TOPIC: RULE 18: PRE-TRIAL
miscellaneous fees.
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
5. MCTC directed the counsels of both parties
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.