ABELLA BASCO BATECAN

RULE 30 – TRIAL

I. INTRODUCTION
Trial is an examination before a competent tribunal of the facts or
law put to issue in a case, for the purpose of determining the issue.
(Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., p. 1299) ​It is the judicial process of
investigating and determining the legal controversies, starting with his
closing arguments.
Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution provides for the rule on the
right if the party for the speedy disposition of cases. It provides that all
persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial. quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. To protect and advance
the constitutional right of persons to a speedy disposition of cases, the
Supreme Court issued AM No. 15-06-10-SC, RE: Adopting the Guidelines for
Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases in Pilot Courts, 30 June 2015. The
salient provisions of these guidelines include ​where only the civil liability is
being prosecuted, the head of the prosecution office may issue a written
authority to a private prosecutor who may prosecute in the absence of the
public prosecutor. The schedule of the trial dates, for both the prosecution
and the accused, shall be continuous and within the periods provided in the
Regular Rules/Special Rules. The trial dates may be shortened depending
on the number of witnesses to be presented.From the time of the
arraignment and pre-trial, it shall be set for trial within thirty (30) days.
Trial on the merits shall be conducted for a period of six (6) months only
and promulgation of judgment is set within ninety (90) days from
submission of the case for decision for regular rules. This is how trial will
be conducted in criminal cases, trial involving civil cases will be discussed
later on. The Supreme Court reiterated in Re: Vitaliano N. Aguirre II, A.M.
No. 18-03-09-SC(2018) that Supreme Court has the power to promulgate
rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 5 (5) of the 1987 Constitution. Foremost in the mind of the Court in
promulgating Rules of Procedure is the mandate that such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.
 ABELLA BASCO BATECAN
RULE 30 – TRIAL

Trial and Hearing

The terms “trial” and “hearing” are sometimes interchangeably used.
There is, however, a marked difference between these terms. Hearing is a
broader term and is not confined to the trial and presentation of the
evidence because it actually embraces several stages in the litigation. It
includes the pre-trial and the determination of granting or denying a
motion ​(Trocio v. Labayo, 53 SCRA 97, 100).

In this report, we will discuss the provisions of Rule 30 along with its
applicable jurisprudence. Jurisprudence in order to further explain how a
trial is conducted will also be presented.

II. TRIAL PROCEDURE

As the Supreme Court explained in ​Dir. of Lands vs. Archbishop of
Manila, 41 Phil. 120 (1920), ​the order of trial is designed for orderly
procedure, which must be followed if injurious surprises and annoying
delays in the administration of justice are to be avoided. Evidence cannot
be piecemeal.

SECTION 1: SCHEDULE OF TRIAL

Trial is the judicial examination and determination of the issues
between the parties to the action. It is the judicial process of investigating
and determining the legal controversies between or among the parties.
During the trial, the parties present their respective evidence of their
claims and defenses. Such claims and defenses shall constitute the bases for
the judgment of the court.
When Trial is Necessary
The general rule is that a trial is necessary when there are issues to
be tried as result of the specific denials of the material allegations in the
complaint
However, a civil case may be adjudicated upon without the need for a
trial in any of the following cases:
 ABELLA BASCO BATECAN
RULE 30 – TRIAL

1. Where the pleadings of the parties tender no issues at all, a judgment

on the pleadings may be directed by the court.
2. Where from the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and other papers,
there is actually no genuine issue, the court may render a summary
judgment.
3. Where the parties have entered into a compromise or an amicable
settlement either during the pre-trial or while the trial is in progress.
4. Where the complaint has been dismissed with prejudice, or when the
dismissal has the effect of an adjudication on the merits.
5. Where the case falls under the operation of the Rules on Summary
Procedure.
6. Where the parties agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the
litigation, and submit the case for judgment on the facts agreed upon,
without the introduction of evidence.

Schedule of Trial
The schedule of trial dates shall be continuous, and within the
following periods:
1. Initial presentation of plaintiff’s evidence ​- ​not later than 30 calendar
days ​after t​ he termination of the pre-trial conference.
The court shall allow the plaintiff to present its evidence within
a period of 3 months or 90 calendar days.
If necessary, the date of the judicial dispute resolution shall
also be included.
2. Initial presentation of defendant’s evidence ​- ​not later than 30
calendar days ​after t​ he court’s ruling on plaintiff’s formal offer of
evidence.
The court shall allow the defendant to present its evidence
within a period of 3 months or 90 calendar days.
3. Presentation of evidence on the 3rd-party claim, counterclaim or
cross-claim (4th-, as the case may be) ​- u ​ pon the determination by
the court.
Provided that the total of which shall not exceed 90 calendar days.
4. Rebuttal evidence ​- ​if necessary, the court shall set the presentation
of the parties’ respective rebuttal evidence which shall be completed
within a period of 30 calendar days.
 ABELLA BASCO BATECAN
RULE 30 – TRIAL

