Dr. Emmanuel Vera vs Ernesto Rigor and the Court of Appeals

Aug. 10, 2007

Ernesto Rigor, respondent, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for sum of money with damages against Dr. Emmanuel Vera, petitioner. Respondent alleged in his complaint that petitioner purchased from him a brand new Ultrasound Scanner, Model HS 120, for P410,000.00. Petitioner paid P120,000.00 as downpayment, leaving a balance of P290,000.00. Despite respondents demand, petitioner failed to pay the same.

In his answer, petitioner claimed that he received the machine on a trial basis. However, when tested, its performance was unsatisfactory. Moreover, the hospital where the machine was to be installed has no funds. Respondent offered a new brand of Ultrasound Scanner but it turned out to be an old model.

During the pre-trial conference, the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement; hence, the trial court terminated the pre-trial and set the case for initial hearing. However, upon motion of respondents counsel, the trial was reset. During the hearing the trial court upon manifestation of petitioners counsel, realized that respondent failed to file a pre-trial brief. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint raising as ground respondents failure to file a pre-trial brief.

Issue: whether the complaint is dismissible for respondents’ failure to file a pre-trial brief?

Held:

We hold that the issue rose before the Court of Appeals is both legal and factual as shown by the following discussion.

Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

SEC. 6. Pre-trial Brief. The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, in such manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, among others:

(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into amicable settlement or alternative modes of dispute resolution, indicating the desired terms thereof;

(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;

(c) The issues to be tried or resolved;

(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the purpose thereof;

(e) A manifestation of their having availed or their intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners; and

(f) The number and names of the witnesses, and the substance of their respective testimonies.

Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.

 Section 5 of the same Rule states:

SEC. 5. Effect of Failure to Appear. The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. x x x

Section 7 likewise provides:

SEC. 7. Record of pre-trial. The proceedings in the pre-trial shall be recorded. Upon the termination thereof, the court shall issue an order which shall recite in detail the matters taken up in the conference, the action taken thereon, the amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements or admissions made by the parties as to any of the matters considered. Should the action proceed to trial, the order shall explicitly define and limit the issues to be tried. The contents of the order shall control the subsequent course of the action, unless modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice. 

 Clearly, the above Rule mandatorily requires the parties to seasonably file their briefs and failure to do so shall be cause for the dismissal of the action.

As mentioned earlier, respondent did not file a pre-trial brief in violation of the above Rule. But what surprised us is the fact that the trial court conducted the pre-trial conference on January 21, 1997 despite the lack of respondents’ pre-trial brief and thereafter terminated the same. It was only on July 17, 1997 during the initial hearing (after two postponements) that the trial judge came to know, after being apprised by petitioners counsel, that respondent did not file a pre-trial brief.

While the trial judge erroneously preceded with the trial conference, the fact remains that respondent did not file a pre-trial brief. Pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18 quoted above, such failure is a cause for dismissal of the action. We have to emphasize that pre-trial and its governing rules are not technicalities which the parties may ignore or trifle with.

  

Obviously, since respondent did not file a pre-trial brief, it follows that the trial judge failed to conduct the pre-trial conference in accordance with Rule 18. In fact, he did not issue the required pre-trial order stating the various matters which should have been included therein. Indeed, the trial judge showed his ignorance of the Rules, specifically Rule 18. And by failing to take appropriate steps to enable the parties reach an amicable settlement, the trial judge showed his gross inefficiency. 

In conclusion, we rule that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of respondents appeal. However, it erred in reversing the RTC judgment dismissing respondents complaint for his failure to file a pre-trial brief.