Rule 30

TRIAL

Section 1. Notice of trial. Upon entry of a case in the trial

calendar, the clerk shall notify the parties of the date of its
trial in such manner as shall ensure his receipt of that notice at
least five (5) days before such date. (2a, R22)

Of course, after the Pre-trial, the next step now is trial. And it is the duty of the clerk of court to send notices
to the parties about the date of the trial in such manner as shall insure his receipt of that notice at least five (5)
days before such date. But actually in real practice, it will even take more than a month to give you ample time to
prepare for it.

Now, it is mandatory that the notice should reach the party or its lawyer at least five (5) days before such
date. So, you should mail it earlier. Do not mail it on the day of or one day before the trial because he may already
have other engagement. Well, that is only a very minor provision but it is now emphasized by the Rules.

Q: Define trial.
A: TRIAL is an examination before a competent tribunal of the facts or law put in issue in a case, for the
purpose of determining such issue. (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 1299) In a trial, there is always an issue
where we cannot agree. Therefore, the purpose of a trial is for the court to resolve that issue.

Sec. 2. Adjournments and postponements. A court may adjourn a

trial from day to day, and to any stated time, as the expeditious
and convenient transaction of business may require, but shall have
no power to adjourn a trial for a longer period than one month for
each adjournment, nor more than three months in all, except when
authorized in writing by the Court Administrator, Supreme Court.
(3a, R22)

“A court may adjourn a trial from day to day” means that if the trial is not finished on the scheduled date,
that will be postponed on another day. That is how trials are being conducted. It is by staggered basis. That is
what you call adjournment. But everything is recorded anyway. If you look at the transcript stenographic notes, it
would seem that the trial is continuous because everything unfolds there. But actually, these occurred on
different dates.

Now, Section 2 also provides that no party shall be allowed a postponement of more than one (1) month per
postponement and not more than three (3) postponements in all. As a GENERAL RULE: Not more than one (1)
month for its adjournment BUT a maximum of three (3) postponements. In effect, it will be exactly 90 days.

And that jives with the SC Circular 3-90 which contains a mandatory continuous trial for 90 days. In other
words, the case must terminate in 90 days.

The ONLY EXCEPTION is when authorized in writing by the court administrator. Meaning, the judge can
go to the court administrator to allow the court to go beyond the period allowed by law. And I do not know if this
provision is being followed strictly. There are cases which have been here for more than a year. But you can do it
provided you are authorized in writing by the court administrator. Yan!

Sec. 3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for absence of

evidence. A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of absence of
evidence can be granted only upon affidavit showing the
materiality or relevancy of such evidence, and that due diligence
has been used to procure it. But if the adverse party admits the
 facts to be given in evidence, even if he objects or reserves the
right to their admissibility, the trial shall not be postponed.
(4a, R22; Cir. No. 39-98)

Generally, there are two main reasons why parties ask for postponement. One is, (1) absence of evidence like
when the witness is not available or the document is not available, or (2) somebody is sick – either the party or
counsel is sick.

Now, of course the requirements of the Rules are really strict although courts and lawyers are very liberal on
this. First of all, if you want to postpone a trial on the ground of absence of evidence, there must be a verified
affidavit. The affidavit must show the materiality or relevancy of the evidence which is not available and that due
diligence was used to procure it. In other words, you tried your best to secure it earlier.

Now, what is the meaning of the second sentence: “If the adverse party admits the facts to be given in
evidence, even if he objects or reserves the right to their admissibility, the trial shall not be postponed”?

EXAMPLE:
LAWYER: “We are asking for postponement because our witness is not present. He is not available
and his testimony will be very material.”
ADVERSE PARTY: “Alright, what is going to be his testimony? What will he testify about in court?
LAWYER: “Well, this is his testimony …. he will prove this or he will prove that….”
ADVERSE PARTY: “OK. Admitted. I admit that if he is here, this is what he will say. Although I
may object to the admissibility of such testimony.”