The trial dates may be shortened depending on the number of

witnesses to be presented. ​Provided,​ that the presentation of evidence of all
parties shall be terminated within a period of 10 months or 300 calendar
days.
If there are no 3rd-party (4th- as the case may be) claim,
counterclaim, or cross-claim, the presentation of evidence shall be
terminated within a period of 6 months or 180 calendar days ​(Rule 30, Sec.
1, RoC).
To illustrate: ​X is the plaintiff. Y is the defendant. The pre-trial
conference terminated. The initial presentation of evidence by X shall be
set not later than 30 calendar days after the termination of the pre-trial
conference. X then shall be given a period within 90 calendar days to
present its evidence. Then the court has to rule upon the formal offer of
evidence by X. After that, Y, as the defendant, shall be given a period of 90
days within which to present his defense.
The rebuttal is not a matter of right. The court must determine
whether there will be a rebuttal and surrebuttal, that will be decided in the
course of the trial. If necessary, the court will set the case for rebuttal.
It should be noted that even before the commencement of the trial
proper, the hearing dates have already been predetermined.
The court shall decide and serve copies of its decision to the parties
within 90 calendar days from the submission of the case for resolution,
with or without memoranda (Rule 30, Sec. 1, RoC).

Memorandum

A memorandum is a written document where you outline all your

submissions, including, among others, citation of authorities, evidence
presented, and arguments. It will be submitted to aid in the speedy
disposition of cases and to enable the courts to have better control of the
progress of cases.
 ABELLA BASCO BATECAN
RULE 30 – TRIAL

SECTION 2: ADJOURNMENT AND POSTPONEMENT

Generally, the court may adjourn a trial from day to day and to any
stated time, as the expeditious and convenient transaction of business may
require.
However, the court has no power to adjourn a trial for a period
longer than one month for each adjournment, nor more than three months
in all, ​except ​when authorized in writing by the court administrator,
Supreme Court.
The party who caused the postponement is warned that the
presentation of its evidence must still be terminated on the remaining
dates previously agreed upon ​(Rule 30, Sec. 2, RoC).

SECTION 3: REQUISITES OF MOTION TO​ ​POSTPONE TRIAL FOR

ILLNESS OF PARTY OR COUNSEL

Postponement or continuance; not a matter of right

1. “As a rule, the grant or denial of a motion for postponement is
addressed to the sound discretion of the court which should always
be predicated on the consideration that more than the mere
convenience of the courts or the parties, the ends of justice and
fairness should be served thereby. Furthermore, this discretion must
be exercised intelligently” ​(Spouses Sibay v Spouses Bermudez, G.R. No.
198196, July 17, 2017)
2. A motion for postponement should not be filed on the last hour
especially when there is no reason why it could not have been
presented earlier ​(Republic v Sandiganbayan 301 SCRA 237, 245). A
party asking for postponement has no absolute right to expect that
his motion would be granted ​(Spouses Sibay v Spouses Bermudez, G. R.
No. 198196, G. R. No. 198196, July 17, 2017).

Requisite for Postponement on the Ground of Illness

Trial may be suspended on the ground of illness of either party or
counsel by complying with the following:
 ABELLA BASCO BATECAN
RULE 30 – TRIAL

a) A motion for postponement must be filed.

b) It must be supported by an affidavit.
c) The affidavit shows that the presence of the party or counsel at the
trial is indispensable.
d) That the character of his or her illness is such as to render his or her
non-attendance excusable ​(Rule 30, Sec. 4, RoC).

SECTION 4: HEARING DAYS AND CALENDAR CALL

Trial must be held from Monday to Thursday at exactly 8:30 am to
2:00 pm (​Administrative Circular No. 3-99​).
Motions shall be always heard on a Friday ​(Rule 30, Sec. 1, RoC).
Courts shall ensure the posting of their court calendars outside their
courtrooms at least 1 day before the scheduled hearings (​OCA Circular No.
250-2015​).

SECTION 5: ORDER OF TRIAL

Subject to the provisions of Section 2 of Rule 31, and unless the court for
special reasons otherwise directs, the trial shall be limited to the issues
stated in the pre-trial order and shall proceed as follows:
a) The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his or her complaint;
b) The defendant shall then adduce evidence in support of his or her
defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaint;
c) The third-party defendant, if any, shall adduce evidence of his or her
defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and fourth-party complaint;
d) The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall adduce evidence of the
material facts pleaded by them;
e) The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross-claim has been
pleaded, shall adduce evidence in support of their defense, in the
order to be prescribed by the court;
f) The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting evidence only,
unless the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice,
permits them to adduce evidence upon their original case; and
g) Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted
for decision, unless the court directs the parties to argue or to submit
 ABELLA BASCO BATECAN
RULE 30 – TRIAL

their respective memoranda or any further pleadings ​(Rule 30, Sec. 5,

RoC).

