Civil Procedure Saguid v.

CA 403 SCRA Facts: Gina and Saguid decided to cohabit as husband and wife without the benefit of marriag. They acquired properties during their cohabitation but ended after nine years. Gina filed a complaint for partition and recovery of personal property with receivership against petitioner. The court ordered petitioner to file the pre-trial brief but he failed to do so. The trial court declared him in default. He filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Gina was allowed to present evidence ex parte. A decision was rendered in favor of Gina. The CA affirmed the decision and ruled that the propriety of order which declared the petitioner in default became moot and academic in view of the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It explained that the new rule now requires the filing of pre-trial brief and the defendants non-compliance entitles the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte. Issue: Whether the trial court erred in allowing Gina to present evidence ex parte. Held: Under Seciton 6 of Rule 18 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the failure of the defendant to file a pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial, the plaintiff may present evidence ex parte and court shall render judgment on the basis thereof. The remedy of the defendant is to file a motion for reconsideration showing his failure has a valid and meritorious defense. In the case at bar, petitioner insists that his failure to file pre-trial is justified because he was not represented by counsel. The justification is not sufficient to set aside the order directing private respondent to present evidence ex parte, in as much as the petitioner chose at his own risk not to be represented by counsel. Even without the assistance of a lawyer, petitioner was able to file a motion for extension to file answer, the required answer stating therein the special and affirmative defenses, and several other motions. If it were true that petitioners did not understand the importance of order directing him to file a pretrial brief, he could have inquired from the court and file a motion for extension of time to file the brief. Pre-trial rules are not to be belittled or dismissed because their non-observance may result in prejudice to a partys substantive rights. Like all rules, they should be followed except only for the most persuasive reason to relax the application of the rules. In civil cases, while assistance of a lawyer is desirable, it is not indispensable.

Manuel Rodriguez II FEU Institute of Law

Civil Procedure However, the CA erred in its ruling. While the rules may indeed be applied retroactively, the same is not called for in the case at bar. Even before the 1997 Rules took effect, the filing of the brief was required under an SC-Circular.

Manuel Rodriguez II FEU Institute of Law