G.R. No. L-66825 October 11, 1990
VIRGINIA FRANCO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ALEJANDRO D. ALMENDRAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Virginia Franco was employed by respondent Alejandro Almendras to manage his fishing business and later entered into a partnership, ADA CONSIGNMENT, with him. After Almendras terminated both her employment and the partnership, Franco filed a complaint for Accounting and Damages. She sought an accounting of gross sales to compute her incentive pay and partnership commission, alleging she had no access to the business records. Almendras counterclaimed for misappropriated funds, return of property, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees.
The trial court directed Franco to designate an accountant to examine the books. The pre-trial was reset multiple times due to her accountant’s unreadiness. Finally set for September 3, 1976, neither Franco nor her counsel appeared. They claimed illness and a conflicting case, but filed no motion for postponement, instead having only the accountant present. The court granted Almendras’s oral motion and declared Franco non-suited. It later rendered judgment solely on Almendras’s evidence, ordering Franco to pay various sums and return property. The Court of Appeals modified the award but affirmed the liability.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly declared Franco non-suited for her failure to appear at the pre-trial conference.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the declaration of non-suit. The legal logic centers on strict adherence to procedural rules governing pre-trial. Under Section 2, Rule 20 of the Rules of Court, the purpose of pre-trial is to ensure the parties’ appearance to explore settlement and simplify issues. Franco’s absence, along with her counsel’s, was unjustified. The Court, citing Junco vs. Court of Appeals, emphasized that the duty to appear is mandatory.
The proffered excuses—illness and a conflicting case—did not constitute valid grounds for absence because no formal motion for postponement was filed. The attempt to delegate representation to the accountant was improper, as an accountant is not a party authorized to stand in for a litigant. The Court found this conduct displayed disrespect and a failure to comply with a court order. Since the absence was not due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, the trial court acted within its discretion in imposing the sanction of non-suit. This procedural default barred Franco from presenting her evidence, leaving the court to rule based on the counterclaim evidence. The Court declined to review the factual findings supporting the monetary awards, affirming the appellate court’s decision.