The non-appearance of a respondent at a preliminary hearing or conference in Philippine proceedings is almost never neutral. Courts treat it as a serious matter that can trigger default mechanisms, ex parte proceedings, waiver of defenses, or even the forfeiture of provisional remedies. The precise consequences depend on the nature of the case and the governing rules, but the consistent theme across all regimes is that unjustified non-attendance heavily favors the petitioner/plaintiff/complainant while severely prejudicing the absent respondent.

This article exhaustively discusses every major context in which Philippine courts conduct a “preliminary hearing” or “preliminary conference” and the exact consequences when the respondent fails to appear.

1. Ordinary Civil Actions and Most Special Civil Actions

(Rule 18, 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC)

The pre-trial conference is now called the preliminary conference in some contexts, but the rule remains Rule 18.

Effect of respondent/defendant’s non-appearance (Sec. 5, Rule 18 as amended):

If the defendant/respondent fails to appear at the pre-trial/preliminary conference despite due notice, and the failure is unjustified (no valid excuse and no fully authorized representative appears), the plaintiff/petitioner is immediately allowed to present evidence ex parte.
The court shall render judgment on the basis of the ex parte evidence.
The judgment is on the merits and is not a mere default judgment under Rule 9; it has full res judicata effect.
The absent defendant/respondent loses the right to participate in the marking of exhibits, stipulations of fact, and simplification of issues.
Any counterclaim or cross-claim is deemed waived or may be dismissed if the defendant is the counterclaiming party and fails to appear.

This is one of the harshest consequences in Philippine procedure. Courts routinely render full judgments against absent defendants in ejectment, collection, damages, specific performance, and special civil actions (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, expropriation, foreclosure, partition, etc.) when respondents fail to attend the pre-trial.

2. Cases Governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure

(A.M. No. 05-11-07-SC, as amended)

A. Civil Cases (forcible entry, unlawful detainer, other cases ≤ ₱2,000,000 outside NCR)

Section 10 (Preliminary Conference):

“The failure of a sole defendant to appear shall entitle the plaintiff to the presentation of evidence ex parte before the court or a commissioner. Judgment shall be rendered within 30 days after receipt of the last affidavit or submission of evidence.”

Consequences for respondent/defendant:

Immediate ex parte presentation of plaintiff’s evidence.
Judgment within 30 days based solely on plaintiff’s evidence.
Counterclaims and cross-claims are dismissed.
No motion to dismiss is allowed except on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or failure to undergo barangay conciliation.

B. Criminal Cases under Summary Procedure

(Violations of traffic laws, rental law, BP 22, other MTC cases with penalty ≤ 6 months imprisonment)

Section 14: The court shall conduct a preliminary conference for stipulation of facts, consideration of plea to lesser offense, etc.

Consequences when the accused (analogous to respondent) fails to appear:

If the accused is on bail and fails to appear without justification, the court may issue a warrant of arrest and/or proceed with the preliminary conference in absentia.
No stipulation or admission can be used against the absent accused.
Trial proper, however, cannot proceed until the accused is arrested or voluntarily appears (except in very limited cases where the accused waives presence in writing).

3. Small Claims Cases

(2019 Revised Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC as amended)

Section 23: Hearing; personal appearance mandatory.

Consequences if defendant/respondent fails to appear on the date of hearing despite valid service of summons:

The court shall proceed to hear the plaintiff and his/her witnesses.
Judgment shall be rendered on the same day or within 24 hours, based solely on plaintiff’s evidence and the Statement of Claims.
The judgment is final, executory, and unappealable (except via Rule 65 in very exceptional cases).

This is the most draconian regime: the defendant loses everything by mere non-appearance.

4. Provisional Remedies – Preliminary Injunction / Temporary Restraining Order

(Rule 58, Rules of Court)

Section 5: No preliminary injunction without notice and hearing (except 72-hour/20-day TRO in extreme urgency).

Summary hearing is required within 24–72 hours after issuance of TRO, if any.

