Effect of Non-Appearance at Court Hearing on Case Dismissal (Philippine Perspective)
1. Why Non-Appearance Matters
Attendance at a court-scheduled proceeding is more than a courtesy; it is a procedural duty grounded in due-process guarantees (Art. III, §1, 1987 Constitution). A willful or unjustified absence can delay adjudication, waste judicial resources, and—under several procedural rules—trigger outright dismissal of the case. The operative provisions differ for civil, criminal, and special proceedings, but they share a common rationale: a litigant who asks the courts for relief must prosecute (or defend) the action diligently.
2. General Statutory & Rule‐Based Framework
| Context | Primary Governing Text | Core Effect of Unjustified Non-Appearance |
|---|---|---|
| Civil actions | Rule 17 §3; Rule 18 §4, Rules of Court | Dismissal “for failure to prosecute” (m-o-t-u proprio or on motion); may be with or without prejudice. |
| Criminal actions | Rule 117 §8 (provisional dismissal); Rule 119 §3-4; Rev. Rules on Summary Procedure (RRSP) §10 | Provisional or final dismissal when prosecution or complainant is absent; double-jeopardy consequences vary. |
| Special civil / small claims | A.M. 08-8-7-SC §23 | Immediate dismissal of the claim if plaintiff fails to appear; decision in favor of plaintiff if defendant fails to appear. |
| Labor cases (NLRC) | 2011 NLRC Rules §5, Rule III | First absence → dismissal without prejudice; second consecutive absence → dismissal with prejudice. |
| Katarungang Pambarangay (barangay conciliation) | R.A. 7160, LGC §412-415 | Unjustified absence may result in a “bar to suit” (complainant) or waiver of counterclaim (respondent). |
3. Civil Litigation
3.1. Pre-Trial Stage (Rule 18)
- Section 4(a): If the plaintiff and counsel fail to appear, the court may dismiss the action with prejudice (unless justified and supported by a verified motion to reinstate).
- Section 4(b): If the defendant fails to appear, the plaintiff may present evidence ex parte; judgment may follow without further notice.
- Sanctions extend to failure to bring required pre-trial submissions or to attend Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR).
3.2. Trial Stage (Rule 17 §3)
The court may, “upon motion or on its own initiative,” dismiss the action for failure to prosecute after plaintiff’s unjustified absence at any scheduled hearing. The dismissal is presumed to be with prejudice unless the order expressly states otherwise (Rule 17 §3, 2019 Amendments).
Key jurisprudence
- Philippine Bank of Communications v. Aruego, G.R. L-20341 (1974): upholds discretionary dismissal but warns courts against “capricious” use.
- Spouses Dulay v. CA, G.R. 131742 (12 Apr 2005): reinstatement allowed where counsel’s absence was caused by verified medical emergency and prompt motion was filed.
Remedy: Motion for reconsideration within 15 days; alternatively, appeal (Rule 41) or Rule 65 certiorari to correct grave abuse.
4. Criminal Proceedings
4.1. Regular Trials (Rule 117 §8 & Rule 119)
Provisional dismissal (Rule 117 §8): When the offended party or the prosecution witnesses fail to appear without reasonable excuse, the court may dismiss provisionally. A provisional dismissal does not bar refiling if recommenced:
- within 1 year (offenses punishable by ≤6 years), or
- within 2 years (others). Beyond these windows, double jeopardy attaches (People v. Lacson, G.R. 149453-54, 1 Apr 2003).
Final dismissal under Summary Procedure (see §4 & §10 of the RRSP): If the complainant in a B.P. 22 case, for example, is absent despite notice, the information shall be dismissed with prejudice (see A.C. 12-2000; Adm. Circ. 13-2001).
4.2. Non-Appearance of Accused
Absence of the accused is not a ground for dismissal; instead, the court issues a bench warrant and may try the case in absentia after arraignment (Constitution, Art. III §14[2]).
5. Special & Summary Proceedings
5.1. Small Claims (A.M. 08-8-7-SC)
- Plaintiff absent → case dismissed without prejudice.
- Defendant absent → court renders judgment for the relief prayed for, subject to proving plaintiff’s cause of action.
5.2. Katarungang Pambarangay
Absent parties may be issued a Certificate to Bar Action (CBA) or Counterclaim (CBC), preventing them from filing in court until conciliatory efforts are exhausted (LGC §414).
5.3. Labor Arbiter / NLRC
Two consecutive unjustified non-appearances at mandatory conferences by the complainant result in dismissal with prejudice (2011 NLRC Rules, Rule III §5).
6. Videoconferencing & “Virtual” Appearance
Since A.M. 20-06-05-SC (2020), physical presence may be substituted by a verified virtual appearance. Failure to log in, however, is treated the same as non-appearance unless the litigant proves connectivity problems or other “force majeure.”
7. Excusable Absence & Preventive Measures
File a Motion to Vacate/Postpone stating:
- specific reason (illness, fortuitous event)
- supporting evidence (medical certificate, travel advisory)
- conformity of the adverse party, if obtainable.
Send substitute counsel; appearance by any counsel of record satisfies the requirement.
Use electronic notice: make sure email addresses are correct; courts now serve via e-mail under A.M. 19-10-20-SC.
8. Remedies After Dismissal
| Dismissal Type | Possible Remedy | Time-Limit |
|---|---|---|
| With prejudice | Appeal (Rule 41) or Rule 65 certiorari (lack/abuse of discretion) | 15 days (appeal) / 60 days (certiorari) |
| Without prejudice | Re-file action; or move to revive (Rule 37 §1) | Subject to prescriptive periods |
| Provisional (criminal) | Re-file before 1- or 2-year bar lapses | Within statutory window |
9. Practical Checklist for Litigants
- Calendar scrupulously: note both physical and online hearings.
- Monitor notices: service by email, courier, or through counsel binds the party.
- Prepare contingencies: engage collaborating counsel.
- Document impediments immediately: attach proofs when seeking postponement.
10. Conclusion
Non-appearance is not a trivial lapse; it is a procedural default that may extinguish one’s day in court—temporarily or forever—depending on the rule invoked and the judge’s discretion. Philippine procedure strikes a careful balance: it demands diligence, yet leaves room for equitable relief when absence is genuinely unavoidable. Litigants and lawyers who appreciate these contours safeguard not only their own cases but also the integrity and efficiency of the judicial system.