Meaning, the other party may admit the evidence but object to its admissibility. That is two different things –
admitting the evidence but objecting to its admissibility in court. Meaning, objecting to the admissibility of the
witness in court. Just like under the Constitution, if a confession is made by a suspect without being afforded
with the Miranda warnings, such confession is not admissible. But such confession is evidence. Only, it is
inadmissible.

So, I admit that, although I reserve my right to its admissibility. Then in such case, you have no more reason
for postponement because in the first place, there is no need to present your witness because the other party
already admitted what will be the substance of his testimony. Yaannn!

Sec. 4. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for illness of

party or counsel. A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of
illness of a party or counsel may be granted if it appears upon
affidavit or sworn certification that the presence of such party
or counsel at the trial is indispensable and that the character of
his illness is such as to render his non-attendance excusable.
(5a, R22)

The same thing for illness (2nd ground). Kung may sakit, there must be affidavit or sworn statement. So you
must have a sworn medical certificate and that the presence of such party or counsel is indispensable and the
character of his witness is such as to render his non-attendance excusable.

Now, of course the SC has already stated in some cases that when the sickness is sudden and unexpected
such as accident, you cannot require on the spot a medical certificate. Meaning, how can I produce something if
he got sick only an hour ago? So, the court should take that into consideration. They cannot object to the
requirement of medical certificate.

So, a motion for postponement which is not verified upon the ground of illness of a party or counsel without
a medical certificate should be granted if it appears that the claim of the movant is meritorious.

Normally, we just say that if the other party insists on a medical certificate, we will submit it this afternoon or
tomorrow because there are things in which we cannot get a medical certification on time unless he has been sick
for so long.

In the ultimate analysis, what is the policy of the SC on postponements? Motions for postponements is
always addressed to the sound discretion of the court (Casilan vs. Gancayco, 56 O.G. 2799, March 28, 1960;
People vs. Martinez, 57 O.G. 7923, Oct. 30, 1961).

So if the motion for postponement is denied or granted or either way, it is so hard to have it overturn because
the SC will always give way to the discretion and rarely will it happen in court where it will interfere without
discretion unless there is grave abuse of discretion.

ORDER OF THE TRIAL

The order of trial in civil cases is a little bit more complicated compared to criminal cases.

Sec. 5. Order of trial. Subject to the provisions of section 2

of Rule 31, and unless the court for special reasons otherwise
directs, the trial shall be limited to the issues stated in the
pre-trial order and shall proceed as follows:
(a) The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his
complaint;
(b) The defendant shall then adduce evidence in support of his
defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaint;
(c) The third-party defendant, if any, shall adduce evidence of
his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and fourth-party complaint;
(d) The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall adduce
evidence of the material facts pleaded by them;
(e) The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross-claim
has been pleaded, shall adduce evidence in support of their
defense, in the order to be prescribed by the court;
(f) The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting evidence
only, unless the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of
justice, permits them to adduce evidence upon their original case;
and
(g) Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed
submitted for decision, unless the court directs the parties to
argue or to submit their respective memoranda or any further
pleadings.
If several defendants or third-party defendants, and so forth,
having separate defenses appear by different counsel, the court
shall determine the relative order of presentation of their
evidence. (1a, R30)

Take note that the law says “the trial shall be limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial order.” That is now
emphasized under the Rule 30. That jives with Rule 18, Section 7 on what is the importance of a pre-trial order:

Sec. 7. Record of pre-trial. - The proceedings in the pre-trial

shall be recorded. Upon the termination thereof, the court shall
issue an order which shall recite in detail the matters taken up
in the conference, the action taken thereon, the amendments
allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements or admissions made by
the parties as to any of the matters considered. Should the action
proceed to trial, the order shall explicitly define and limit the
issues to be tried. The contents of the order shall control the
 subsequent course of the action, unless modified before trial to
prevent manifest injustice. (5a, R20)

The pre-trial order shall limit the issues and shall control the subsequent course of the action. We already
emphasized that the pre-trial order prevails over the pleadings. The pre-trial order has the effect of superseding
the complaint and the answer. Whatever issues are stated in the pre-trial order shall be the issues to be tried
during the hearing on the case.

