Chua vs. Cheng

The good-cause exception under paragraph A(2)(d) of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, which permits presentation of evidence not identified and pre-marked during pre-trial, is confined to documentary and object evidence and does not apply to testimonial evidence. A pre-trial order that identifies the parties’ witnesses is controlling; relaxation of the rules governing pre-trial requires compelling and persuasive reasons that were absent here.

Jose Ma. Cheng Sing Phuan, Santiago Cheng, and Petra Cheng Sing, siblings, were registered co-owners of two parcels of land in Iloilo City, along with a rice mill and equipment situated on the land. Santiago and his wife Avelina repeatedly demanded physical partition of the properties. Jose and his wife Angelina resisted, claiming they had advanced the acquisition costs and that Santiago and Petra never reimbursed their respective shares, thereby extinguishing any right to partition.

• Nature of the Action: The underlying case was an action for partition and damages filed by respondent spouses Santiago Cheng and Avelina Sihiyon against Jose Ma. Cheng Sing Phuan and his wife Angelina Chua. The disputed properties consisted of two parcels of land in Iloilo City covered by TCT Nos. T-53608 and T-53609, together with a rice mill and milling equipment, all registered in the names of Jose, Santiago, and their sister Petra Cheng Sing.

• The Pre-Trial Order: After the parties submitted pre-trial briefs and participated in a pre-trial conference, Judge Cedrick O. Ruiz issued a Pre-Trial Order dated January 12, 2006. Items VI and VIII of the order enumerated the evidence for each party. For the defendants (Jose and Angelina), the testimonial evidence was confined to “a) [Jose]; and b) [Petra].” The order contained a colatilla directing the parties to review the order and take necessary steps to correct any errors “within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from receipt,” after which no corrections would be allowed. No party sought revision.

• Reservation in Pre-Trial Brief: Jose’s pre-trial brief contained a statement that defendants “reserve their right to present additional witnesses” depending on the development of the trial. This general reservation was not incorporated into the Pre-Trial Order.

• Trial Proceedings: Jose gave his direct testimony. At the July 17, 2006 hearing, his counsel Atty. Roberto Leong stated in open court that they would be presenting five more witnesses. The trial court then set several additional hearing dates — August 14 and 16, September 13, 18, 25, and 27, and October 2, 2006 — without expressly ruling on the propriety of presenting unlisted witnesses. Jose subsequently died, and his heirs substituted him as party-defendants.

• Motion to Present Additional Witnesses: On January 16, 2008 — over a year after the additional hearing dates were set — petitioners orally moved for leave to present six witnesses not identified in the Pre-Trial Order or in Jose’s pre-trial brief. Respondents opposed. By this time, Judge Victorino O. Maniba, Jr. had assumed the RTC. He denied the motion, ruling that the Pre-Trial Order controlled and no valid ground justified its modification.

• Exception Under Paragraph A(2)(d): Petitioners contended that paragraph A(2)(d) of the Pre-Trial Guidelines (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC) establishes a good-cause exception for presenting evidence not previously identified, and that this exception should extend to testimonial evidence. They invoked the reservation in Jose’s pre-trial brief, Atty. Leong’s oral manifestation reserving additional witnesses without objection, and the setting of extra hearing dates by the previous judge as “special and extraordinary circumstances” amounting to good cause.

• Substantial Justice: Petitioners argued that rigid adherence to the Pre-Trial Order would curtail the search for truth and frustrate the ends of justice at their expense.

• Binding Nature of the Pre-Trial Order: Respondents maintained that the Pre-Trial Order was final and binding after the five-day correction period lapsed, and that the generic reservation in a pre-trial brief could not override the specific enumeration of witnesses in the court-issued order. The failure to amend the order bound the adverse party and their successors.

• Absence of Good Cause: Respondents countered that petitioners failed to demonstrate good cause for the belated introduction of unlisted witnesses, emphasizing that neither judicial affidavits nor the substance of the proposed testimonies were ever furnished.

• Scope of the Exception: Whether paragraph A(2)(d) of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, which permits presentation of evidence not identified during pre-trial upon a showing of good cause, applies to testimonial evidence (witnesses) as opposed to documentary and object evidence only.

• Good Cause: Whether the circumstances proffered by petitioners — a pre-trial brief reservation, counsel’s oral manifestation, and the setting of extra hearing dates — constituted sufficient good cause to justify relaxation of the Pre-Trial Order.

