173.
Aguilar vs Lightbringers Credit Cooperative
FACTS:
The case began as 3 separate complaints for a sum of money against Aguilar,
Calimbas and a certain Tantiangco filed by Lightbringers. The cases were
consolidated before the MCTC, Dinalupihan, Bataan. The petitioners and Tantiangco
filed their answers and denied having borrowed any amount of money. On the
scheduled pre-trial conference, only the respondent and its counsel appeared. The
MCTC issued the order allowing it to present evidence ex parte. It presented its general
manager as sole witness. The petitioners insisted that they should be allowed to cross
examine the witness even if the case was being heard ex parte. In the interest of
justice, the MCTC directed the counsels of all the parties to submit their position papers
on whether a party declared “as in default” might still participate in the trial of the case.
Again, only the respondent complied. The MCTC then held that because the
proceedings were being heard ex parte, parties “as in default” have no right to
participate therein and cross-examine the witness. The case against Tantiangco was
dismissed, there being no showing that she had received the amount claimed. However
the MCTC held that the petitioners were liable to respondent fortheir debts. The
petitioners then filed their notice of appeal and their joint memorandum of appeal before
the RTC of Bataan arguing that had they been allowed to present evidence, they could
have established that the debts were bogus. The RTC affirmed the MCTC decision. The
petitioners then filed their joint motion for new trial/reconsideration before the
RTC. They reiterated that they did not receive the amounts claimed. As an alternative
prayer, they asked that the case be remanded to the MCTC for a new trial on account of
the Sinumpaang Salaysay of the bookkeeper of the respondent. The RTC dismissed
their motion.
ISSUE:
WoN the petitioners should have been allowed to cross-examine the respondent’s
witness and present evidence
RULING:
The rule is that a court can only consider the evidence presented by the respondent
in the MCTC because the petitioners failed to attend the pre-trial conference. The
failure of the respondents to attend caused the petitioner to present its 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, the
plaintiff shall be 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. Pre-trial cannot be taken for granted. It is not a
MENDOZA, ETHEL JOI M
mere technicality in court proceeding 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. The Court can only consider the evidence on record offered by the
respondent. The petitioners lost their right to present their evidence during trial and
a fortiori on appeal due to their disregard of the mandatory attendance in the
pretrial conference
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.
MENDOZA, ETHEL JOI M
