COURT VISIT REPORT

ON

PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE

The Rules of Court provides that Pre-trial is mandatory in civil

cases. Meaning, no case can reach the trial stage without undergoing
Pre-trial. This is in relation to the provisions stated under Section 1,
Rule 18 of the Rules of Court which provides that after the last pleading
has been served and filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly
move ex parte that the case be set for Pre-trial.

Moreover, Section 2, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court also shows

that the main purpose of Pre-trial is to end the case with a possible
amicable settlement. If the parties can settle, then there’s no reason
for Pre-trial to proceed. However, if for any valid and serious ground
the parties failed to settle, then the case shall proceed with the Pre-
trial to see if it can still be heard and tried speedily by tackling other
things such as admission of documents, stipulation of facts, and
amendment of the pleadings. Given the mandatory nature of
conducting Pre-trial for speedy disposition of cases, let me give a brief
yet comprehensive comparison of how the courts of justice conduct
Pre-Trial proceedings as against the provisions laid down under Rule
18 of the Rules of Court.

Last February 19, 2019 at 8:30 A.M., I had given the opportunity
to observe a Pre-trial conference conducted by Regional Trial Court
Branch 10 of Davao City. The said proceeding was then presided by
Hon. Retrina E. Fuentes. It was a civil case for partition with case no.
35,904-14 between Ursula Asuncion Garvida, et.al as plaintiffs and
spouses Allen and Dominica Asuncion as defendants. The plaintiffs
were represented by Atty. Policarpio S. Maypa, Jr. and the defendants
by Atty. Antonio L. Laolao, Jr.

1 | Court Visit Report – Civil Procedure

 The Pre-trial conference started by calling the case no. as well
as the appearances of the parties involved in such civil case. Both
counsels for the plaintiffs and defendants appeared to represent their
clients. Evidenced by the parties’ appearances, a notice of Pre-trial as
provided by Sec. 3, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court were served on both
counsels of the case. Before, the rule was that there must be a notice
to the party and a separate notice to the lawyer. However, under the
present rule, the notice to the counsel is also the notice to the party.
The purpose of which is to simplify the work of the court processor in
sending out the notices. In view of the foregoing, it could be presumed
that the parties had received the notice since they were able to attend
the Pre-trial conference as scheduled without any delay.

In relation to the notice of pre-trial, it should also be noted that it

is the duty of the parties and their counsels to appear at the pre-trial
conference as provided for by Sec. 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.
This means the presence of only the counsels will not suffice. Both the
parties and the counsels should be there to attend the proceeding
because failure to appear comes with consequences. Section 5, Rule
18 of the Rules of Court provides that the failure of the plaintiff to
appear when so required pursuant to the next proceeding section shall
be cause for dismissal of the action and a similar failure on the part of
the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his
evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis
thereof. Before, the old rule states that if the plaintiff failed to appear,
he will be declared non-suited. Non-suited means that the party is
barred from proving his cause of action but the case is not dismissed.
However, under the present rule, the failure of the plaintiff to appear in
the Pre-trial shall be a cause for the dismissal of the action. Applying
the provisions of the law to the case involved, both the parties and their
counsels appeared during the Pre-trial conference. Hence, the
proceeding commenced.

2 | Court Visit Report – Civil Procedure

 After calling the appearances, the presiding judge asked both
counsels if they had already submitted their respective Pre-trial briefs
and Judicial Affidavits. It is well-known under Section 6, Rule 18 of the
Rules of Court that the parties to a case should file a Pre-trial brief with
the court and serve on the adverse party in a way as to ensure their
receipt at least three days before the scheduled date of the Pre-trial. It
should also contain a summary of everything covered by their
pleadings such as the causes of action, defenses, issued to be tried,
admitted facts, facts that the parties believe should be stipulated,
documents or exhibits to be presented, and the witnesses who will
testify. The determination of these variables should be done during the
preliminary conference including the marking of exhibits and the
preparation of the list of witnesses. Moreover, it’s essential to note that
the requirement for the submission of a Pre-trial brief is mandatory and
by that, failure to submit shall have the same effect as failure to appear
at the pre-trial. Applying the very language of the law, both parties in
this case had submitted their Pre-trial briefs and copies of Judicial
Affidavits. They were also able to successfully mark their exhibits
during the preliminary conference.