Now going back to Rule 30, that is now emphasized. The trial shall be limited to the issues stated in the pre-
trial order. So, the pre-trial order will be a very important document to determine what are the issues to be tried.

Q: How will the trial proceed? In what order?

A: Section 5, paragraphs [a] to [g], including the last paragraph of Section 5.

Q: What is the reason for the rule prescribing an order of trial?

A: The reason is for orderly procedure, which must be followed if injurious surprises and annoying delays
in the administration of justice are to be avoided. Evidence cannot be given piece-meal. (Dir. of Lands vs.
Archbishop of Manila, 41 Phil. 120)

You will notice the order of trial in civil cases follows more or less the same pattern with the trial in criminal
case. The pattern is the same although there may be cross-claims, third (fourth, etc.) party complaints, especially
when there are more than one defendant.

BASIC PATTERN (No cross-claim, counterclaim or 3rd-party complaint, etc.):

Plaintiff presents evidence to prove his claim or cause of action. That is what you call EVIDENCE
IN CHIEF, also called as the MAIN EVIDENCE; (paragraph [a])

Defendant presents evidence in chief or main evidence to prove his defense – negative or affirmative
defense; (paragraph [b])

Plaintiff will present what we call REBUTTAL EVIDENCE to rebut defendant’s main evidence.
(paragraph [f])

Defendant is given the chance to present rebuttal evidence to rebut the rebuttal of evidence of the
plaintiff. In legal parlance, we call that SUR-REBUTTAL evidence; (paragraph [f])

ARGUMENTS. Normally, it is what we call the filing of MEMORANDUM (written arguments) –

the parties will submit their respective memoranda, unless the case will be submitted for decision
without arguments or memorandum. (paragraph [g])

So, normally, that is the basic pattern of the order of trial. Now, plaintiff presents evidence ahead, after him
defendant presents evidence to prove his defense.

Now, in the case of

YU vs. MAPAYO
44 SCRA 163

FACTS: The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant to collect a loan which, according to
the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid. The defendant filed an answer admitting the loan but ang
kanyang affirmative defense is, the obligation is paid.
During the trial, the plaintiff said that he is no longer going to present any evidence to prove his
cause of action because anyway, the defendant has admitted the obligation; and since the defendant is
the one invoking payment, it is, therefore, his burden to prove payment.
The trial court agreed with the plaintiff, “Yes. Alright defendant, you present evidence that the
obligation is paid. Anyway, you are admitting that you borrowed money.”
 Now, according to the defendant, the procedure is improper the order of the trial being altered,
“Why will the defendant prove his defenses ahead. The plaintiff is supposed to present evidence bago
ako. Bakit uunahin ako?” That is the objection of the defendant.

ISSUE: Can the defendant present his evidence first?

HELD: AH YES! Anyway, by admitting the obligation, you are invoking the affirmative defense
of payment. So, it is incumbent upon you to prove that it is paid.
Under Rule 16, the defendant is not obliged to file a motion to dismiss. That is optional. In fact,
the defendant is allowed, instead of filing a motion to dismiss, to file an answer invoking the ground
for a motion to dismiss as an affirmative defense. And then the defendant could even ask for a
preliminary hearing for his affirmative defenses as if a motion to dismiss has been filed.
Therefore, in the hearing for a motion to dismiss, the defendant is now converting his defense into
a ground for a motion to dismiss. In which case, the affirmative defense will be heard ahead of the
main action. So, that is allowed under Rule 16.
So, there is nothing basically wrong with an affirmative defense being heard ahead of the plaintiff,
especially when the plaintiff has nothing to prove anymore.