• Scope of the Exception: The exception under paragraph A(2)(d) does not apply to testimonial evidence. Paragraph A(2) of the Pre-Trial Guidelines enumerates the required contents of pre-trial briefs; subparagraph (d) refers specifically to “documents or exhibits to be presented” and the pre-marking thereof, while subparagraph (f) separately governs “the number and names of the witnesses.” The good-cause language in A(2)(d) — “except if allowed by the court for good cause shown” — pertains entirely to documentary and object evidence. To extend it to testimonial evidence would disregard the plain text and structure of the rule. Thus, the limitation in the Pre-Trial Order designating only Jose and Petra as witnesses remained controlling.

• Good Cause: Even if the exception could theoretically encompass witness presentation, no good cause was shown. The reservation in the pre-trial brief was never elevated to an order amendment; neither Jose nor his counsel sought to correct the Pre-Trial Order despite the express five-day colatilla. The oral manifestation of counsel and the setting of additional hearing dates did not constitute a judicial grant of leave — petitioners themselves sought leave anew in 2008, demonstrating that they did not treat the 2006 scheduling as permission. The more-than-one-year delay further undermined the claim. Critically, petitioners submitted no judicial affidavits and made no offer of the substance of the proposed witnesses’ testimonies, foreclosing any assessment of their necessity. Consequently, no compelling and persuasive reasons existed to relax the pre-trial rules.

• Binding Nature of the Pre-Trial Order: A pre-trial order defines the issues and limits the evidence that the parties may present. Once final, it binds the parties and their successors-in-interest. A party who fails to seek timely amendment of a pre-trial order — despite an explicit colatilla granting a period to do so — cannot later unilaterally vary it through a general reservation in a pre-trial brief.

• Strict Adherence to Pre-Trial Rules; Exception for Compelling Reasons: Pre-trial rules must be faithfully observed to facilitate expeditious case disposition. Departure from these rules is permissible only upon a showing of compelling and persuasive reasons that their application would frustrate, rather than promote, the ends of justice. The burden rests on the party seeking relaxation.

• Interpretation of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, Paragraph A(2)(d): The exception allowing presentation of evidence not pre-marked for good cause is confined to documentary and object evidence. The provision does not authorize the presentation of witnesses not listed in the pre-trial order; witnesses are separately governed under paragraph A(2)(f), which carries no parallel exception.

• “As its introductory phrase clearly indicates, paragraph A(2) enumerates the matters which parties are required to state in the pre-trial brief. Since paragraph A(2) does not prescribe rules on admissibility and presentation of evidence, it should not be interpreted in this manner. In addition, paragraph (A)(2)(d) refers to documentary and object evidence, and not testimonial evidence, which, in turn, are treated separately under paragraph (A)(2)(f).” — This passage forms the ratio decidendi, establishing the textual distinction that limits the good-cause exception to documents and objects.

• “The need for strict adherence to the rules on pre-trial thus proceeds from its significant role in the litigation process. This is not to say, however, that the rules governing pre-trial should be, at all times, applied in absolute terms. While faithful compliance with these rules is undoubtedly desirable, they may be relaxed in cases where their application would frustrate, rather than facilitate, the ends of justice. The relaxation of these rules, however, is contingent upon a showing of compelling and persuasive reasons to justify the same.” — The Court reiterates the general doctrine and applies it to find no compelling reasons here.

• Regalado v. Regalado, 665 Phil. 837 (2011): Applied for the principle that heirs substituting a deceased party are bound by the decedent’s prior procedural acts and omissions, including the failure to amend the Pre-Trial Order.

• Spouses Salvador v. Spouses Rabaja, 753 Phil. 175 (2015): Emphasized the critical importance of pre-trial in civil litigation and the necessity of strict compliance with pre-trial orders.

• Lim v. Animas, 159 Phil. 1010 (1975): Recognized the purpose of pre-trial as simplifying issues and shortening trial, supporting the policy of adherence to pre-trial stipulations.

• Vette Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. Cheng, 539 Phil. 37 (2006): Established that pre-trial rules may be relaxed if their strict application would frustrate justice, but only for compelling reasons.

• Domingo v. Spouses Singson, G.R. Nos. 203287 & 207936, April 5, 2017: Reiterated that relaxation of procedural rules demands compelling and persuasive justification, which was absent in this case.

• A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (Proposed Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures), Paragraph A(2)(d): Interpreted as applying the good-cause exception solely to documentary and object evidence; not applicable to testimonial evidence.

• A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, Paragraph A(2)(f): Separately governs the mandatory disclosure of witnesses, their names, number, and substance of testimony in the pre-trial brief; no similar exception is provided.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court: Provided the procedural vehicle for the petition; the timeliness of the filing was confirmed under Section 2 in relation to the rule on computing time when the last day falls on a Saturday.

Carpio, J. (Chairperson), Peralta, J., and Perlas-Bernabe, J. Reyes, Jr., J., was on leave and did not participate.