DR. EMMANUEL VERA,
Petitioner, -
versus - ERNESTO
F. RIGOR and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 147377
Present: PUNO, c.j., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA,
and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: August
10, 2007 |
x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
DECISION
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
It is mandatory
for the trial court to conduct pre-trial in civil cases in order to realize the
paramount objective of simplifying, abbreviating, and expediting trial. In light of these objectives, the parties are
mandatorily required to submit their respective pre-trial
briefs. Failure of the parties to do so is a ground
for dismissal of the action with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the
court.
On November 19, 1996, Ernesto Rigor,
respondent, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, Malolos,
Bulacan a complaint for sum of money with damages against Dr. Emmanuel Vera,
petitioner,
docketed as Civil Case No. 852-M-96.
Respondent alleged in his complaint that petitioner purchased from him a
brand new Ultrasound Scanner, Model HS 120, for P410,000.00. Petitioner paid P120,000.00 as
downpayment, leaving a balance of P290,000.00. Despite respondent’s demand, petitioner
failed to pay the same.
In his answer, petitioner claimed that
he received the machine on a trial basis.
However, when tested, its “performance” was unsatisfactory. Moreover, the hospital where the machine was
to be installed has no funds. Respondent offered a new brand of Ultrasound
Scanner but it turned out to be an old model.
The trial court[1]
then set the pre-trial on
On
On
Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was denied by the trial court in a Resolution dated
Upon appeal by respondent, the Court
of Appeals, on
There is no dispute about plaintiff-appellant’s failure to file his
pre-trial brief. In this case, however,
pre-trial proceeded and took place on
Likewise, there is no showing that
defendant-appellee at that time manifested any opposition to the
plaintiff-appellant’s failure to file pre-trial brief. In fact, pre-trial was thereafter terminated.
x x x. Only on the next
hearing did the defendant-appellee pointed out the non-filing of
plaintiff-appellant’s pre-trial brief.
In other words, several events after the pre-trial had taken place
before the trial court decided to dismiss the case due to non-filing of
pre-trial brief. Considering all the above circumstances, we find that the
trial court indeed erred in its order of dismissal.
x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
appeal is GRANTED. The Order dated
Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution dated
Hence, this petition for certiorari
filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
Petitioner alleged that the Court of
Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction
in giving due course to respondent’s appeal considering that it raises a pure
question of law cognizable only by this Court.
The legal issue is whether the complaint in Civil Case No. 852-M-96 is
dismissible for respondent’s failure to file a pre-trial brief.
We hold that the issue raised before
the Court of Appeals is both legal and factual as shown by the following
discussion.
Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:
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.
Corollarily, Section 5 of the same Rule
states:
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. x x x
Section 7 likewise provides:
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.
Clearly, the above Rule mandatorily requires the parties to seasonably file their
briefs and failure to do so shall be cause for the dismissal of the action.
As mentioned earlier, respondent did
not file a pre-trial brief in violation of the above Rule. But
what surprised us is the fact that the trial court conducted the pre-trial
conference on
While the
trial judge erroneously proceeded with the trial
conference, the fact remains that respondent did not file a pre-trial
brief. Pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18 quoted above,
such failure is a cause for dismissal of the action. We have to emphasize that pre-trial and its
governing rules are not technicalities which the parties may ignore or trifle
with.
Obviously, since respondent did not
file a pre-trial brief, it follows that the trial judge failed to conduct the
pre-trial conference in accordance with Rule 18. In fact, he did not issue the required pre-trial
order stating the various matters which should have been included therein. Indeed, the trial judge showed his ignorance
of the Rules, specifically Rule 18. And
by failing to take appropriate steps to enable the parties reach an amicable
settlement, the trial judge showed his gross inefficiency.
In conclusion, we rule that the Court
of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of
respondent’s appeal. However, it erred in reversing the RTC judgment dismissing respondent’s
complaint for his failure to file a pre-trial brief.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the instant petition as well as respondent’s complaint
in Civil Case No. 852-M-96.
Judge Candido R. Belmonte of the RTC,
Branch 22, Malolos, Bulacan is directed to explain in
writing within ten (10) days from notice why he should not be charged
administratively for ignorance of Rule 18, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, and gross inefficiency.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice