G.R. No. 183398 - CLODUALDA D. DAACO, VS. VALERIANA ROSALDO YU.

Ruling

Accordingly, the trial court cannot be said to have whimsically or capriciously dismissed the case for it was merely implementing the letter of the law. As the trial court observed, the court was just 20 minutes away from petitioner's residence. Prudence and diligence in complying with the rules and orders of the court would have prompted petitioner to have at least notified the court of her predicament. This way, she could have been appointed with counsel or granted an extension of time to prepare for pre-trial. Unfortunately for petitioner, she not only failed to attend the scheduled conference, she also failed to inform the court the reasons for her absence. Indeed, while a 15-hour notice may be quite impulsive, this fact, standing alone, fails to excuse petitioner's absence. The fact remains that notice was received by petitioner before the date of the pre-trial, in compliance with the notice requirement mandated by the Rules. In The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company v. Enario , [13] it has been held that pre-trial cannot be taken for granted. It is more than a simple marking of evidence. It is not a mere technicality in court proceedings for it serves a vital objective: the simplification, abbreviation and expedition of the trial, if not indeed its dispensation. Hence, it should not be ignored or neglected, as petitioner had. As to petitioner's allegation that the RTC's order is patently void because the RTC erroneously included the absence of her counsel despite due notice as reason to dismiss the case when the records reveal that she is not actually represented by any counsel, the same is rather flawed. Section 3, [14] Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that notice of pre-trial conference be served on counsel. The counsel served with notice is charged with the duty of notifying the party he represents. However, when a party has no counsel, as in this case, the notice of pre-trial is required to be served personally on him. In view of the fact that petitioner was, and still is, not represented by counsel, and that as petitioner herself admitted, notice of the pre-trial conference was served on her, the mandate of the law was sufficiently complied with. Thus, the fact that the trial court mistakenly referred to her counsel when no such counsel exists is immaterial. For as long as notice was duly served on petitioner, in accordance with the rules, the trial court's order of dismissal cannot be invalidated due to statements referring to her counsel, for the same have no bearing on the validity of the notice of pre-trial. In view of the foregoing, this Court does not find that the facts in the case at hand warrant a liberal construction of the rules. Considering that the petitioner failed to offer sufficient justification for her failure to appear at the pre-trial conference, this Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules o