This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, it bears stressing that the foregoing justifications given by petitioner for failure to appear at the pre-trial conference were never raised before the trial court. A perusal of her Motion for Reconsideration merely alleged the ground that she was improperly notified of the conference for having received the notice thereof 15 hours before the same, therefore nullifying the trial court's dismissal of the case. Her need to secure counsel and prepare documents necessary for the case were only asserted in the instant petition before this Court. It is settled that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage.[12] | |||||
|
2015-02-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| From the foregoing, the failure of a party to appear at the pre-trial has indeed adverse consequences. 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 based on the evidence presented. 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 its own evidence.[31] The stringent application of the rules on pre-trial is necessitated from the significant role of the pre-trial stage in the litigation process. Pre-trial is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases. Although it was discretionary under the 1940 Rules of Court, it was made mandatory under the 1964 Rules and the subsequent amendments in 1997.[32] "The importance of pre-trial in civil actions cannot be overemphasized."[33] | |||||
|
2015-01-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| 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.[35] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| From the foregoing, it is clear that the failure of a party to appear at the pre-trial has adverse consequences. 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 its own evidence.[28] | |||||
|
2013-07-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Despite the leeway and opportunity given by the trial court, it seemed that the OSG and BOC did not accord proper importance to the pre-trial conference. Pre-trial, to stress, is way more than simple marking of evidence. Hence, it should not be ignored or neglected, as the counsels for respondent had. In Tolentino v. Laurel,[37] this Court has this to say on the matter of importance of pre-trial: In The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company v. Enario, the Court held that pre-trial cannot be taken for granted. It is not a mere technicality in court proceedings for it serves a vital objective: the simplification, abbreviation and expedition of the trial, if not indeed its dispensation. The Court said that: | |||||