Chan v. Abaya
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Alfonso A. Chan filed a complaint against respondent Sofronia Agao for indemnification based on alleged malicious prosecution. Respondent Agao filed an answer with a counterclaim for damages, attorney's fees, and back rentals. Petitioner Chan filed a motion for a bill of particulars regarding the alleged lease contract. Procedural History: The respondent judge did not act on the motion for a bill of particulars and instead set the pre-trial conference for August 13 and 14, 1975. Petitioner's counsel sent a telegraphic motion to reset the pre-trial until the motion for a bill of particulars was resolved. Despite this, the pre-trial proceeded on August 13, 1975. Due to the absence of petitioner and his counsel, the respondent judge ordered petitioner to pay P200.00 in damages to the private respondent and her counsel. The pre-trial was reset to September 23 and 24, 1975. A motion for reconsideration reduced the damages to P100.00. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the orders dated August 13 and November 3, 1975, arguing that the damages were unjustified due to lack of proper notification of the pre-trial and that the pre-trial was premature as the motion for a bill of particulars remained unresolved.
Issue(s)
Whether the pre-trial conference was prematurely called. Whether the petitioner and his counsel were properly notified of the pre-trial conference. Whether the award of damages for non-appearance at the pre-trial conference was justified.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The orders of the respondent judge dated August 13 and November 3, 1975, are annulled and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the prematurity of the pre-trial conference: The Court held that a pre-trial conference can only be called after the last pleading has been filed. In this case, the "last pleading" would be the plaintiff's answer to the defendant's counterclaim. Since the petitioner had filed a motion for a bill of particulars, which remained unresolved, the plaintiff's answer to the counterclaim had not yet been filed. Therefore, the calling of the pre-trial conference on August 13, 1975, was premature. The Court emphasized that a motion for a bill of particulars, even if not heard on the scheduled date due to the movant's absence, should not be treated as a mere scrap of paper but should be denied for abandonment or failure to prosecute, rather than disregarded entirely. On the proper notification of the pre-trial conference: The Court found that while a notice of the pre-trial conference may have been sent, the petitioner only received it after the scheduled date. The telegram sent by the petitioner's attorney was considered vague and ambiguous by the petitioner, leading him to inquire about the status of his motion and the identity of "Escribano." The Court reiterated the rule that parties, as well as their counsel, must be notified of the pre-trial separately, and the notice must be served upon them. The petitioner's inability to attend was therefore justified. On the justification for the award of damages: The Court ruled that the award of damages in the amount of P100.00 was unfounded and without basis. Such an award could not be justified under Article 2208 of the Civil Code. The Court found the award to be an improper imposition on the petitioner for his non-appearance, especially given the circumstances surrounding the notification and the prematurity of the pre-trial.
Main Doctrine
A pre-trial conference cannot be validly called until the last pleading has been filed. Furthermore, parties and their counsel must be properly notified of the pre-trial conference, and the award of damages for non-appearance must be justified.