Service of notice of pre-trial on the counsel of record (or on the party if they have no counsel) is mandatory under Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; failure to serve such notice renders the pre-trial and all subsequent proceedings null and void for violating the party's right to due process, and constitutes grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.

Respondent William Z. Tecson filed an action for damages against petitioners Rolando Agulto, Maxima Agulto, Cecille Tenorio, and Maribel Mallari in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, alleging malicious prosecution.

• Respondent filed a damages suit against petitioners in the RTC.
• After the case was revived following an initial dismissal, a pre-trial was set for April 29, 1999.
• On April 29, 1999, petitioner Rolando Agulto and his counsel were informed by an RTC employee that the judge was on leave.
• Petitioners' counsel suggested resetting the pre-trial to June 17, 1999, but was advised by the RTC employee that this setting was provisional and depended on the court calendar and respondent's counsel.
• The pre-trial proceeded on June 17, 1999, but petitioners and their counsel did not appear, claiming they received no official notice of this scheduled date.
• Due to petitioners' non-appearance and failure to submit a pre-trial brief, the RTC allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte.
• Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing lack of notice, but before it could be heard, the RTC rendered a decision on July 12, 1999, ordering petitioners to pay damages.
• The RTC subsequently denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the June 17 order and their motions to cite respondent's counsel in contempt and to set aside the July 12 decision, explicitly stating it did not serve notice but deemed counsel notified because she suggested the date.

• Petitioners argued that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied their motions and proceeded with the case despite the lack of formal notice of the June 17, 1999 pre-trial served on their counsel.
• They contended that the RTC violated their constitutional right to due process by deciding the case based on mere technicalities (non-appearance due to lack of notice) rather than on the merits.
• Petitioners asserted that certiorari under Rule 65 was the appropriate remedy to challenge the RTC's orders, contrary to the CA's ruling that they should have appealed under Rule 41.

• N/A (The decision does not explicitly detail the respondent's specific arguments before the Supreme Court, primarily focusing on the CA's reasoning for dismissing the certiorari petition.)

• Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its June 17, 1999 order (allowing ex parte presentation) and September 24, 1999 order (denying reconsideration) despite not having served a notice of pre-trial on petitioners' counsel.
• Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the RTC's orders, which petitioners claimed were issued with grave abuse of discretion and were patent nullities.

• The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA decision and setting aside the RTC's June 17, 1999 order and all subsequent proceedings, including the July 12, 1999 decision and the September 24, 1999 order.
• The Court ruled that service of notice of pre-trial on counsel is mandatory under Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; the RTC's failure to serve such notice violated petitioners' right to due process.
• The Court held that counsel merely suggesting a date for pre-trial does not dispense with the court's mandatory duty to serve official notice once the date is confirmed and calendared; counsel cannot be deemed notified simply by suggesting a date.
• The RTC's failure to serve the mandatory notice constituted grave abuse of discretion, rendering the June 17, 1999 order allowing ex parte presentation of evidence, and all subsequent proceedings flowing therefrom (including the decision), null and void.
• Given that the RTC's orders were patent nullities due to the violation of due process and mandatory rules, certiorari under Rule 65 was the correct remedy, even if appeal might have been technically available, as an exception exists for patently void orders.
• The case was remanded to the RTC with orders to conduct a pre-trial conference in strict compliance with the rules.

• Due Process: The fundamental right of a party to be heard, which includes the right to be properly notified of proceedings. The Court invoked this doctrine, stating that the absence of the mandatory notice of pre-trial effectively denied petitioners their constitutional right to due process, as they were judged ex parte without the opportunity to confront the opposing party or present their case.
• Mandatory Notice of Pre-trial (Rule 18, Section 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure): This rule requires that notice of pre-trial must be served on counsel, or on the party if they have no counsel. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of this rule, holding that the RTC's failure to serve notice on petitioners' counsel, despite counsel suggesting the date, was a fatal procedural defect that nullified the proceedings.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: An act done by a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, capriciously and whimsically, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by proceeding with the pre-trial and issuing subsequent orders without complying with the mandatory requirement of serving pre-trial notice, effectively ignoring petitioners' right to due process.
• Propriety of Certiorari (Rule 65): A special civil action used to correct errors of jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess thereof, when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Court applied the exception to the general rule, holding that certiorari was proper despite the potential availability of appeal, because the challenged RTC orders were patent nullities due to the lack of pre-trial notice.
• Primacy of Substantive Justice over Technicalities: The principle that procedural rules should be interpreted to facilitate, not frustrate, the attainment of justice, and that cases are preferably decided on the merits. The Court underscored this by stating that excusing a technical lapse (like lack of notice) is better than disposing of a case on technicality, which can cause grave injustice and delay.

