ultra Mar’s Omnibus Motion. It noted
that the counsel failed to provide a plausible
justification why he failed to submit the
required pretrial brief. It also found that
Fermida was able to preponderantly
establish that it entered into a construction
agreement with Ultra Mar and that despite
demands, the latter failed to pay.
ISSUE: Whether Ultra Mar should be allowed to
present its evidence. (NO.)
HELD:
 NO. Section 4, Rule 18 requires the parties
and their counsel to appear at the pretrial
conference. The effect of their failure to
appear is spelled under Section 5 of the same
rule. Hence, the failure of a party to appear at
pretrial has adverse consequences: if the
absent party is the plaintiff then he may be
declared nonsuited and his case is
dismissed; if the absent party is the
defendant, then the plaintiff may be allowed
to present his evidence ex parte and the court
to render judgment on the basis thereof.
 By way of exception, the nonappearance of a
party and counsel may be excused if (1) a
valid cause is shown; or (2) there is an
appearance of a representative on behalf of
a party 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. What constitutes a
valid cause is subject to the court’s sound
discretion and the exercise of such discretion
shall not be disturbed except in cases of clear
and manifest abuse.
 In this case, Court find no convincing ground
to apply the policy of liberality. Ultra Mar’s
counsel advanced no plausible justification
why he failed to submit the Pre-Trial Brief the
court a quo had directed him in its Preliminary
Pre-Trial Order. court a quo still gave the
counsel a chance albeit with the condition
that he submit a Medical Certificate.
Unfortunately, he failed to comply. Pointedly,
Ultra Mar’s counsel repeatedly moved for the
postponement of the pretrial conference, and
yet still failed to appear. The justifications
advanced by the counsel do not constitute a
valid cause to excuse such noncompliance.
SC= WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Court resolves to DENY the petition. The
Decision dated July 28, 2009 and Resolution
dated February 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in
C.A.-G.R. CV No. 86540 are AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION that the payment of
Php1,106,038.82 is no longer made subject to the
10 percent retention in favor of Ultra Mar Aqua
Resource, Inc.
4. Vergara v. Otadoy, Jr.
G.R. No. 192320 | April 4, 2016 | J. Brion
Digested by: Alvarez, Marjorie L.
DOCTRINE: Under Rule 18 of the Rules of Court,
the counsels and the parties are mandated to
appear at pretrial. Their nonappearance may be
excused only if there is a valid cause or if a
representative appears on their behalf.
FACTS:
1. This case stemmed from a petition for habeas
corpus decided by the Court. In that case, the
petitioners were arrested for indirect
contempt because they refused to comply
with the probate court’s order to pay rentals
to Allers’ estate and the Court ruled that the
imprisonment was unwarranted as it violated
the constitutional prohibition against
imprisonment for nonpayment of debt.
2. Armed with this ruling, petitioners filed a civil
action for damages against Atty. Otadoy who
served as the administratrix’s counsel
(habeas corpus case) and three other
persons. They alleged that they were unjustly
detained as a result of his fraudulent
practices.
3. Defendants failed to file their answers so
petitioners moved to declare them in default
and to allow presenting evidence ex parte
which the RTC granted.
4. RTC also granted Atty. Otadoy’s motion to
set aside the default order. It scheduled a
pretrial conference on March 12, 2007.
5. Atty. Otadoy filed a motion to postpone the
pretrial conference as he was invited to
deliver a lecture at the National Annual
Lectureship of the Church of Christ on March
11-14. Without waiting for a ruling on his
motion, he proceeded to attend the lecture in
Zamboanga.
6. At the pretrial conference, petitioners’
counsel opposed the motion to postpone
arguing that Atty. Otadoy failed to file a
pretrial brief and that his motion was filed late.
He also moved that he be allowed to present
evidence ex parte as provided in Section 5,
Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.
7. RTC granted his motions and considered the
case submitted for resolution.
8. Atty. Otadoy filed his pretrial brief only on
April 11, 2007. He also filed an MR on April
20 which the RTC denied. Hence the filing of
a petition for certiorari with the CA.
9. CA granted Atty. Otadoy’s petition. It noted
that he should be blamed for not appearing at
 the pretrial and for presuming that his motion
would be granted ipso facto. Nevertheless,
he only asked once for the postponement of
the pretrial during the entire duration of the
case.
10. CA denied petitioners’ MR; hence, this
petition.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Otadoy presented a valid
cause to postpone the pretrial conference. (NO.)
HELD:
 NO. In the present case, the RTC had legal
basis to deny the motion for postponement.
This Court has ruled that a motion for
postponement is a privilege and not a right.
The movant should not assume that his
motion would be granted. In deciding whether
to grant or deny a motion to postpone the
pretrial, the court must take into account two
factors: (a) the reason given, and (b) the
merits of the movant’s case.
 The Court note that Atty. Otadoy’s failure to
attach proof that he attended the alleged
lectureship weighs heavily against him. He
had many opportunities to submit proof of his
attendance. He could have attached this
proof in his motion for reconsideration, in his
petition before the CA, or in this petition. Yet,
he failed to do so. Thus, the Court find that he
did not sufficiently establish a valid cause to
postpone the pretrial conference, giving the
RTC a firm legal basis to deny his motion and
to declare him in default.
Strict application of procedural rules
 In the present case, Atty. Otadoy not only
failed to appear during pretrial; he also failed
to file the mandatory pretrial brief within the
prescribed time.
 To be sure, judicial action must be guided by
the principle that a party-litigant must be
given the fullest opportunity to establish the
merits of his case. Rules of procedure,
however have their own reasons for their
existence; they are with us to ensure prompt,
speedy, and orderly dispensation of justice.