However, on the presiding judge’s question on stipulation of

facts, the counsel for the plaintiffs answered in negative which means
they didn’t have any proposal for stipulation. On the contrary, the judge
told them that they should go for the stipulation of facts since the
defendants in their Answer admitted the existence of co-ownership
among the parties which was in connection with the issue of the case
as to whether or not the action for partition is proper. It should also be
noted that the stipulation of facts means that the parties agree on some
facts and there is no need for them to prove the same in court because
they’ve already agreed. Matters that can be agreed upon include size
of the land, improvements thereon, due execution of documents, and
others.

3 | Court Visit Report – Civil Procedure

 Since the defendants admitted that they were co-owners of a
parcel of land in Marfori Heights, Davao City, then the question to be
resolved as discussed by the presiding judge was whether or not the
action for partition in this case was proper since the defendants
admitted the existence of co-ownership among the parties. The
defendants asserted that the action for partition was not proper
because the proposed partition of the plaintiffs is not consistent with
their proposal. The plaintiffs proposed to give the back portion of the
land to the defendants but the latter wanted the front portion. However,
the presiding judge explained that the proposal was about which
portion of the property should go to which co-owner but with respect to
the issue of whether or not the partition was proper without necessarily
dwelling on the fact of which part of the land should go to the parties,
then there was no legal prohibition on the partition of the property since
co-ownership existed. The defendants then answered in affirmative.
That said, the judge asserted that the case was done with the first
phase of the partition which were the determination of the existence of
co-ownership between the parties and whether or not the partition was
proper. From there, she asked the parties if they can agree on the
partition and then submit their deed of conveyance to the court.

Unfortunately, the defendants could not agree on the proposal of

partition initiated by the plaintiffs because the former opposed and
asked for the other portion of the land in controversy. They asserted
that the partition could not be made due to disagreements on the
portions of the land to be divided. The plaintiff asserted that the
proposed partition by the defendants was unacceptable because it
would cause a depreciation of the entire value of the property the
moment they would decide to sell the same. Since the parties could
not agree on the partition and in order to render a fair judgment on the
partition of the land among the parties, the presiding judge decided to
appoint competent and disinterested commissioners whom they think

4 | Court Visit Report – Civil Procedure

will best represent the interests of the parties to conduct the said
partition. She directed both parties to submit at least two names of the
persons who shall aid the court in the partition of the property. The
counsels asked for at least five days to provide a list of names to be
appointed as commissioners.

In line with the appointment of the commissioners, the same is

being laid down under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court titled as “Trial by
Commissioners.” A commissioner is defined as the person who may
be appointed by a judge to assist the court in determining certain
issues. In the given case, the appointment of the commissioners can
shorten the proceedings as the judge didn’t have to go over the
process by herself. After all, she didn’t have enough knowledge about
the description of the property as she’s not a surveyor or geodetic
engineer. So, if someone who’s knowledgeable about the issue at
hand would be appointed, then the process of partition would be faster.

After the counsels agreed upon the schedule for the submission
of the list of proposed commissioners, the judge rendered her Pre-trial
order as envisioned under Section 7, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.
The law states that the Pre-trial proceedings shall be recorded and
upon the termination thereof, the court shall issue an order which
serves as the summary of everything that had been take up in the pre-
trial conference including the issues resolved, the facts admitted,
action taken and many more. In the given case, the presiding judge
specified in her pre-trial order that the defendant admitted the
existence of co-ownership among the parties, that the parties could not
agree on the proposed partition, that the court directed to appoint
commissioners to help the court in the partition process, and that the
parties were given at least five days from the receipt of the order to
submit a list of names for the appointment of the commissioners.

5 | Court Visit Report – Civil Procedure

 Considering the circumstances of the Pre-trial conference
conducted last February 19, 2019, it could be inferred that the
provisions laid down under Rule 18 of the Rules of Court and other
applicable rules are being observed, followed, and given legal effect
by our courts of law.

6 | Court Visit Report – Civil Procedure