• "Thus, sending a notice of pre-trial stating the date, time and place of pre-trial is mandatory. Its absence will render the pre-trial and subsequent proceedings void. This must be so as part of a party's right to due process."
• "Thus, the trial court's order allowing the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte without due notice of pre-trial to the defendant constitutes grave abuse of discretion."
• "If no notice of pre-trial is served, all the proceedings at the pre-trial et seq. are null and void."
• "Therefore, it is imperative for the trial court to serve notice of pre-trial on counsel. It is only after being notified of the pre-trial that the twin duties to file the pre-trial brief and to appear at the pre-trial arise."
• "It is a far better and more prudent course of action for a court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on the merits rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties."

• Heirs of Fuentes v. Macandog (G.R. No. L-45445, 1978): Cited to illustrate the previous rule requiring separate service of pre-trial notice on the party.
• Lim v. Animas (G.R. No. L-390094, 1975): Cited regarding service of pre-trial notice under the old rules.
• Sagarino v. Pelayo (G.R. No. L-27927, 1977): Cited for the consequence (nullity) of failing to serve pre-trial notice under the old rules.
• Pineda v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-35583, 1975): Referenced regarding the importance of pre-trial notice for due process and proper examination of issues.
• Golden Flame Sawmill v. Court of Appeals (313 Phil. 84, 1995): Cited (referencing Pineda) regarding denial of due process when an ex parte order is issued without proper notice; also cited (referencing Barde) for the nullity of proceedings without pre-trial notice.
• Zenith Insurance Corporation v. Purisima (199 Phil. 291, 1982): Cited within the context of Golden Flame Sawmill regarding grave abuse of discretion for issuing ex parte orders without notice.
• Raymundo v. Court of Appeals (374 Phil. 95, 1999): Cited similarly to Zenith Insurance regarding grave abuse for ex parte orders issued without notice.
• Pearson v. Intermediate Appellate Court (356 Phil. 341, 1998): Cited as an instance where certiorari was allowed despite the availability of appeal, particularly when the challenged order is a patent nullity.
• Marcelo v. de Guzman (200 Phil. 137, 1982): Cited alongside Pearson for allowing certiorari against patently null orders even if appeal is available.
• Yutingco v. Court of Appeals (435 Phil. 83, 2002): Cited as another example where certiorari was entertained despite the availability of appeal.
• Gelindon v. de la Rama (G.R. No. 105072, 1993): Cited alongside Yutingco for entertaining certiorari despite available appeal.
• Barde v. Posiquit (G.R. No. L-29445, 1988): Cited within the context of Golden Flame Sawmill regarding the nullity of proceedings held without pre-trial notice.
• Padua v. Ericta (G.R. No. L-38570, 1988): Cited to emphasize that speedy disposition should not lead to the precipitate loss of a party's right to present evidence.
• Go v. Tan (G.R. No. 130330, 2003): Cited for the principle that preferring merits over technicalities avoids injustice and further delay, and that courts should guard against precipitate ex parte orders.

• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 18, Section 3: Cited as the current rule mandating service of pre-trial notice on counsel (or party if without counsel).
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 18, Section 5: Cited regarding the adverse consequences of failing to appear at pre-trial (non-suit for plaintiff, ex parte presentation for defendant).
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 18, Section 6: Cited regarding the requirement to file pre-trial briefs at least three days before the pre-trial date, highlighting the dependency on knowing the pre-trial date via notice. Also cited for the consequence of failing to file the brief being the same as non-appearance.
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 20, Section 1: Cited regarding the Clerk of Court's duty, under the judge's supervision, to keep the pre-trial calendar and serve notices.
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41: Mentioned as the rule governing ordinary appeal, which the CA deemed the proper remedy instead of certiorari.
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45: The rule under which the petitioners brought their case from the CA to the Supreme Court (Petition for Review on Certiorari).
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65: The rule governing the special civil action of certiorari, used by petitioners to challenge the RTC orders before the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion.