Court-visit-report.docx

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 Pretrial 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 pretrial 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