Silvestre Tiu vs. DANIEL MIDDLETON and REMEDIOS P. MIDDLETON G.R. No. 134998.

July 19, 1999 Facts: The present case arose from the Complaint for a recovery of ownership and possession of real property between the disputing parties. In his Pre-trial Brief, petitioner averred that he would be presenting six witnesses, but he did not name them. After the pre-trial conference, the court a quo issued a Pre-trial Order stating that the petitioner would present six witnesses and specifying the hearing dates for the said purpose. In the trial, the plaintiff presented their witnesses in due course and when it turn came to present Antonia Tiu as the first witness, the respondents argue that the witness cannot be allowed to testify because they have failed to named her in the Pre-Trial Brief. The Trial Court decided that the witness must be barred because her name was not included in the pre-trial brief as cited in Sec. 6 of Rule 18, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Hence this petition. Issue: Whether or not an unnamed witness can testify. Ruling: The court rendered a decision in affirmative. Pre-trial is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases. Pre-trial seeks to achieve The limitation of the number of witnesses; In light of this objectives, the parties are also required to submit a pre-trial brief, which must contain The number and names of the witnesses, and the substance of their respective testimonies. The Court emphasizes that pre-trial and its governing rules are not technicalities which the parties may ignore or trifle with. 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 of 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 pre-trial, and then to discuss, refine and embody the matters agreed upon in a single document at or shortly after the pre-trial -- but also and equally as peremptorily, to directly address and discuss with sincerity and candor and in 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 commissioner, 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 pre-trial and the role of the trial court therein, it is evident that judges have the discretion to exclude witnesses and other pieces of evidence not listed in the pre-trial brief, provided the parties are given prior notice to this effect. In his Pre-trial Order, however, the trial judge did not exercise his discretion to exclude the unlisted or unnamed witnesses. Rather, it simply provided that [t]he 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.

G.R. No. 115644 April 5, 1995 GOLDEN FLAME SAWMILL vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MODESTO C. JUANSON, as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 3 of Manila, and MAXIMO B. PALARCA Facts: A civil case was instituted by the respondent Maximo for the recovery of personal properties which had been sequestered and detained by the Coast Guard. The petitioner Sawmill filed an Urgent motion for intervention claiming that it was the owner of two barges involved in the case where the court granted. The case was then set for pre-trial where only Maximo Palarca's counsel with proper authority from his client. Neither defendant-intervenor Sawmill nor its counsel; appeared. On the same day, defendant-intervenor Sawmill was declared as in default for failure "to appear despite due notice through its counsel," The trial court then ordered the ex-parte reception of plaintiff Palarca's evidence. The trial, court rendered its decision declaring Palarca the owner of the two (2) barges. The defendant-intervenor Sawmill and its counsel learned, for the first time, about the order of default and as well the judgment by default rendered by the trial court. Sawmill filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of default The motion was denied by the trial court. In its present motion, the petitioner focuses its attention on the presence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court when the default was due to lack of service of notices both for the party and the counsel. Issue: Whether or not the court had acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it issued an order of default against defendant-intervenor Sawmill for its failure to appear at the scheduled pre-trial conference Ruling: The court ruled in negative. In a pre-trial order, the court shall direct the parties and their attorneys to appear before it for a conference, that is, notice of the pre-trial must be served separately upon the party affected thereby and his counsel of record, stating therein the purpose, time and place of the pre-trial conference 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 notice upon the party Prior to pre-trial therefore; in particular, before a party is considered non-suited or declared as in default, it must be shown that such party and his counsel were each duly served with a separate notice of pre-trial. 12 Should an order declaring a party non-suited or as in default be issued

notwithstanding failure to serve the required notice of pre-trial upon the party, or his counsel of record, or upon both, against whom the order of default is directed, the party declared in default is effectively denied his constitutional right to due process. 13 The declaration of default without the requisite notices of pre-trial under Rule 20 of the Revised Rules of Court constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The patent absence of service of the Notice of Pre-trial upon defendant-intervenor Sawmill leaves the Court no other choice but to declare null and void the order of default of the court a quo as well .as the proceedings beginning from that order of default up to the default judgment itself. ACCORDINGLY , the Court Resolved to GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration and GIVE DUE COURSE to the Petition for Review. The Resolution of the Supreme Court dated 27 June 27, 1994 is to WITHDRAWN: the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 22 January 1993 and 28 April 1994, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 29437 and the order of Court of Manila, Branch 3 in Civil case No. 91-57097 dated 15 October 1991, as well as subsequent proceedings and orders, including the default judgement dated 7 November 1991 are hereby SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 3 is hereby ORDERED to direct the parties and their Case No. 91-57097 to appear before conference in strict compliance with law and thereafter to proceed to trial in accordance with law.

Tags: G.R. No. 134998. July 19, 1999; G.R. No. 115644 April 5, 1995; GOLDEN FLAME SAWMILL vs. COURT OF APPEALS; Silvestre Tiu vs. DANIEL MIDDLETON and REMEDIOS P. MIDDLETON; Trial Technique; Remedial Law; Cases