Daaco vs. Yu

Receipt of notice of pre-trial conference 15 hours before the scheduled hearing satisfies the notice requirement under Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, provided the notice is served personally on an unrepresented party and specifies the time and place of the conference, and dismissal of the action with prejudice under Section 5 of Rule 18 is proper where the plaintiff fails to appear and does not demonstrate valid cause for non-appearance.

Petitioner Clodualda D. Daaco instituted a civil action for annulment of title, recovery of property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-28120, and damages against respondent Valeriana Rosaldo Yu and other defendants before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Tacloban City. Following the filing of respondent Yu's answer in May 2006 and the disposition of preliminary matters, the trial court scheduled a pre-trial conference for October 4, 2007. Petitioner, who was not represented by counsel, received personal notice of the conference at 5:30 p.m. on October 3, 2007, approximately 15 hours before the scheduled 8:30 a.m. conference.

• The Underlying Action: Petitioner Clodualda D. Daaco filed a complaint for annulment of title, recovery of property under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-28120, and damages against respondent Valeriana Rosaldo Yu, Faustina Daaco, and the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, docketed as Civil Case No. 2006-02-16 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Tacloban City.
• Prior Procedural Maneuvers: Between May and October 2006, petitioner filed multiple motions: (1) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on May 26, 2006 (denied June 9, 2006); (2) Motion for Reconsideration of the denial (denied July 18, 2006); (3) Motion to Declare Defendant in Default for Failure to File Pre-Trial Brief on September 6, 2006 (denied as premature); and (4) Motion to Consider the Answer of Respondent as Not Filed on October 4, 2006 (denied as inconsistent with the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings). Petitioner also filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus before the Supreme Court assailing the denials of her Motion to Declare Defendant in Default, which the Supreme Court dismissed in a Resolution dated September 19, 2007 for failure to show grave abuse of discretion.
• The Pre-Trial Notice and Dismissal: On September 5, 2007, the RTC set the pre-trial conference for October 4, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. Petitioner, who was not represented by counsel, personally received the notice at 5:30 p.m. on October 3, 2007. She failed to appear at the scheduled conference. Respondent Yu moved for dismissal, and the RTC issued an Order dated October 4, 2007 dismissing the case pursuant to Rule 18, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging that the 15-hour notice was insufficient and invalid, and that there remained a pending motion (the October 4, 2006 Motion to Consider Answer as Not Filed) which the court failed to resolve. The RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated December 27, 2007, finding that petitioner and her non-licensed lawyer son had received notice, that the 15-20 minute travel time from their residence to the court provided sufficient opportunity to appear, and that petitioner's absence showed abandonment of her cause and deliberate defiance of the court's notice.

• Insufficient Notice: Petitioner maintained that the 15-hour notice received at 5:30 p.m. on October 3, 2007 for an 8:30 a.m. conference the next day was tantamount to no notice at all, rendering the dismissal invalid. She invoked Leobrera v. Court of Appeals to support the position that observance of notice requirements is mandatory and essential to procedural due process.
• Inability to Prepare: Petitioner argued that the short notice made it impossible to secure counsel and prepare necessary documents for the pre-trial conference.
• Invalidity of Dismissal Order: Petitioner claimed the dismissal order was patently void because it repeatedly referred to the failure of "petitioner and her counsel" to appear when the records clearly showed she was not represented by any counsel.

• Distinction of Precedent: Respondent countered that Leobrera v. Court of Appeals was inapplicable because in that case, notice was received after the issuance of the order and lacked the time and place of hearing, whereas here the notice was received a day before and specified the time and place.
• Active Participation: Respondent argued that petitioner had over a year to prepare for pre-trial and had actively participated in the proceedings by filing multiple motions, contradicting any claim of unpreparedness.
• Waiver of Arguments: Respondent maintained that petitioner's justifications for non-appearance regarding securing counsel and preparing documents were raised for the first time in the Supreme Court and not in the Motion for Reconsideration before the trial court, and thus should not be entertained.

