G.R. No. 134998 July 19, 1999
SILVESTRE TIU, petitioner, vs. DANIEL MIDDLETON and REMEDIOS P. MIDDLETON, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of real property filed by the respondents against petitioner Silvestre Tiu. The trial court issued a Notice of Pre-trial Conference warning that witnesses not named in the pre-trial brief may be barred from testifying. In his Pre-trial Brief, petitioner stated he would present six witnesses but did not specify their names. The court subsequently issued a Pre-trial Order, which explicitly stated petitioner would present six witnesses and set hearing dates, without requiring the submission of their names. During trial, when petitioner called his first witness, Antonia Tiu, respondents objected on the ground her name was not listed in the pre-trial brief. The trial court sustained the objection and issued Orders barring the witness from testifying and denying reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in barring petitioner’s witness from testifying solely because her name was not listed in his pre-trial brief, despite the Pre-trial Order allowing the presentation of six unnamed witnesses.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled for the petitioner, reversing the trial court’s Orders. The legal logic centers on the controlling effect of the Pre-trial Order under Section 7, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. While pre-trial is mandatory and aims for speedy disposition, and Section 6 requires a pre-trial brief containing witness names, the subsequent Pre-trial Order issued by the court supersedes the brief’s deficiencies. The Court emphasized that the Pre-trial Order, which allowed petitioner to present six witnesses without naming them, shall control the subsequent course of the action unless modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice. Here, the order was not challenged or modified before trial commenced. Respondents acquiesced to this order by their silence and only raised the objection mid-trial. Allowing a modification at that stage, after petitioner had relied on the order, would result in manifest injustice. The trial court’s act of barring the witness based on the pre-trial brief, while disregarding its own operative order, constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Rules intend the pre-trial order to be the definitive blueprint for trial, and parties are bound by its terms.