Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SILVESTRE TIU v. DANIEL MIDDLETON

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 157594 2010-03-09	TOSHIBA INFORMATION EQUIPMENT v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
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. It has been hailed as "the most important procedural innovation in Anglo-Saxon justice in the nineteenth century."[44]
	GR No. 179999 2009-03-17	ANSON TRADE CENTER v. PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Pre-trial, by definition, is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues raised by the parties[11] and to take the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering.[12] It is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases. Hailed as the most important procedural innovation in Anglo-Saxon justice in the nineteenth century,[13] it thus paves the way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of the case.[14]
	GR No. 170606 2007-11-23	LCK INDUSTRIES INC. v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Pre-trial is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases. Hailed as the most important procedural innovation in Anglo-Saxon justice in the nineteenth century,[36] pre-trial is a device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues between the parties.[37] It thus paves the way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of the case.[38] Pre-trial seeks to achieve the following: (a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution; (b) The simplification of the issues; (c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings; (d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof; (e) The limitation of the number of witnesses; (f) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner; (g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist; (h) The advisability or necessity of suspending the proceedings; and (i) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.[39] The purpose of entering into a stipulation of facts is to expedite trial and to relieve the parties and the court as well of the costs of proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry. Its main objective is to simplify, abbreviate and expedite the trial, or totally dispense with it.[40]
	GR No. 151963 2004-09-09	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION SERVICES PHILS. PANGANIBAN, J.
Because "pre-trial is essential in the simplification and the speedy disposition of disputes,"[24] nonobservance of its rules "may result in prejudice to a party's substantive rights."[25] Such rules are "not technicalities which the parties may ignore or trifle with."[26] The Rules of Court cannot be "ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution."[27]