• Validity of 15-Hour Notice: Whether receipt of notice of pre-trial conference only 15 hours before the scheduled hearing invalidates the dismissal of the case for failure to appear.
• Excuse for Non-Appearance: Whether petitioner's claimed inability to secure counsel and prepare documents constitutes valid cause to excuse her failure to appear at the pre-trial conference.
• Effect of Reference to Non-Existent Counsel: Whether the trial court's reference to petitioner's "counsel" in the dismissal order renders the order patently void where petitioner was unrepresented.

• Validity of 15-Hour Notice: Receipt of notice 15 hours before the pre-trial conference does not invalidate the dismissal where the notice was served personally on the unrepresented party and specified the time and place of the conference. The Court distinguished Leobrera v. Court of Appeals, where notice was received after the order was issued and lacked essential details, whereas here notice was received before the date of pre-trial in compliance with the notice requirement.
• Excuse for Non-Appearance: The claim of inability to secure counsel and prepare documents does not constitute valid cause for non-appearance. Petitioner had over a year between the filing of respondent's answer and the pre-trial date to prepare, during which she actively filed multiple motions and participated in proceedings. Moreover, these justifications were raised for the first time in the Supreme Court and not in the Motion for Reconsideration before the trial court, and are thus deemed waived.
• Effect of Reference to Non-Existent Counsel: The reference to "counsel" in the dismissal order is immaterial and does not invalidate the order. Under Rule 18, Section 3, notice of pre-trial must be served on counsel, or on the party if there is no counsel. Since petitioner was unrepresented and admitted receiving personal notice, the statutory requirement was satisfied. The trial court's erroneous reference to counsel has no bearing on the validity of the notice or the dismissal.

• Dismissal for Failure to Appear at Pre-Trial: Under Rule 18, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, the failure of the plaintiff to appear at the pre-trial conference when required shall be cause for dismissal of the action with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the defendant allows the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte.
• Excuse for Non-Appearance: Non-appearance of a party at pre-trial may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor, subject to the sound discretion of the judge. Absent clear and manifest abuse of discretion, the judge's appreciation of a party's reasons for non-appearance will not be disturbed.
• Notice to Unrepresented Parties: Under Rule 18, Section 3, 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.
• Raising Issues for the First Time: Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage.
• Liberal Construction of Rules: Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least promptly explain its failure to comply with the rules. Utter disregard of technical rules cannot be justified by harking on the policy of liberal construction where such disregard effectively prevents the prompt, proper, and orderly disposition of cases.

• "observance of notice requirement is a mandatory requirement which cannot be dispensed with as this is the minimum requirement of procedural due process" (from Leobrera v. Court of Appeals, cited by petitioner but distinguished by the Court on factual grounds).
• "pre-trial cannot be taken for granted. It is more than a simple marking of evidence. It is not a mere technicality in court proceedings for it serves a vital objective: the simplification, abbreviation and expedition of the trial, if not indeed its dispensation."
• "Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least promptly explain its failure to comply with the rules."
• "technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. These are provided to effect the prompt, proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets. Utter disregard of these rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction."

• Leobrera v. Court of Appeals, 252 Phil. 737 (1989) — Distinguished; held that notice received after issuance of order and lacking time/place details violates due process, unlike the instant case where notice was received before the hearing with complete details.
• The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company v. Enario, 645 Phil. 166 (2010) — Cited for the principle that pre-trial serves vital objectives of simplifying and expediting trials and should not be taken for granted or neglected.
• Tolentino v. Laurel, G.R. No. 181368, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 561 — Cited for the rule that issues not raised in the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
• Suico Industrial Corp. v. Honorable Lagura-Yap, G.R. No. 177711, September 5, 2012, 680 SCRA 145 — Cited for the principle that liberal construction of rules requires the party invoking it to promptly explain failure to comply.

• Rule 18, Sections 3, 4, and 5, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Govern the notice of pre-trial, appearance of parties, and effects of failure to appear.
• Section 2(c), Rule 41 in relation to Rule 45, Rules of Court — Mode of appeal via petition for review on certiorari.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Francis H. Jardeleza.