Well, of course that is more apparent in criminal procedure. In the order of trial in criminal procedure, the
court may even direct the accused to present evidence ahead of the prosecution when the accused is already
admitting the facts constituting the crime but only invokes a defense such as self-defense – when you are accused
of homicide and your defense is that you acted in self-defense. So, wala ng i-prove ang prosecution.
Automatically, you are admitting that you killed the victim. The burden now is shifted to you to justify the killing.
That’s what they call “TRIAL IN REVERSE.”

So, in criminal cases where the law authorizes a reversed trial where the accused is directed to present
evidence ahead of the prosecution, there is no reason why the same procedure cannot also apply in civil cases.
That is the essence of the MAPAYO ruling. So, more or less, that is the deviation from the normal order of trial.

Section 5 [f]: The parties may then respectively adduce

rebutting evidence only, unless the court, for good reasons and in
the furtherance of justice, permits them to adduce evidence upon
their original case;

Paragraph is actually presentation of rebuttal evidence.

Q: What is the difference between the evidence mentioned in paragraph [f] and the evidence mentioned in
paragraphs [a] and [b]?
A: Paragraphs [a] and [b] refer to what we call EVIDENCE IN CHIEF to prove your main cause of action or
your defense. In paragraph [f], the evidence is not evidence in chief but REBUTTAL EVIDENCE to dispute the
side of the other party.

Q: Is a party allowed to present evidence in chief in the rebuttal stage?

A: GENERAL RULE: NO, because paragraph [f] provides that the parties may then respectively adduce
rebutting evidence only. In other words, you do not go back to paragraphs [a] and [b]. If you have evidence to
prove your cause of action or defense, you should have done it earlier.

So generally, evidence in chief is not allowed during the rebuttal stage. But there is an exception:
EXCEPTION: “Unless the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice permits them to adduce
evidence upon their original case.” Meaning, it permits them to adduce evidence in chief. But you need the
permission of the court because normally, you should have done that under paragraphs [a] and [b] and not in
paragraph [f].

Q: Give instances when the court may allow the party to present additional evidence in chief during rebuttal to
prove his cause of action.
A: In the following instances:
When it is newly discovered;
When the evidence was omitted through inadvertence or mistake;
When the purpose is to correct evidence previously offered; (Lopez v s. Liboro, 81 Phil. 429)
When the additional evidence offered is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching (64 C.J.
160-163)

Those are the possible instances when the court in the interest of justice may allow the parties to present
evidence in chief during the rebuttal stage which is normally not allowed.

And that is what I saw exactly years ago how this paragraph [f] operates. There was case here we were
watching before. There was a veteran trial lawyer from Manila who tried a case here. I think it was a damage suit
against KLM Royal Airlines for breach of contract of carriage because some of the passengers were from Davao
City. Alright when they are already in the rebuttal stage, the lawyer for the Airlines was presenting evidence and
the counsel for the plaintiff argued, “Objection Your Honor, it is not rebuttal evidence. It is evidence in chief
which he is presenting. So it is not proper during this stage.”

And the trial court agreed, “Yes, it is improper. The evidence in chief should have been presented earlier.
Therefore, objection is sustained.” Lawyer for the Airlines, “So, you honor, may we move for a reconsideration
because we believe it is rebuttal evidence and it is very important.” So, balik na naman sila sa argument. And
then the court said, “The motion for reconsideration is denied, you are not allowed.”

So, patay siya. And it’s really true that what was presented was evidence in chief and not rebuttal evidence.
So, hindi siya ba makalusot or hindi siya makapasok. So, for a while, he closed his eyes and said, “Your Honor,
in the interest of justice may we be allowed to present evidence in chief for the rebuttal stage.” And the court said
granted, “Sure pare basta ikaw! [Mas OK pa sa ALRIGHT]!” So pasok na naman!

In other words, saan niya kinuha ito? When I looked at the Rules, iyon pala! He knows how to invoke it. In
other words, you can see the skill of a veteran lawyer. The rules are at his fingertips. So, that is how I saw this
provision operates.

