Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 122 views

    Suspension of PreTrial

    Uploaded by

    Bam Santos
    The document discusses factors that courts consider when deciding motions to postpone pre-trial in civil cases. It states that the grant or denial of such motions is at the sound discretion of the trial court. The key factors courts examine are (1) the reason for the postponement and (2) the merits of the movant's case. Acceptable reasons include sickness/medical reasons, conflicts of schedule, and agreements to settle. Social gatherings are not acceptable reasons. The document also discusses case law precedent regarding acceptable versus unacceptable reasons for postponement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Suspension of PreTrial

    Uploaded by

    Bam Santos
    122 views2 pages
    The document discusses factors that courts consider when deciding motions to postpone pre-trial in civil cases. It states that the grant or denial of such motions is at the sound discretion of the trial court. The key factors courts examine are (1) the reason for the postponement and (2) the merits of the movant's case. Acceptable reasons include sickness/medical reasons, conflicts of schedule, and agreements to settle. Social gatherings are not acceptable reasons. The document also discusses case law precedent regarding acceptable versus unacceptable reasons for postponement.

    Original Description:

    Suspension of Pre-Trial

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses factors that courts consider when deciding motions to postpone pre-trial in civil cases. It states that the grant or denial of such motions is at the sound discretion of the trial court. The key factors courts examine are (1) the reason for the postponement and (2) the merits of the movant's case. Acceptable reasons include sickness/medical reasons, conflicts of schedule, and agreements to settle. Social gatherings are not acceptable reasons. The document also discusses case law precedent regarding acceptable versus unacceptable reasons for postponement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    122 views2 pages

    Suspension of PreTrial

    Uploaded by

    Bam Santos
    The document discusses factors that courts consider when deciding motions to postpone pre-trial in civil cases. It states that the grant or denial of such motions is at the sound discretion of the trial court. The key factors courts examine are (1) the reason for the postponement and (2) the merits of the movant's case. Acceptable reasons include sickness/medical reasons, conflicts of schedule, and agreements to settle. Social gatherings are not acceptable reasons. The document also discusses case law precedent regarding acceptable versus unacceptable reasons for postponement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Suspension of Pre-Trial in civil cases

    Philamlife
    A motion for postponement is a privilege and not a right. A movant for
    postponement should not assume beforehand that his motion will be granted.
    The grant or denial of a motion for postponement is a matter that is
    addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Indeed, an order
    declaring a party to have waived the right to present evidence for performing
    dilatory actions upholds the trial court's duty to ensure that trial proceeds
    despite the deliberate delay and refusal to proceed on the part of one
    party. [38]

    In deciding whether to grant or deny a motion for postponement of


    pre-trial, the court must take into account the following factors: (a) the
    reason for the postponement, and (b) the merits of the case of movant.[39]
    [38]
    Memita v. Masongsong, G.R. No. 150912, 28 May 2007, 523 SCRA 244, 254, citing China Banking
    Corp. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 162 Phil. 505 (1976) and Gohu v. Spouses Gohu, 397 Phil. 126 (2000).
    [39]
    Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122346, 18 February 2000, 326
    SCRA 18, 27, citing Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 472 (1993).

    Phil Trasmarine

    In deciding whether to grant or deny a motion for postponement of pre-


    trial, the court must take into account the following factors: (a) the
    reason for the postponement, and (b) the merits of the case of movant. [12]

    In this case, there is no showing that petitioners, in asking for the re-
    setting of the pre-trial conference, sought merely to cause unjustifiable
    delay in the proceedings. It is noteworthy that the motion to reset pre-
    trial, filed five days before the scheduled conference, was the first of
    such nature filed by petitioners. It was made on the ground that the
    lawyer handling the case, Atty. Daquigan, was indisposed and
    petitioners were unavailable due to "previously scheduled professional
    engagements." While it may be true that petitioners counsel failed to
    attach to said motion a medical certificate attesting to the fact of his
    illness, the court should have lifted its default order after a duly
    notarized certificate signed by the attending physician was annexed to
    the motion to set aside the order of default. As this Court held
    [13]

    in Sarmiento v. Juan: [14]


    The denial by Judge Juan of the petitioners motion to
    postpone the pre-trial scheduled on February 5, 1980 may
    have appeared valid at the outset, considering that it was
    filed at the last minute and was not accompanied by a
    medical certificate although the ground alleged was illness
    on the part of the petitioner. Nonetheless, a different
    appraisal of the petitioners plea should have been made
    after the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which
    was made under oath. Due regard should have been given
    to the repeated pronouncements by this Court against
    default judgments and proceedings that lay more emphasis
    on procedural niceties to the sacrifice of substantial justice.
    After all, the ex-parte presentation of evidence had not yet
    been conducted nor had a decision been rendered in the
    case. It appeared to be a simple matter of giving the
    petitioner a chance to have his day in court in order to
    defend himself against the claim filed by the private
    respondent.

    Allowed:
    Sickness/Medical reasons (Philamlife)
    due to sickness leading to his paralysis (Tejero v. Rosete)
    Conflict of schedule (Philamlife v. Enario)
    Agreement to amicably settle (same)

    Lack of joinder of a party

    Not allowed: Social Gatherings (Aguilar v. CA)

    You might also like