This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-01-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The pre-trial cannot be taken for granted. It is not a mere technicality in court proceedings for it serves a vital objective: the simplification, abbreviation and expedition of the trial, if not indeed its dispensation.[36] More significantly, the pre-trial has been institutionalized as the 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, it paved the way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of the case. It is, thus, mandatory for the trial court to conduct pre-trial in civil cases in order to realize the paramount objective of simplifying, abbreviating and expediting trial.[37] | |||||
|
2010-09-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Therefore, "pre-trial cannot be taken for granted. It is not a mere technicality in court proceedings for it serves a vital objective: the simplification, abbreviation and expedition of the trial, if not indeed its dispensation."[35] This considered, it is required in Section 4 of Rule 20 of the Rules of Court that: Section 4. Appearance of parties. - It shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor or if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents. [Emphasis supplied] | |||||
|
2007-08-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Under the old rules, a representative was allowed to establish the authority needed by showing either a written special power of attorney or competent evidence other than the self-serving assertions of the representative.[16] However, the new rules require nothing less than the authority be in writing. As held in United Coconut Planters Bank v. Magpayo,[17] "the rules now require the special power of attorney be in writing because the courts can neither second-guess the specific powers given to the representative, nor can the courts assume that all the powers specified in Section 4 of Rule 18 are granted by the party to his representative." | |||||
|
2006-10-12 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the Court has not hesitated to affirm the dismissals of complaints or the allowance of plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte on account of the absence of a party during pre-trial. In United Coconut Planters Bank v. Magpayo,[27] the complaint was dismissed because although the counsel for complainant was present during the pre-trial hearing, the Court affirmed such dismissal on account of said counsel's failure to present any special power of attorney authorizing him to represent the complainant during pre-trial.[28] In Jonathan Landoil International Co. v. Mangudadatu,[29] the defendant and its counsel failed to appear during pre-trial, and the complainants were allowed to present evidence ex parte. After an adverse decision was rendered against the defendant, it filed a motion for new trial in which it cited the illness of defendant's counsel as the reason for his non-appearance during pre-trial. While the Court acknowledged that such argument was not a proper ground for a motion for new trial, it also noted that the appearance of the defendant during pre-trial was also mandatory, and that the defendant failed to justify its own absence during pre-trial.[30] | |||||