Section 5 [g]: Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall

be deemed submitted for decision, unless the court directs the
parties to argue or to submit their respective memoranda or any
further pleadings.

Now, of course, pag tapos na kayo, main evidence and rebuttal, tapos na ang kaso. Meaning, the case is
ready for decision. But normally, the lawyer of the parties would say, “We would like to argue.” And the
argument is normally not oral but in writing where you will be asked to file what you call MEMORANDUM.

A MEMORANDUM is practically a thesis where you will summarize your position and you argue why you
should win. That is where you cite evidence. You convince the court that you have proven your cause of action
or defense. Then you cite the testimonies, the exhibits, the transcripts and of course, the argument, the
jurisprudence, the law. That is where you argue. You do not argue in your pleading. Pleadings, complaint,
answer is not the time to argue. There, you only state the facts. You argue after the trial where you interpret now
the evidence and convince the court.

Sec. 6. Agreed statement of facts. The parties to any action

may agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation,
and submit the case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, without
the introduction of evidence.
If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the
trial shall be held as to the disputed facts in such order as the
 court shall prescribe. (2a, R30)

Alright, why do the parties present evidence 1, 2, 3, 4. What is the purpose there? To prove facts. Normally,
we cannot agree on the facts. I say something and you will say that is not true and this is what happened. So,
normally, cases arise because of the issue of what happened.

Q: Now, is there a possibility that the court will decide whether there is trial or no more evidence?
A: YES! If the parties agree in writing upon the facts involved in the litigation and they will submit the agreed
facts or the case for decision. That is what we call JUDGEMENT ON AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS or
the more popular term: JUDGEMENT BASED ON STIPULATION OF FACTS.

EXAMPLE: The plaintiff and the defendant agree on all the facts. “These are the facts,” sabi ng plaintiff.
Then sabi ng defendant, “Yes, I agree those are the facts.” Now if we agree on the facts, there is nothing more
to prove. And what we are now quarreling is who should win based on the facts agreed upon. So, ano ngayon
ang kaso? That is purely a legal question. There is nothing to prove because everything is admitted. They
disagree only on the conclusion.

So, with that, par. 1, 2, 3, 4 all these steps are useless. There is nothing to prove. In which case, we will go
immediately to step no. 5. So, if the parties agree in writing upon the facts involved in the litigation and they will
submit the agreed facts for decision, that is JUDGEMENT BASED ON STIPULATION OF FACTS which is
encouraged by the law. This is one of the purposes of Pre-Trial (Rule 18, Section 2 [d]) where the parties are
encouraged to stipulate on facts, because really, it would save a lot of time.

The best example of agreed facts would be examination problems. The facts are already given – this is what
happened. You cannot change that anymore. And you will be asked, “DECIDE: Is A correct or is B correct.”
So in other words, you simply apply the law. You do not apply anymore the issue of what happened because it
is already agreed. Your answer would be similar to a JUDGMENT BASED ON STIPULATION OF FACTS.

Q: Why is an agreed statement of facts sufficient basis for a judgment?

A: The reason is that an agreed statement of facts is conclusive on the parties, as well as on the court. Neither
of the parties may withdraw from the agreement, nor may the court ignore the same. (McGuire vs. Manufactures
Life Ins. Co., 87 Phil. 370)

Q: Now suppose they can agree on some facts but they cannot agree on others.
A: There is no problem. You can have a partial stipulation of facts and then we can try the rest with respect
to the other disputed facts.

That is why the second paragraph says, “If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial shall
be held as to the disputed facts in such order as the court shall prescribe.” At least, it would still be faster
because the disputed facts are now limited. Rather than proving ten (10) issues of facts, it will be reduced to 3 or
4. So, the trial would still be faster.

