CLODUALDA D. DAACO, PETITIONER, VS. VALERIANA ROSALDO YU, RESPONDENT.

Daaco versus Yu

The Case

This is the case of Daaco versus Yu, a petition for review brought by Clodualda D. Daaco against Valeriana Rosaldo Yu. Daaco had sued Yu and others in the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City for annulment of title, recovery of property covered by a transfer certificate of title, and damages. The trial court dismissed her complaint because she failed to appear at the pre-trial conference, and she now asks the Supreme Court to reverse that dismissal. The case matters because it fixes the consequences of a plaintiff's absence at pre-trial under Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, and it teaches when a short notice of pre-trial will, and will not, excuse that absence.

Procedural History

Daaco filed her complaint for annulment of title, recovery of property, and damages before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, of Tacloban City. After the answer was filed and the preliminary matters were disposed of, the trial court set the pre-trial conference for October 4, 2007 at 8:30 in the morning. On that date, upon motion of the defendant Yu, the trial court issued an order dismissing the case as against Yu because the plaintiff failed to appear. Daaco moved for reconsideration, arguing that she received the notice only at 5:30 in the afternoon of October 3, 2007, or about 15 hours before the conference, and that a motion she had earlier filed remained unresolved. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration on December 27, 2007. Daaco then went directly to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari, raising a question of law: whether the dismissal for failure to appear at pre-trial was contrary to law, the rules, and existing jurisprudence.

Facts

Daaco sued Yu, Faustina Daaco, and the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City for annulment of title, recovery of property under a transfer certificate of title, and damages. Yu filed her answer. In the months that followed, Daaco filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court denied; she sought reconsideration, which was also denied. She later filed a motion to declare the defendant in default for failure to file a pre-trial brief, which the trial court denied as premature, and a motion to consider the answer as not filed, which the trial court likewise denied as inconsistent with her earlier motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The trial court scheduled the pre-trial conference for October 4, 2007 at 8:30 in the morning. Daaco received the notice at 5:30 in the afternoon of October 3, 2007, roughly 15 hours before the conference. She did not appear, and neither did anyone appear on her behalf. Upon motion of Yu, the trial court dismissed the case as against Yu.

In denying reconsideration, the trial court observed that Daaco and her son had in fact received the notice, that her residence was only 15 to 20 minutes by public utility vehicle from the court, and that prudence and diligence would have brought her to court or at least prompted her to inform the court of her predicament. Daaco insisted before the Supreme Court that the 15-hour notice was, in effect, no notice at all, and that she had no counsel to represent her.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court's dismissal of the complaint for the plaintiff's failure to appear at the pre-trial conference was contrary to law, the rules, and existing jurisprudence.
• Whether or not the 15-hour notice of pre-trial conference was so short as to amount to no notice at all, thereby invalidating the dismissal.
• Whether or not the trial court's mistaken reference to a counsel for the petitioner, when she had none, rendered the order of dismissal void.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, on the appearance of parties, provides:

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.

This is the duty whose breach the Court measures Daaco's conduct against, and it allows non-appearance only upon a valid cause shown.

Section 5 of Rule 18, on the effect of failure to appear, provides:

Section 5. Effect of failure to appear. — The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. 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 is the very sanction imposed on Daaco, and it makes the dismissal of a non-appearing plaintiff the rule rather than a matter of mere convenience.

Section 3 of Rule 18, on notice of pre-trial, provides:

Section 3. Notice of pre-trial. — The notice of pre-trial shall be served on counsel, or on the party who has no counsel. The counsel served with such notice is charged with the duty of notifying the party represented by him.

This answers Daaco's claim that the notice was defective, because she had no counsel and the notice was served on her personally.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition lacked merit. The failure of a party to appear at pre-trial has adverse consequences: if the absent party is the plaintiff, he may be declared non-suited and his case dismissed; if it is the defendant, the plaintiff may present evidence ex parte. Non-appearance may be excused only if a valid cause is shown, and what constitutes a valid ground is subject to the sound discretion of the judge, which will not be disturbed absent a clear and manifest abuse of discretion. The Court found no such abuse, because the trial court was merely implementing the letter of the law.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that a 15-hour notice amounted to no notice. The Court found Daaco's claim that she had yet to secure counsel to be specious, since she came to the Supreme Court herself, unrepresented, and even faulted the trial court for referring to a counsel who did not exist. The Court also noted that she had more than a year from the filing of the answer to prepare for the pre-trial, and during that period she filed several motions and even a separate petition, which contradicted her claim of unpreparedness. The Court stressed that the justifications of needing counsel and needing time to prepare documents were never raised before the trial court and could not be raised for the first time on appeal. It added that while a 15-hour notice may be quite impulsive, that fact alone did not excuse her absence, since notice was received before the date of the pre-trial, in compliance with the notice requirement of the Rules.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court's mistaken reference to a counsel was immaterial. Under Section 3 of Rule 18, notice is served on counsel, or on the party who has no counsel. Since Daaco had no counsel and the notice was served on her personally, the mandate of the law was sufficiently complied with, and the order of dismissal could not be invalidated by statements referring to a counsel who did not exist.

Doctrine

A plaintiff who fails to appear at the pre-trial conference when so required may have his action dismissed, and the dismissal is with prejudice unless the court otherwise orders. Non-appearance may be excused only if a valid cause is shown, and what counts as a valid cause rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, reviewable only for clear and manifest abuse. Pre-trial is not a mere technicality; it serves the simplification, abbreviation, and expedition of the trial and must not be ignored or neglected. Where a party has no counsel, notice of pre-trial served personally on that party satisfies Section 3 of Rule 18, and a short interval between notice and conference does not by itself void the dismissal where notice was in fact received before the scheduled date. Finally, a party who invokes a liberal construction of the rules must at least promptly explain its failure to comply, and grounds not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the order of the Regional Trial Court dismissing the case for the petitioner's failure to appear at the pre-trial conference.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the plaintiff's failure to appear at pre-trial is cause for dismissal of the action, with prejudice unless the court otherwise orders, and only a valid cause shown in the trial court will excuse it. Examiners use this case to test Rule 18 pre-trial sanctions, the discretion given to trial judges over excuses for non-appearance, and the rule that notice of pre-trial goes to counsel, or to the party who has no counsel.