G.R. No. L-16519; October 30, 1962
THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN and JORGE SORIANO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PEDRO PALISOC, et al., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The Province of Pangasinan leased the Bocboc Ferry operation along the Agno River to Jorge Soriano for one year. Soriano commenced operations on September 1, 1956. The following day, defendants-appellants began operating a competing ferry service on the same route without provincial authority. Later, on February 11, 1957, they constructed a bamboo bridge over the route. Soriano and the Province filed a complaint for damages and sought an injunction.
After issues were joined, the trial court set a pre-trial conference. Despite due notice, defendants and their counsel failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial on September 24, 1959. Upon plaintiffs’ motion, the court allowed them to present their evidence ex parte before a deputy clerk of court. Based on the evidence reported, the trial court rendered a decision making the preliminary injunction permanent, ordering the bridge’s demolition, and awarding damages and attorney’s fees to Soriano. Defendants moved for reconsideration, arguing they were deprived of their day in court due to excusable negligence, but the motion was denied.

ISSUE

Did the trial court commit reversible error by allowing the ex parte presentation of evidence upon defendants’ failure to appear at the pre-trial conference and by appointing a deputy clerk to receive such evidence?

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision. On the first error, the Court held that while the rules on pre-trial (then Rule 25) did not explicitly authorize the reception of evidence upon a party’s non-appearance, they also did not prohibit it. The Court reasoned by analogy: if a plaintiff’s failure to appear at pre-trial could lead to dismissal, then, conversely, a defendant’s unjustified absence could permit the plaintiff to present evidence. A pre-trial conference is a part of the trial itself, and to allow a defendant to ignore it without sanction would submit the process to their whims, hampering the court’s duty to ensure a speedy disposition. The trial court validly exercised its control over the case once jurisdiction was acquired.
On the second and third errors, the appointment of the deputy clerk of court to receive evidence was sanctioned by Rule 34 (on commissioners). The court may, on its own motion, direct a reference to a commissioner to receive evidence. The hearing before the commissioner proceeds as if before the court, and the judge retains the duty to decide the case based on the reported evidence, which was done here. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s factual findings on damages.
Finally, the denial of the motion for reconsideration was proper, as the trial court correctly found the defendants’ and counsel’s failure to appear was due to inexcusable negligence, not illness, and that their proffered defenses (like a municipal resolution favoring a bridge or the lack of a certificate of public convenience for Soriano’s small bancas) were unmeritorious and would not alter the outcome.