The court is not bound to find out what happened when the parties already agreed on what happened.
EXAMPLE: The parties will stipulate, “This case involves a piece of land with an area of 50 hectares, planted
with coconut trees of about 5,000.” So, parties agreed and then the court says, “No, I do not believe you. It
might be more than 59 hectares.” NO. When the parties agree, sundin mo yan because they themselves agree
on the facts. You only determine the facts if they cannot agree. That is why the court is bound by the
stipulations made by the parties.

Sec. 7. Statement of judge. During the hearing or trial of a

case any statement made by the judge with reference to the case,
or to any of the parties, witnesses or counsel, shall be made of
record in the stenographic notes. (3a, R30)

Take note that the trial is a formal court proceeding. Everything is recorded there – the statement of parties,
their lawyers, including the statement of the judge. Any statement made by the judge with reference to the case or
to any of the parties, witnesses, or counsel shall be made of record in the stenographic notes.

Sec. 8. Suspension of actions. The suspension of actions shall

be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code. (n)

This is mentioned in Rule 18, Section 2 [h] which discusses the possibility of suspension of the proceedings.
Meaning, huwag munang gumalaw ang kaso – in suspended animation baah!

Q: And what is the possible good legal ground for the parties to ask for suspension of the hearing? Meaning,
held in abeyance ba. What would be the best possible ground?
A: The best possible ground is the one mentioned in Article 2030 of the New Civil Code:

Art. 2030. Every civil action or proceeding shall be suspended:

1. If willingness to discuss a possible compromise is expressed
by one or both parties; or
2. If it appears that one of the parties, before the
commencement of the action or proceeding, offered to discuss a
possible compromise but the other party refused the offer.
The duration and terms of the suspension of the civil action or
proceeding and similar matters shall be governed by such
provisions of the rules of court as the Supreme Court shall
promulgate. Said rules of court shall likewise provide for the
appointment and duties of amicable compounders. (n)

According to Article 2030 of the civil code, if at anytime while the case is going on, one of the parties would
like to discuss a POSSIBLE AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OR COMPROMISE, they can ask for the
suspension of proceedings. Why? The court of the law favors compromises or amicable settlements in civil
cases.

So at anytime that one party expresses its desire to settle, even in the middle of the case, the court is
authorized to suspend the action to give the parties opportunity to settle because of the policy of the law to
encourage the parties to settle amicably.

That is why even former U.S. President Lincoln, who is more remembered as president rather than as a
lawyer, was quoted, “Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbor to compromise whenever you can. Point
out to them how the nominal winner is often the real loser in fees, expenses and waste of time. As a peace-maker
[Long Live the PeaceMakers!], the lawyer has the superior opportunity of being a good man. There would still
be business enough.”

Meaning, aregluhin ba hanggang maari, you better settle. When you settle, nobody is loser and nobody is
winner. Both of you win. Walang masakit ang loob ba. And marami pang negosyo, marami pang kaso. Do not
make such money out of one case. If you can settle, i-settle muna. Huwag mong sabihing “sayang iyong
income” dahil marami pang kaso na darating. That was what he said.

Now, of course, what happens if the party cannot agree to settle? Well, the procedure is, let the trial go on.
That is why in the 1992 case of

GOLDLOOP PROPERTIES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

212 SCRA 498 [1992]

FACTS: The parties in a civil action manifested the possibility of submitting amicable settlement.
The court gave them 15 days to submit their compromise agreement. 15 days passed, no amicable
settlement was submitted by the parties. With that, the court dismissed the case.
 ISSUE: Was the court correct in dismissing the case when the parties cannot settle?

HELD: The dismissal is WRONG. “Since there is nothing in the Rules that imposes the sanction
of dismissal for failing to submit a compromise agreement, then it is obvious that the dismissal of the
complaint on the basis thereof amounts no less to a gross procedural infirmity. While a compromise is
encouraged, very strongly in fact, failure to consummate one does not warrant any procedural
sanction, much less an authority to jettison a civil complaint. What the court should have done was to
continue the action.”

