CRIMPRO: Rule 118, Sec.

3
GARAYBLAS V ONG [Non-appearance at Pre-trial
176 Conference]
G.R. Nos. 174507-30 August 3, 2011 J. Peralta Ben&Ben
Petitioners: Respondents:
ATTY. EMELITA H. GARAYBLAS and THE HON. GREGORY ONG,
ATTY. RENATO G. DE LA CRUZ HON. JOSE HERNANDEZ and
HON. RODOLFO PONFERRADA, as Chairman
& Members, respectively, 4th Division,
Sandiganbayan; and People of the Philippines
Recit Ready Summary
Atty. Garayblas and Atty. De la Cruz failed to appear at the pre-trial set on April 27, 2006. However,
they reasoned out that Atty. Garayblas had medical sickness (hyperglycemia and hypertension) and
that Atty. De la Cruz had another hearing in the SB2D (Sandiganbayan 2nd division) for the same
accused. The SB4D (Sandiganbayan 4th division) found them to be in violation of Section 3, Rule 118
of the Rules of Court. The issue is whether or not their absence was excusable. The SC ruled in the
positive but qualified by saying that Atty. Garayblas should have informed the SB4D and Atty. De la
Cruz that she will not be able to attend the pre-trial. Because of such neglect, she was given a stern
warning by the SC.
Facts

1. Atty. Garayblas and Atty. De la Cruz are the counsels of accused Gen. Jose S. Ramiscal who
is facing charges for falsification of public documents and violation of Section Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act before the 2nd and 4th division of the Sandiganbayan (SB2D and SB4D).
2. Atty. Garayblas and Atty. De la Cruz failed to appear for pre-trial on April 27, 2006 in Davao
City; hence, SB4D justices ordered the former to explain why they should not be held in contempt.
 Atty. Garayblas replied that the day before such pre-trail, she was suffering from
severe headache, body weakness and sluggishness. Her doctor’s findings revealed that her
sugar count was 420 and her blood pressure was 170/140. She was advised to be confined in
the hospital but she refused and chose to stay at home. Her condition stayed the same until
the evening of the pre-trial.
 Atty. De la Cruz stated that he did not attend the pre-trial of the cases on April 27,
2006 in Davao City because he had to appear before the SB2D in another criminal case
involving the same accused, attaching a certificate of appearance from the SB2D as proof.
3. The SB4D found them liable for their non-appearance which caused the cancellation of the
scheduled pre-trial conference that wasted the time of the Court.
 SB4D said that the counsels, who belong to the same law office, should have
appeared or made the necessary arrangement to let one of their associates or colleagues
appear in the pre-trial conference knowing that out of town pre-trials are costly.
 SB4D further ruled that Atty. De la Cruz should have been more prudent in the
scheduling of his cases in order to avoid his alleged conflict of schedule. Moreover, in case of
conflict, he should have given priority to the out of town schedule of this Court considering the
additional expenses for such out of town hearings.
 SB4D also said that Atty. Garayblas should have made the necessary arrangement
with her co-counsel Atty. De la Cruz or the other members of her law office. Besides, the
Court notes the absence of a medical certificate attesting to such medical condition of Atty.
Garayblas.
 SB4D then ordered them to pay Php10,000 each as sanction or penalty and to partially
answer the traveling and other expenses of the Court in holding the subject pre-trial
conference in Davao City.
Procedural History

1. Ramiscal was arraigned and the SB 4th Division set the pre-trial in Davao. However, the pre-
trial was moved to April 27, 2006.

1
 2. Atty. Garayblas, opposing the resetting, filed a Motion to Reset. The SB4D denied said motion
to reset.
3. Atty. Garayblas or Atty. De la Cruz did not attend the pre-trial so SB4D asked them to explain
their non-appearance.
4. SB4D found them liable for their non-appearance and ordered them to pay penalty and to
partially answer the traveling and other expenses of the Court in holding the subject pre-trial
conference in Davao City.
5. Atty. Garayblas or Atty. De la Cruz filed an MR but it was denied so they filed a petition for
certiorari for grave abuse of discretion to the SC.
Issues Ruling
1. WN the Atty. Garayblas and Atty. De la Cruz’s non-appearance in the pre- 1. Yes
trial is excused
Rationale
1. Yes, the counsels’ non-appearance is excusable
The court may sanction or penalize counsel for the accused based on Section 3, Rule 118 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure if the following concur:
1. counsel does not appear at the pre-trial conference; AND
2. counsel does not offer an acceptable excuse.
There is no objection that petitioners failed to appear at the pre-trial conference in Davao City on
April 27, 2006.

As to Atty. Garayblas:
 The SB4D already said it believed Atty. Garayblas' claim that a day before the scheduled
pre-trial conference in Davao City, she started suffering from hyperglycemia (high blood
sugar) and hypertension, and she felt the symptoms which incapacitated her from
traveling to Davao City. The symptoms of hypertension include confusion, ear noise or
buzzing, fatigue, headache, irregular heartbeat, and vision change. As for hyperglycemia,
a person suffering therefrom experiences headaches, increased thirst, difficulty
concentrating, blurred vision, frequent urinating, and fatigue, among others. Hence, it
would be hard for her to attend a hearing, much less have the clarity of mind to think or
worry about finding another lawyer to substitute for her. Indeed, it would not be
reasonable to expect her to have been able to make the necessary arrangements for
another lawyer to attend in her stead.
 It is equally important to have a counsel who is the most well-versed on the facts of the
case, to be the one attending a pre-trial conference since it is at this stage that attorneys
must make a full disclosure of their positions as to what the real issues of the trial would
be. Therefore, it is not quite prudent to send in a new lawyer, who has not fully familiarize
himself or herself with the facts and issues involved in the case, to attend a pre-trial
conference. Moreover, the SC noted that Atty. Garayblas had never been absent for a
hearing before the SB4D. This circumstance should be taken in her favor, as it shows that
she is not in the habit of feigning illness to deliberately delay the proceedings.
 However, Atty. Garayblas should have at least sent word to the SB4D and to her co-
counsel, Atty. De la Cruz, when she began feeling the symptoms of hypertension and
hyperglycemia, that she would be unable to attend said pre-trial conference as this is the
courteous thing to do.

As to Atty. De la Cruz:
 There were hearings for their client's case in two separate divisions of the Sandiganbayan
on the very same date in two distant locations which makes his absence excusable. Also,
Atty. De la Cruz was not informed of the fact that his co-counsel would not be able to
attend the pre-trial. It is understandable why Atty. De la Cruz could not have abandoned
the hearing before the SB2D so he could attend the pre-trial in Davao City as it was

2
 already too late in the day for Atty. De la Cruz to change plans and to notify the SB2D that
he would be absent so he could attend the pre-trial in Davao City instead of the hearing at
the Second Division.

As to the penalties adjudged by SB4D:

 The judgment of travel expenses should be deleted as it is unwarranted. The SB4D’s time
and effort in holding sessions in Davao City were not entirely wasted due to petitioners'
inability to attend the pre-trial conference.
 The fine shall also be deleted. Since Atty. De la Cruz has presented a valid and
acceptable excuse, he should not be found liable under Section 3, Rule 118 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. On the other hand, petitioner Atty. Garayblas
showed some lapse in judgment, not to mention discourteous behavior, in not informing
the SB4D of the above. As such, only a stern warning shall be given to her.

Disposition
Petition partially granted. Fine of 10,000 each was deleted as well as the reimbursement of SB4D’s
travel expenses for the pre-trial in Davao was deleted. Atty. Garayblas was given a stern warning.