This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-06-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Agulto v. Tecson, We likewise discussed that an order by the trial court allowing a party to present his evidence ex-parte without due notice of pre-trial to the other party constitutes grave abuse of discretion. [28] | |||||
|
2006-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The records clearly show that Conrado R. Cruz was absent during the pre-trial of Civil Case No. Q-03-50379, despite the specific mandate of the Rules of Court for parties and their counsel to personally appear therein.[13] While non-appearance of a party may be excused if a duly authorized representative shall appear in his behalf,[14] however Cruz failed to validly constitute complainant because his authorization letter and SPA were not respectively authenticated and specific as to its purpose. Without any authorized representative, the failure of Cruz to appear at the pre-trial made him non-suited. Respondent judge thus correctly dismissed the complaint in so far as he is concerned. [15] | |||||