Consequences if respondent fails to appear at the injunction hearing:

The court proceeds ex parte.
The applicant presents evidence alone.
If the court finds sufficient ground, it will issue the preliminary injunction even without respondent’s opposition.
Bond requirement is assessed only on applicant’s evidence.
Respondent’s subsequent appearance does not automatically dissolve the injunction; a motion with strong meritorious defense is required.

5. Protection Orders under RA 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act) and RA 7610

(A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC – Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children)

Section 20: Hearing on the Petition for Permanent Protection Order.

If respondent fails to appear despite proof of valid service:

The court shall proceed ex parte.
The Temporary Protection Order (TPO) is extended for another 30 days or converted into a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) if evidence warrants.
PPO is valid nationwide and for as long as necessary (often permanent).
Respondent may be cited in contempt and/or warrant of arrest issued for enforcement purposes.
Respondent loses the right to cross-examine petitioner and witnesses.

Courts routinely grant PPOs ex parte when respondents ignore summons in VAWC cases.

6. Writ of Amparo, Writ of Habeas Data, Writ of Kalikasan

(A.M. Nos. 07-9-12-SC, 08-1-16-SC, 09-6-8-SC)

These are special proceedings with extremely abbreviated timelines (hearing within 10 days from filing for Amparo/Habeas Data, 7 days for Kalikasan).

Summary hearing / preliminary conference is mandatory.

Consequences if respondent fails to appear or file return:

The court proceeds to hear the petition ex parte (Sec. 17, Amparo Rule).
Privilege of the writ is granted based solely on petitioner’s evidence.
Respondent may be held in contempt.
In Amparo and Kalikasan, inspection orders, production orders, or witness protection orders may be issued without respondent’s participation.

Non-appearance is almost fatal to the respondent’s position in these human rights/environmental cases.

7. Labor Cases before the Labor Arbiters and NLRC

(2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended)

Rule III, Section 8 – Mandatory Conciliation and Mediation Conference (MCMC).

Consequences for respondent’s non-appearance:

First non-appearance: reset once.
Second non-appearance despite notice: complainant is allowed to present evidence ex parte.
Labor Arbiter renders decision based solely on complainant’s position paper and evidence.
Respondent’s position paper, if filed late due to non-appearance, is not admitted.
Illegal dismissal cases: employee often wins with full backwages, reinstatement, damages if employer twice fails to appear.

8. Election Protests and Quo Warranto Cases before COMELEC or PET

(Rule 17, COMELEC Rules of Procedure; A.M. No. 10-4-29-SC for Presidential Electoral Tribunal)

Preliminary conference is held within days of filing.

If protestee/respondent fails to appear:

Protestant/petitioner is allowed to present evidence ex parte.
Revision of ballots or technical examination proceeds without respondent’s representatives.
Substantial recovery of votes by protestant almost always results in victory.

General Principles that Apply Across All Proceedings

Due service of notice is indispensable. If service is improper, any ex parte judgment or order is void.
Valid excuse (illness, fortuitous event, etc.) supported by affidavit and medical certificate or proof can justify non-appearance and lead to resetting.
Appearance through counsel only is insufficient unless counsel is specially authorized in writing to enter into amicable settlement, admissions, or ADR (Rule 18, civil cases; similar in other rules).
Repeated non-appearance can be ground for contempt of court (Rule 71).
The Philippine Supreme Court has consistently held that non-appearance at pre-trial or preliminary conference constitutes “gross negligence” of counsel, which does not ordinarily justify annulment of judgment except in highly meritorious cases (see Saguid v. CA, G.R. No. 150611, 2006; Villalon v. CA, 2019).

Conclusion

Respondent non-attendance at a preliminary hearing or conference in Philippine courts is almost always disastrous. In ordinary civil actions, summary procedure, small claims, labor, VAWC, provisional remedies, and special proceedings alike, the universal consequence is ex parte reception of evidence followed by judgment or issuance of the remedy sought, based solely on the petitioner/plaintiff/complainant’s proof.

The only effective defense against such consequence is timely appearance or a very well-documented valid excuse. Once the court allows ex parte presentation, the absent respondent’s chances of overturning the resulting decision or order become extremely slim.

Litigants and counsel are therefore well-advised to treat every notice of preliminary hearing with the highest priority—because Philippine procedural law does.