201715
FACTS:
In the years 2002, 2003 and 2004, due to circumstances beyond the
reasonable control of the parties, MERALCO drew from NAPOCOR
electric power and energy less than the minimum quantities
stipulated in the CSE for those years. MERALCO did not pay the
minimum monthly charges but only the charges for the electric power
and energy actually taken. Thus, NAPOCOR served on MERALCO
a claim for the contracted but undrawn electric power and energy
starting the billing month of January 2002.
The motions filed by the OSG raise a common issue: whether or not
the parties, MERALCO and NPC, should be referred to arbitration?
ISSUE:
RULING:
NO. The RTC’s proceeding with the pre-trial set on November 24,
2010 was entirely in accord with the Rules of Court. While it is true
that the OSG had filed on November 22, 2010 the petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, the CA did not restrain the
RTC from thus proceeding. Absent any TRO or WPI stopping the
RTC from proceeding, the mere filing or pendency of the special civil
actions for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition did not interrupt the
due course of the proceedings in the main case. This is quite clear
from the revised Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, 28 which
mandated that the petition shall not interrupt the course of the
principal case.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS:
This case stemmed from the three (3) complaints for sum of money
separately filed by respondent Lightbringers Credit
Cooperative (respondent) on July 14, 2008 against petitioners
Aguilar and Calimbas, and one Perlita
Tantiangco (Tantiangco) (Tantiangco, Aguilar and Calimbas were
members of the cooperative and borrowed money)which were
consolidated before the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Dinalupihan, Bataan (MCTC).
ISSUE:
Whether or not the MCTC properly issued the August 25, 2009
Order, allowing respondent to present evidence ex parte to
petitioners failure to attend the pre-trial conference on August 25,
2009 pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.
RULING:
YES. The rule is that a court can only consider the evidence
presented by respondent in the MCTC because the petitioners failed
to attend the pre-trial conference on August 25, 2009 pursuant to
Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.33 The Court, however,
clarifies that failure to attend the pre-trial does not result in the
“default” of the defendant. Instead, the failure of the defendant to
attend shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex
parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.
If the absent party is the plaintiff, then his case shall be dismissed.
If it is the defendant who fails to appear, then the plaintiff is allowed
to present his evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment
on the basis thereof. Thus, the plaintiff is given the privilege to
present his evidence without objection from the defendant, the
likelihood being that the court will decide in favor of the plaintiff, the
defendant having forfeited the opportunity to rebut or present his
own evidence.
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.
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.
SO ORDERED.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS:
RTC Makati City rendered a decision finding both the ESLI and ATI
liable for the damages sustained by the two shipments. Court of
Appeals absolved ATI from liability thereby modifying the decision of
the trial court.
Before this Court, ESLI seeks the reversal of the ruling on its liability.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by the
parties and their counsels, they become binding on the parties who
made them. They become judicial admissions of the fact or facts
stipulated. Even if placed at a disadvantageous position, a party may
not be allowed to rescind them unilaterally, it must assume the
consequences of the disadvantage. The admission having been
made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties, it must be
treated as a judicial admission. Under Section 4, of Rule 129 of the
Rules of Court, a judicial admission requires no proof.
vs.
FACTS:
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging that the
RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the aforestated
orders. CA reversed decision.
ISSUE:
RULING:
NO. In affirming the decision of the Trial Court, the Supreme Court
held that where a party may not himself be present at the pretrial,
and another person substitutes for him, or his lawyer undertakes to
appear not only as an attorney but in substitution of the client’s
person, it is imperative for that representative of the lawyer to have
“special authority” to make such substantive agreements as only the
client otherwise has capacity to make.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vs.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
YES. Regardless, the holding by both lower courts was proper and
correct. The non-inclusion in the pre-trial order barred the identity of
the property in litis as an issue, for it is basic that any factual issue
not included in the pre-trial order will not be heard and considered at
the trial, much less, on appeal. The parties had the obligation to
disclose during the pre-trial all the issues they intended to raise
during the trial, except those involving privileged or impeaching
matters, for the rule is that the definition of issues during the pre-trial
conference will bar the consideration of others, whether during trial
or on appeal. The basis of the exclusion is that the parties are
concluded by the delimitation of the issues in the pre-trial order
because they themselves agreed to it.