Saguid vs CA Private respondent Gina Rey was married, but separated de facto from her husband , herein petitioner.

r. As a result of such separation, private respondent filed a complaint for Partition and Recovery of Personal Property with Receivership against the petitioner with the Regional Trial Court. She prayed that she be declared the sole owner of these personal properties and that the amount of P70,000.00, representing her contribution to the construction of their house, be reimbursed to her. Petitioner claimed that the expenses for the construction of their house were defrayed solely from his income as a captain of their fishing vessel. He averred that private respondents meager income as fish dealer rendered her unable to contribute in the construction of said house. In the court, the judge declared the petitioner in default for failure to file a pre-trial brief as required by Supreme Court Circular No. 1-89. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied. The private respondent was allowed to submit her evidence ex-parte and the TC rendered a decision in her favor. The petitioner filed with the CA an appeal but the decision of the TC was affirmed. The CA ruled that the propriety of the order which declared the petitioner as in default became moot and academic in view of the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It explained that the new rules now require the filing of a pre-trial brief and the defendants non-compliance therewith entitles the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte. Hence, this petition. The petitioner contends his failure to file pre-trial brief was due to the fact that he did not have a counsel. Hence, the court was incorrect to deny his motion for reconsideration. He further contends that the rule on failure to file a pre-trial brief is a new rule that was unjustly applied retrospectively in this case.

Whether or not the trial court erred in allowing private respondent to present evidence ex parte due to his failure to file a pre-trial brief?

NO, the TC was correct in finding the petitioner in default for failure to file a pre-trial brief. Under Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the failure of the

defendant to file a pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial, i.e., the plaintiff may present his evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment on the basis thereof. The remedy of the defendant is to file a motion for reconsideration, showing that his failure to file a pre-trial brief was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect. The motion need not really stress the fact that the defendant has a valid and meritorious defense because his answer which contains his defenses is already on record.

In the case at bar, petitioner insists that his failure to file a pre-trial brief is justified because he was not represented by counsel. This justification is not, however, sufficient to set aside the order directing private respondent to present evidence ex parte, inasmuch as the petitioner chose at his own risk not to be represented by counsel. In the instant case, the fact that petitioner was not assisted by a lawyer is not a persuasive reason to relax the application of the rules. . The assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable.

However, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically, Section 6, Rule 18 thereof, rendered moot and academic the issue of whether or not the plaintiff may be allowed to present evidence ex parte for failure of the defendant to file a pre-trial brief. While the rules may indeed be applied retroactively, the same is not called for in the case at bar. Even before the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on July 1, 1997, the filing of a pre-trial brief was required under Circular No. 1-89 which became effective on February 1, 1989. Pursuant to the said circular, [f]ailure to file pre-trial briefs may be given the same effect as the failure to appear at the pre-trial, that is, the party may be declared nonsuited or considered as in default.