This competing reason must be weighed and
balanced against the admittedly weightier
need to give litigants their day in court. When
procedural rules are at the point of being
abused, such as when the litigant fails to
establish a valid cause to postpone the
proceedings, procedural rules cannot and
must not be brushed aside.
 In Philippine Transmarine Carriers, the Court
considered that the motion was the first
postponement that the defendants requested
only after finding that there was a valid cause
to postpone. In this petition, although Atty.
Otadoy requested for postponement only
once, he failed to show a valid cause to justify
his request; thus, the RTC did not legally err
in denying his motion to postpone.
SC= WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition.
RTC Decision is hereby REINSTATED.
5. DAACO V. YU
G.R. NO. 183398 | June 22, 2015| J. Peralta
Digested by: Alvarez, Marjorie L.
DOCTRINE: Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure requires that notice of pretrial
conference be served on counsel. The counsel
served with notice is charged with the duty of
notifying the party he represents. However, when
a party has no counsel, as in this case, the notice
of pretrial is required to be served personally on
him.
FACTS:
1. A complaint was filed by Clodualda Daaco
against Valeriana Yu, Faustina Daaco and
Register of Deeds of Tacloban City for
Annulment of Title, Recovery of Property and
Damages.
2. After the answer had been filed, the RTC set
the pretrial conference on October 4, 2007.
However, upon motion, the RTC dismissed
the case as against Yu for petitioner’s failure
to appear thereat.
3. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration
alleging that (a) she was not properly notified
of the pretrial conference scheduled at
8:30am on October 4, 2007 as she received
notice thereof only at 5:30pm of October 3,
2007 or merely 15 hours before the
scheduled conference and thus, the order of
dismissal was invalid; and (b) there is still an
unresolved Motion to Consider the Answer of
Respondent as Not Filed which she
previously filed in 2006.
4. RTC denied the Motion in the following wise:
 Plaintiff and her counsel have
had notice of the pretrial
conference that if prudence,
diligence and respect for the
court had been observed there
was sufficient time still for both to
 come to court on October 4,
2007 at 8:30 AM.
 San Jose District, Tacloban City
where plaintiff and her counsel
resides is just fifteen (15) to
twenty (20) minutes ride to the
court thru public utility vehicle.
Veritably, under the
circumstance, plaintiff’s not
going to court to appear in the
pretrial conference despite
notice showed nothing more but
abandonment of their cause not
to mention their deliberate
defiance to the notice of the court
for them to appear in the
scheduled pretrial conference.
 It is not correct to claim that there
is still a pending motion filed by
plaintiff which this court failed to
resolve. The motion was filed on
October 2006. Yet, as early as
May 2006, she filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings which
was denied by the court.
5. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC’s dismissal of the case
for Daaco’s failure to appear in pretrial
conference is contrary to law, rules and existing
jurisprudence. (NO.)
HELD:
 NO. In this case, petitioner harps on the fact
that the notice of pretrial was sent to her 15
hours before the scheduled conference. She
maintained that said amount of time rendered
it impossible for her to appear thereat since
she had yet to secure counsel to represent
her as well as prepare documents necessary
for the case. Thus, the 15- hour notice is
deemed no notice at all, resulting in the
invalidity of the trial court’s dismissal of the
case. This is untenable.
o First, this Court finds petitioner’s
reasoning that she had yet to
secure the services of a counsel
rather specious. Had this been
the case, she should already be
represented by one at this stage
in the proceedings. Yet, as the
records bear, petitioner comes to
this Court by herself, via Petition
for Certiorari, unrepresented by
any counsel. In fact, in her
petition, she even faults the trial
court for repeatedly referring to
her counsel when it is clear that
no such counsel exists. Thus,
contrary to her allegation, this
Court is under the impression
that petitioner never really
intended on securing the
services of counsel.
o Second, during said period when
she was supposedly preparing
for the conference, petitioner
was able to file 3 motions in a
span of 6 months.
 It is clear, therefore, that petitioner’s rather
active participation in the proceedings during
the period leading up to the pretrial
conference contradicts her defense of
unpreparedness. Petitioner cannot
persistently file multiple motions before the
trial court, diligently participating in the
hearings thereon, and yet claim to need more
time to prepare for the pretrial conference,
the proceeding wherein she may rightly
assert the rights for which she had originally
filed her complaint. Also, her need to secure
counsel and prepare documents necessary
for the case were only asserted in the instant
petition before this Court.
 As to petitioner’s allegation that the RTC’s
order is patently void because the RTC
erroneously included the absence of her
counsel despite due notice as reason to
dismiss the case when the records reveal that
she is not actually represented by any
counsel, the same is rather flawed.
 Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that notice of pretrial
conference be served on counsel. The
counsel served with notice is charged with
the duty of notifying the party he represents.
However, when a party has no counsel, as in
this case, the notice of pretrial is required to
be served personally on him. In view of the
fact that petitioner was, and still is, not
represented by counsel, and that as
petitioner herself admitted, notice of the
pretrial conference was served on her, the
mandate of the law was sufficiently complied
with. Thus, the fact that the trial court
mistakenly referred to her counsel when no
such counsel exists is immaterial. For as long
as notice was duly served on petitioner, in
accordance with the rules, the trial court’s
order of dismissal cannot be invalidated due
to statements referring to her counsel, for the
 same have no bearing on the validity of the
notice of pretrial.
 In view of the foregoing, this Court does not
find that the facts in the case at hand warrant
a liberal construction of the rules.
SC= WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
instant petition is DENIED. The Order dated
October 4, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 6, of Tacloban City in Civil Case No.
2006-12-16 dismissing the case for annulment of
title, recovery of property under Transfer
Certificate (TCT) No. T-28120 and damages is
AFFIRMED.