This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-03-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Pre-trial, by definition, is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues raised by the parties[11] and to take the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering.[12] It is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases. Hailed as the most important procedural innovation in Anglo-Saxon justice in the nineteenth century,[13] it thus paves the way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of the case.[14] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The conduct of pre-trial in civil actions has been mandatory as early as 1 January 1964 upon the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Court.[33] Pre-trial is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues between the parties[34] and to take the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering.[35] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Pre-trial is primarily intended to insure that the parties properly raise all issues necessary to dispose of a case.[7] The parties must disclose during pre-trial all issues they intend to raise during the trial, except those involving privileged or impeaching matters.[8] Although a pre-trial order is not meant to catalogue each issue that the parties may take up during the trial, issues not included in the pre-trial order may be considered only if they are impliedly included in the issues raised or inferable from the issues raised by necessary implication.[9] The basis of the rule is simple. Petitioners are bound by the delimitation of the issues during the pre-trial because they themselves agreed to the same.[10] | |||||