Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 219 views

    Paredes vs. Verano

    Uploaded by

    Kristine Villanueva
    1. The case involved a dispute over a right of way established in a compromise agreement between the parties. 2. At a pre-trial hearing, the defendants were present but their counsel was absent. The trial court allowed the plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte due to the absence of counsel. 3. The Supreme Court held that the rules only allow ex parte presentation of evidence if the defendant fails to appear at the pre-trial, not if their counsel fails to appear. As the defendants were present, it was improper to proceed ex parte.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Paredes vs. Verano

    Uploaded by

    Kristine Villanueva
    219 views1 page
    1. The case involved a dispute over a right of way established in a compromise agreement between the parties. 2. At a pre-trial hearing, the defendants were present but their counsel was absent. The trial court allowed the plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte due to the absence of counsel. 3. The Supreme Court held that the rules only allow ex parte presentation of evidence if the defendant fails to appear at the pre-trial, not if their counsel fails to appear. As the defendants were present, it was improper to proceed ex parte.

    Original Description:

    Civil Procedure Digest Pre-Trial Rule 18

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The case involved a dispute over a right of way established in a compromise agreement between the parties. 2. At a pre-trial hearing, the defendants were present but their counsel was absent. The trial court allowed the plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte due to the absence of counsel. 3. The Supreme Court held that the rules only allow ex parte presentation of evidence if the defendant fails to appear at the pre-trial, not if their counsel fails to appear. As the defendants were present, it was improper to proceed ex parte.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    219 views1 page

    Paredes vs. Verano

    Uploaded by

    Kristine Villanueva
    1. The case involved a dispute over a right of way established in a compromise agreement between the parties. 2. At a pre-trial hearing, the defendants were present but their counsel was absent. The trial court allowed the plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte due to the absence of counsel. 3. The Supreme Court held that the rules only allow ex parte presentation of evidence if the defendant fails to appear at the pre-trial, not if their counsel fails to appear. As the defendants were present, it was improper to proceed ex parte.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    1. PAREDES v.

    VERANO

    Facts:1. The legal battle between the parties began with a complaint for the establishment of a right of way filed by
    thepetitioners against respondents. The complaint culminated in a judgment by compromise.2. In the Compromise
    Agreement, respondent Cosme Hinunangan granted a 2 meter-wide right of way in favor ofpetitioners in consideration of
    the amount of Php 6,000.00 which petitioners agreed to pay.3. Alleging that petitioners had blocked the passage way in
    violation of the Compromise Agreement, respondents fileda complaint for specific performance with damages against
    petitioners.4. In their answer, petitioners denied having violated the Compromise Agreement, and alleged that like
    them,respondents were not ac
    tual residents of Barangay Tagnipa where the ―road right of way‖ was established and that
    respondent Cosme had already sold his only remaining lot in the vicinity to petitioner Paredes.5. Petitioners filed a
    motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of action. TC-DENIED.6. Pre-trial was initially set for 24 April 2003, but this was
    reset to 3 June 2003. But the pre-trial set on 3 June 2003 didnot push through either because none of the parties
    appeared. So, pre-trial was reset to 11 November 2003.However, petitioner Baybay was present in court along with other
    defendants was called. RTC was informed then ofa proposed settlement between the parties, although Baybay qualified
    his reaction by telling the court that he wouldfirst have to inform his lawyer of the said propodal.7. RTC reset the pre-
    trial for 23 January 2004.8. Before the new pre-trial date, counsel for petitioners filed a Manifestation of Willingness to
    Settle With Request forCancellation dated 5 January 2004.9. The hearing did push through on 23 January 2004. The
    private respondents and their counsel were present. Sowere petitioners Baybay and Paredes, and co-defendant Alago, but
    not their counsel.10.
    RTC allowed respondents to present their evidence ex parte, ―for failure of the defendants’ counsel to app
    ear beforethe RTC.11. Motion for recon
    –
    DENIED.12. Petition for certiorari
    – CA
    – dismissed for failure to attach duplicate orig copies of annexes to petition as well asother pleadings relevant and
    pertinent to the petition.13. Motion for recon with motion to admit additional exhibits
    – DENIED. CA ruled that even with the submission bypetitioners of the required pleadings and documents, the instant
    petition must nevertheless failed. It conceded thatunder Sec 5 Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
    the failure of the defendant, and not defendant’s
    counsel, to appear at the pre-trial that would serve cause to allow plaintiff to present evidence ex parte.Issue: Whether
    the absence of the counsel for defendants at the pre-trial, with all defendants themselves present, is aground to declare
    defendants in default and to authorize plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte.Held: No.

    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 hisbehalf 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.

    Section 5. Effect of failure to appear


    — The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the nextpreceding section shall be cause for
    dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless other-wiseordered 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.Section 4 imposes the duty on litigating parties and their respective counsel during pre-
    trial. The provision alsoprovides for the instances where the non-appearance of a party may be excused. Nothing,
    however, in Sec 4 provides for asanction should the parties or their respective counsel be absent during pre-trial. The
    penalty is provided for in Sec 5 whichpenalizes the failure to appear of either the plaintiff or the defendant, and not their
    respective counsel.The absence of counsel for defendants at pretrial does not ipso facto authorize the judge to declare the
    defendantas in default and order the presentation of evidence ex parte. Nothing in the rules of court sanctions the
    presentation ofevidence ex parte upon instances when counsel for defendant is absent during pre-trial. The Rules do not
    countenancestringent construction at the expense of justice and equity.

    You might also like