On Presentation of Rebuttal Evidence

Generally, a party cannot submit evidence which should have been
presented as a chief evidence. However, the court, for good reasons, for the
furtherance of justice, may allow it.
It should be noted that pre-trial order is important because it limits
or sets the issues to be tackled. Any evidence that is being presented to an
issue which was not stated in the pre-trial order can be objected to.
However, even if the issue is not included in the pre-trial order but
the parties expressly or impliedly tried the issue, there is no need to file a
motion to admit the amended pleadings in order to conform to the
evidence presented because the parties precisely agreed to try the issue
which was not included in the pleadings ​(Rule 30, Sec. 5, RoC).

SECTION 6: ORAL OFFER OF EXHIBITS

The offer of evidence, the comment or objection thereto, and the
court ruling, shall be made orally in accordance with Sections 34 to 40 of
Rule 132 ​(Rule 30, Sec. 6, RoC​).

SECTION 7: AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

The parties to an action may agree, in ​writing,​ upon the facts involved
in the litigation, and then submit the case for judgment on the facts agreed
upon, without the introduction of evidence.
If the parties agree only on some facts in issue, the trial shall be held
as to the disputed facts in such order as the court shall prescribe ​(Rule 30,
Sec. 7, RoC).
When parties request that there is stipulation on a fact, it means that
they agreed that that fact exists and is true.
 ABELLA BASCO BATECAN
RULE 30 – TRIAL

In a situation where all the facts were already stipulated on, there
will be no controversy anymore as to the facts. The case can be submitted
already for the court to decide.

What is the remedy of a losing party when there was an RTC judgment
based on stipulated facts?
Appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 because the issue here is legal and
not factual (facts are agreed). It involves a pure question of law which
means that if the RTC was acting in its original jurisdiction, it should be
elevated to the Supreme Court via Rule 45.
Rule 129, Sec. 2. Judicial admissions.— Admissions made by the
parties in the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings do
not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to
have been made through palpable mistake ​(Yu v. Mapayo 44 SCRA 163,
March 29, 1972).
May an agreed statement of facts be the basis of a judgment? Why?
Yes. The reason as stated in ​McGuire vs. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., 87
Phil 370 (1950), i​ s that an agreed statement of facts is conclusive on the
parties, as well as on the court. Neither of the parties may withdraw from
an agreement, nor may the court ignore the same.
SECTION 8: SUSPENSION OF ACTIONS
Suspension of actions shall be governed by the provisions on the Civil
Code and other laws (​Rule 30, Sec. 8, RoC​).
To illustrate: under the Civil Code, if both parties manifested that
they are likely to settle the case amicably, the Court may suspend it to give
the parties enough time to reconcile.

SECTION 9: JUDGE TO RECEIVE; DELEGATION TO CLERK OF COURT

Reception of Evidence
The judge of the court where the case is pending shall personally
receive the evidence to be adduced by the parties.
 ABELLA BASCO BATECAN
RULE 30 – TRIAL

Reception of the evidence may, nevertheless, be delegated to the clerk of

court, who is a member of the bar, in the following cases:
a) In default hearings;
b) In e​ x parte ​hearings;
c) In any case by written agreement of the parties (​Rule 30, Sec. 9, RoC)​ .
The general rule is that a party shall present the evidence before a
judge of the court where the case is pending. An exception is that in cases of
default,​ ​ex parte hearings, any agreement by the parties,​ the evidence may
be received by the clerk of court provided that he is a lawyer. The exception
to the exception is the clerk of court acting as a person who receives
evidence does not have the power to rule on objections, his only duty is to
note the objections. It is only the presiding judge of the court where the
case is pending who will rule on the objections.
No provision of law or principle of public policy prohibits a court
from authorizing its clerk of court to receive the evidence of a party litigant.
After all, the reception of evidence by the clerk of court constitutes but a
ministerial task — the taking down of the testimony of the witnesses and
the marking of the pieces of documentary evidence, if any, adduced by the
party present. This task of receiving evidence precludes, on the part of the
clerk of court, the exercise of judicial discretion usually called for when the
other party who is present objects to questions propounded and to the
admission of the documentary evidence proffered ​(Laluan v. Mapaya, 65
SCRA 494, 1975).

III. CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court did well in not applying Rule 30 stringently in

order to further serve the preponderance of justice. The main purpose of
laws is to serve justice, however there are times when strict application of
these laws could lead to injustice. It is a common factor in several
jurisprudence stated that the court exercised leniency so as to not hamper
the rights of the parties in the case.