Facts:

Ernesto Rigor (respondent) sold a brand new Ultrasound Scanner, Model HS 120 to Dr. Emmanuel
Vera (petitioner) for ₱410,000.00. Petitioner paid ₱120,000.00 as downpayment, leaving a balance
of ₱290,000.00. Despite respondent’s demand, petitioner failed to pay the same.
Rigor filed a complaint for sum of money with damages against Dr. Vera with the RTC (Malolos,
Bulacan) docketed as Civil Case No. 852-M-96.
During the pre-trial conference the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement. The trial court
then terminated the pre-trial and set the case for initial hearing. However the petitioner`s counsel
noticed the lack of pre-trial brief of the respondent. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint raising as ground respondent’s failure to file a pre-trial brief.
The trial court granted the motion. Respondent (Rigor) appealed with the CA after his motion for
reconsideration was denied. The CA ruled in favor of respondent.
Reason for CA`s decision: (For Reading)
Since the pre-trial proceeded and took place without the required pre-trial brief it is safe to assume
that it was allowed by the trial court.
Issue:
Whether the court can conduct pre-trial without pre-trial brief.
Ruling:
No.
Under Section 6, Rule 18 provides the need to file a pre-trial brief, its contents and the effect of
non-submission.
For reading:
xxx Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the
pre-trial.
Section 5 of the same rule states the effect of failure to appear which the dismissal of the action is
dismissal and the dismissal is with prejudice.
The above Rule mandatorily requires the parties to file their briefs and failure to do so shall be
cause for the dismissal of the action.
In the given case, the respondent failed to file a pre-trial brief but despite this the trial court
conducted the pre-trial conference and thereafter terminated the same. It was only during the initial
hearing (after two postponements) that the trial judge came to know, after being apprised by
petitioner’s counsel, that respondent did not file a pre-trial brief. Pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18
quoted above, such failure is a cause for dismissal of the action. The court emphasized that pre-
trial and its governing rules are not technicalities which the parties may ignore or trifle with. Since
respondent did not file a pre-trial brief, it follows that the trial judge failed to conduct the pre-trial
conference in accordance with Rule 18.
It is clear from the reason of the court that the trial court cannot conduct pre-trial without pre-trial
brief and thus the SC ordered the dismissal of the complaint.