In other words, why should you dismiss the complaint when the parties cannot settle? By that, technically,
natalo ang plaintiff. Kung hindi magkaareglo, then go on with the trial. You have no authority to dismiss the case
simply because the parties cannot settle.

However, there are certain matters which cannot be the subject of compromise. Practically, compromise is
allowed on anything under the sun, except certain matters such as those mentioned in Article 2035.

Q: What are the matters that cannot be the subject of compromise?

A: Under the Article 2035, New Civil Code, the following:

The civil status of persons; (whether legitimate or illegitimate)

The validity of a marriage or a legal separation; (w/n a marriage settlement exists)
Any ground for legal separation;
Future support; (always depends on the means of the party giving support)
The jurisdiction of courts;
Future legitime.

So you cannot agree on these. You cannot compromise as a legitimate when in fact you are illegitimate.
Where is the basis of that? You cannot compromise that the marriage is valid when in fact it is not, or it is null
and void. These things cannot be the subject of agreement.

Sec. 9. Judge to receive evidence; delegation to clerk of

court. The judge of the court where the case is pending shall
personally receive the evidence to be adduced by the parties.
However, in default or ex parte hearings, and in any case where
the parties agree in writing, the court may delegate the reception
of evidence to its clerk of court who is a member of the bar. The
clerk of court shall have no power to rule on objections to any
question or to the admission of exhibits, which objections shall
be resolved by the court upon submission of his report and the
transcripts within ten (10) days from termination of the hearing.
(n)

The Rules now expressly allows the court to delegate the reception of evidence to the clerk of court who must
be a member of the bar. Thereby confirming the doctrine in GOTINGCO vs. CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
and junking forever the ruling in LIM TANHU vs. REMOLETE because in the case of REMOLETE, it was
ruled that the judge cannot delegate the reception of evidence to the clerk of court. Now, puwede na.

A good example is DEFAULT. But actually, it could also be a case where the parties agreed in writing or
other cases where it can be heard ex-parte other than default. Because there are many cases na to my mind that the
judge does not really need to be there listening.

Like for example, a petition for the issuance of lost or transfer of certificate – yung titulo mo nawala – your
title is lost or you misplaced it and you will prove na nawala. That should be heard in court but to my mind that is
not a controversy, eh because there is only one party there. So it is possible for the court to delegate that to the
clerk of court in order that they (judges) can attend to other controversial cases.
 Now, please connect this provision with Section 3 of Rule 9 on Default:

Sec. 3. Default; declaration of. - If the defending party fails

to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon
motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party,
and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default.
Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting the
claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the
court, in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence.
Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court.
(1a, R18)

So in default hearing, it is now the discretion of the court either to conduct an ex-parte reception of evidence
which can be delegated to the clerk of court, or the court may render judgment based on the pleadings. So, it is
optional.

Now, to my mind, kung ang case is a collection case or any other cases which are simple, pag na-default ang
defendant, puwede na decision dayon. Pero kung controversial cases, do not render judgment based on the
pleadings. You better conduct an ex-parte reception of evidence and you may delegate the reception of evidence
to the clerk of court.

Yun iyong mga out of ordinary cases which are really controversial where the court should require the
presentation of evidence. Pero yong mga kaso na not so complicated, no need of reception of evidence in order to
expedite the process of adjudication.

<

LAKAS ATENISTA 2001–2002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez • Jessamyn Agustin

• Judee Uy • Janice Joanne Torres • Genie Salvania • Pches Fernandez • Riezl Locsin •
Kenneth Lim • Charles Concon • Roy Acelar • Francis Ampig • Karen Cacabelos • Maying
Dadula • Hannah Examen • Thea Guadalope • Myra Montecalvo •
Paul Ongkingco • Michael Pito • Rod Quiachon • Maya Quitain • Rina Sacdalan • Lyle Santos
• Joshua Tan • Thaddeus Tuburan • John Vera Cruz • Mortmort

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>
Rule 30
Trial

PAGE

PAGE 45
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law