The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which became effective on July 1, 1997 reinforced the

importance of the pre-trial stage in civil cases. Before, notwithstanding that there were already

rules providing for pre-trial in civil cases, in fact as early as 1940, there was no uniform method

of conducting one and in many cases, there was only a mere passing compliance. More often

than not, the judge would merely ask the litigants whether or not there was any possibility of

settlement and if in the negative, would simply terminate the pre-trial and proceed to trial on

the merits. The 1997 Rules have changed the situation in that the provisions on pre-trial are

now being strictly observed making pre-trial a more effective tool toward the expeditious

disposition of civil cases.

The 1997 Rules require that after the last pleading has been served and filed, the plaintiff must

promptly move ex-parte that the civil case be set for pre-trial. This is in lieu of the old rule

which placed such burden on the court. Further, while it was only in the heading of the old rule

that the words "[P]re-trial mandatory" appeared, the 1997 Rules now expressly provide that

"[T]he pre-trial is mandatory."

And so what is the purpose of the pre-trial in a civil case? The purpose is for the court to

consider the: (1) the possibility of an amicable settlement or submission to alternative mode of

dispute resolution; (2) the simplification of issues; (3) the necessity or desirability of

amendments to the pleadings; (4) the possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts

and of documents to avoid unnecessary proofs; (5) the limitation of the number of witnesses;

(6) the advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner, (7) the propriety of

rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing the action should

a valid ground therefore be found; (8) the advisability or necessity of suspending the

proceeding; and (9) such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action. As

may be seen, the overall purpose is really to simplify, abbreviate, facilitate and expedite the

case.

The 1997 Rules, moreover, affirmed prevailing jurisprudence on notice to, and appearance of,

parties. Thus, notice of pre-trial shall be served on counsel, or on the party who has no counsel.

It is counsel’s duty therefore to notify his client. And, the non-appearance of a party may

be excused only if a valid cause is shown or if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully

authorized in writing. It is important to note that such authority in writing or special power of

attorney must specifically state that the representative of the party is authorized to do the

following three acts: (1) to enter into an amicable settlement; (2) to submit to alternative

modes of dispute resolution; and (3) to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of

documents. It bears to stress that a defective special power of attorney results in the

representative not being fully authorized to appear on behalf of the party. For all intents and

purposes, therefore, the party is not represented and deemed not to have appeared at the pre-

trial.

There is also a reiteration in the 1997 Rules of the consequence of a failure to appear at the

pre-trial conference. Accordingly, the plaintiff who does not appear personally or by a properly

authorized representative is "non-suited" in that his case shall be dismissed and such dismissal

shall be with prejudice unless otherwise ordered by the court. The defendant who does not

appear personally or by a properly authorized representative is considered "as in default" in

that the plaintiff shall be allowed to present evidence ex-parte on the basis of which the court

shall render judgment.

The 1997 Rules have a section devoted to the pre-trial brief. In the past, lawyers submitted

their own versions of the pre-trial brief. While some go to great lengths to provide the court

with a good overview of their case and the evidence they intended to present, many others

filed merely a brief summary of their complaint or answer, as the case may be, and nothing

more. Now, pre-trial briefs follow a standard format containing, among others: (1) a statement

of the party’s willingness to enter into amicable settlement or alternative modes of

dispute resolution, indicating the desired terms; (2) a summary of admitted facts and proposed

stipulation of facts; (3) the issues to be tried or resolved; (4) the documents or exhibits to be

presented, stating the purpose thereof; (5) a manifestation of having availed or their intention

to avail of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners; and, (6) the number and names

of witnesses and substance of their respective testimonies. The pre-trial brief’s

indispensability is shown by the fact that failure to file one has the same effects as failure to

appear at the pre-trial. However, there is no particular sanction against the submission of an

incomplete or non-complying pretrial brief:

As to the effect of presenting evidence other than those a party has specified in the pre-trial

brief, recent jurisprudence tends to preclude a party from doing so because allowing him would

defeat the very purpose of the pre-trial brief which is the simplification, abbreviation and

expedition of trial. According to the Supreme Court in the case of Tiu vs. Middleton, et al, 310

SCRA 580, judges have the discretion to exclude witnesses and other pieces of evidence not

listed in the pre-trial brief, provided the parties are given prior notice to this effect.

After the pre-trial, the court issues a pre-trial order which, under the 1997 Rules, shall recite in

detail the matters taken up in the conference and explicitly define and limit the issues. Going

back to the above-cited case, the Supreme Court resolved therein that where in the pre-trial

order, the judge did not exercise his discretion to exclude unlisted or unnamed witnesses, but

simply provided that a party will present so many witnesses without mentioning at all that they

would be barred from testifying unless named, and the other party did not challenge said order

nor compel the submission of names of witnesses and summaries of their testimonies, the

latter was deemed to have acquiesced to the order allowing the presentation of unnamed

witnesses.