Missing Pre-Trial? Understand the Risk of Default Judgment

TLDR: This case highlights the critical importance of attending pre-trial conferences. Failure to appear, without a valid excuse, can lead to the court allowing the opposing party to present evidence ex parte and a judgment based solely on their evidence, potentially resulting in an unfavorable outcome.

G.R. NO. 154334, July 31, 2006

Introduction

Imagine finding yourself on the losing end of a legal battle simply because you missed a crucial court hearing. This is the harsh reality for many litigants who underestimate the importance of pre-trial conferences. The case of Spouses Jeffrey and Josephine Khonghun vs. United Coconut Planters Bank serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of failing to attend pre-trial and the court’s discretion in proceeding with a case ex parte.

In this case, the Khonghun spouses obtained loans from UCPB but later defaulted on their payments. UCPB filed a collection suit, but the spouses and their counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial conference. The trial court allowed UCPB to present evidence ex parte and subsequently ruled in favor of the bank. This decision underscores the significance of adhering to court procedures and the potential ramifications of non-compliance.

Legal Context: Pre-Trial Conferences and Default Judgments

Pre-trial conferences are a critical stage in Philippine civil procedure. They are designed to expedite the resolution of cases by defining the issues, exploring settlement possibilities, and setting the stage for trial. Rule 18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governs pre-trial procedures, emphasizing the mandatory attendance of parties and their counsel.

Section 4 of Rule 18 states the importance of attending pre-trial conferences. It reads: “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.”

The consequences of failing to appear at a pre-trial conference are clearly outlined in Section 5 of the same rule: “The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action… 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.” This provision grants the court the authority to proceed with the trial in the absence of the defendant, potentially leading to a default judgment.

A pre-trial brief is another important document. Section 6 states: “The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, in such manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3) days before the date of pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain among others… Failure to file the trial brief shall have the same failure to appear at the pre-trial.”

Case Breakdown: Khonghun vs. UCPB

The case of Spouses Khonghun vs. UCPB unfolded as follows:

• Loan Acquisition: The Khonghun spouses obtained loans from UCPB totaling P2,000,000 in October 1984.
• Default: The spouses failed to fulfill their payment obligations, leading UCPB to file a collection suit with a preliminary attachment.
• Pre-Trial Absence: The Khonghuns and their counsel failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial conference and failed to submit a pre-trial brief.
• Ex Parte Presentation: Judge Victorio allowed UCPB to present its evidence ex parte.
• RTC Judgment: The RTC ruled in favor of UCPB, ordering the Khonghuns to pay their outstanding obligations and attorney’s fees.
• Motion for Reconsideration: The Khonghuns filed an MR, citing the interment of counsel’s wife and Mr. Khonghun’s illness as reasons for their absence, but the motion was denied.
• Appeal Attempt: Their subsequent notice of appeal was also denied due to being filed beyond the reglementary period.
• Certiorari Petition: The spouses filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing grave abuse of discretion.
• CA Dismissal: The CA dismissed the petition, citing improper remedy, forum-shopping, and the correctness of the ex parte trial.

The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing the trial court’s discretion in excusing absences from pre-trial. The Court quoted:

“Petitioners could not question Judge Victorio’s discretion absent any showing that he did so whimsically or capriciously. His decision to allow respondent to present its evidence ex parte was prompted by the fact that petitioners and their counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial without informing the court of the reasons for their absence.”

The Supreme Court also stated:

“Rule 18, Section 5 mandates that, in case of defendant’s (petitioners’) failure to attend the pre-trial, the court shall render judgment based on the evidence presented ex parte by the plaintiff (respondent UCPB).”

Practical Implications: Lessons for Litigants

This case provides several key takeaways for litigants in the Philippines:

• Attend Pre-Trial: Prioritize attending pre-trial conferences. It is a mandatory stage, and your presence is crucial.
• Valid Excuse: If you cannot attend, provide a valid and documented excuse to the court well in advance.
• Communicate: Always communicate with the court regarding any unavoidable absences or delays.
• Pre-Trial Brief: Submit a comprehensive pre-trial brief within the prescribed timeframe.
• Understand Consequences: Be aware of the potential consequences of non-compliance, including the risk of default judgment.

Key Lessons:

1. Proactive Communication: Keep the court informed of any circumstances preventing your attendance.
2. Document Everything: Maintain thorough records of all communications and filings.
3. Seek Legal Counsel: Consult with a qualified attorney to ensure compliance with all procedural requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What happens if I miss a pre-trial conference?

A: If you, as the defendant, fail to appear at the pre-trial conference without a valid excuse, the court may allow the plaintiff to present their evidence ex parte and render judgment based solely on that evidence.

Q: What is considered a valid excuse for missing a pre-trial conference?

A: Valid excuses are determined by the court’s discretion but typically include serious illness, family emergencies, or other unforeseen circumstances that prevent your attendance. Documentation is essential.

Q: Can I send a representative to the pre-trial conference?

A: Yes, you can send a representative, but they must be fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, submit to alternative dispute resolution methods, and make stipulations or admissions of facts and documents.

Q: What is a pre-trial brief, and why is it important?

A: A pre-trial brief is a document outlining your case, including the issues to be resolved, evidence to be presented, and witnesses to be called. Failure to submit a pre-trial brief can have the same consequences as failing to appear at the pre-trial conference.

Q: What should I do if I receive a default judgment?

A: If you receive a default judgment, immediately consult with an attorney to explore your options, which may include filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal.

Q: How does the Neypes ruling affect the period to appeal?

A: The Neypes ruling provides a fresh period of 15 days from receipt of the order denying a motion for reconsideration or new trial within which to file a notice of appeal.

ASG Law specializes in litigation and dispute resolution. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.