Overview

Yes—a clarificatory hearing can be valid even before pre-trial is set in a Philippine civil case, so long as it is authorized by the Rules of Court (or the court’s inherent case-management powers), properly noticed, and conducted with due process. In practice, courts may call clarificatory hearings early in the case to clarify facts, narrow issues, or resolve pending incidents (especially motions and defenses) before the case proceeds to mandatory processes like pre-trial, court-annexed mediation (CAM), and judicial dispute resolution (JDR).

That said, a clarificatory hearing is not a substitute for pre-trial, and it should not be used to bypass the procedural requirements that attach to pre-trial.

What is a “Clarificatory Hearing”?

A clarificatory hearing is a court-called proceeding where the judge asks questions and requires counsels/parties to appear to clarify matters the court deems unclear or necessary to resolve—most commonly in relation to:

Motions and incidents (e.g., affirmative defenses, provisional remedies, objections to discovery, requests for bills of particulars, etc.)
Preliminary issues (jurisdictional facts, compliance with conditions precedent, authority of representatives, etc.)
Case management (streamlining issues, identifying what needs to be resolved first, clarifying reliefs prayed for, clarifying admissions, etc.)

Modern civil procedure generally discourages long oral arguments on motions and leans toward written submissions. A clarificatory hearing is a discretionary tool the court may use when written submissions are insufficient or the judge wants direct answers to targeted questions.

Where Does it Fit in a Civil Case Timeline?

A simplified sequence in ordinary civil cases is:

Filing and service of complaint
Answer / responsive pleadings
Possible early incidents (motions, provisional remedies, affirmative defenses, jurisdictional challenges)
Setting of pre-trial after joinder of issues
Pre-trial (with pre-trial briefs, possible admissions, marking, stipulations)
CAM/JDR where applicable
Trial and judgment

A clarificatory hearing can occur before Step 4 (pre-trial setting) because the court may need to resolve something first (or clarify something) before it can efficiently schedule or conduct pre-trial.

Why a Court Might Hold a Clarificatory Hearing Before Pre-Trial

1) To Resolve Pending Motions or Early Defenses

If there’s an incident that could dispose of the case or simplify it, the court may call a clarificatory hearing to avoid delay, such as when:

Affirmative defenses raise threshold issues (e.g., lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, prescription, failure to state a cause of action, non-compliance with conditions precedent)
A party seeks a bill of particulars to clarify vague allegations before meaningful pre-trial can happen
There are disputes on service of summons, authority of counsel, capacity to sue, or other preliminary matters

2) To Clarify Parties, Causes of Action, or Reliefs

Courts sometimes call counsel to clarify:

Who exactly are the proper parties
What reliefs are being pursued (damages? injunction? specific performance?)
Whether claims are separable or require consolidation
Whether issues are legal vs factual, and what should be tackled first

3) To Manage the Docket and Narrow Issues Early

Courts have broad authority to control proceedings and prevent unnecessary delay. A targeted clarificatory hearing can help the judge:

Identify what issues need early resolution
Determine whether the case is appropriate for certain modes of disposition
Prevent pre-trial from becoming unmanageable due to unclear pleadings or unresolved incidents

What Makes It “Valid”?

A clarificatory hearing held before pre-trial is generally valid if these conditions are met:

A. The Hearing Is Within the Court’s Authority

Courts have discretion—under procedural rules and inherent judicial powers—to call hearings when needed to clarify matters and resolve incidents.

B. Proper Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard (Due Process)

At minimum, validity requires:

Notice to the parties/counsels of the setting
A fair chance to appear and respond
The court does not decide issues based on matters a party had no opportunity to address

A clarificatory hearing should not be used as an ex parte fact-finding session.

C. The Scope Matches Its Purpose

A clarificatory hearing should stay within its aim: clarifying for resolution of an incident or managing the case—not conducting pre-trial or trial prematurely.

What It Is Not

1) Not a Substitute for Pre-Trial

Pre-trial has specific purposes and requirements: defining issues, considering admissions, marking evidence, discussing settlement, and issuing a pre-trial order that controls the course of trial. A clarificatory hearing doesn’t replace these.

If the court effectively “does pre-trial” without following the required pre-trial procedures (e.g., requiring pre-trial briefs, formal admissions/marking, issuing a pre-trial order without a proper pre-trial), that can raise procedural and due process issues.

2) Not an Automatic “Hearing” on Every Motion

Not every motion requires a hearing. The court may decide motions on the pleadings and submissions, and only call a clarificatory hearing when truly necessary.

3) Not a Trial on the Merits

A clarificatory hearing is generally not the venue for full presentation of testimonial evidence as if the case were already in trial—unless a specific rule or order allows limited reception of evidence on a particular incident (and with safeguards).

Common Pitfalls and When You Should Be Concerned

A clarificatory hearing before pre-trial may become problematic when:

No meaningful notice is given, or a party is ambushed on issues not raised in the incident
The court treats statements made casually during the hearing as binding admissions without clarity or without counsel
The court uses the hearing to take evidence that effectively decides the merits of the case without proper procedure
The hearing is used to skip mandatory steps (like proper pre-trial, CAM/JDR where applicable)
One party is effectively denied the opportunity to file required written submissions or oppositions before the hearing or resolution

Practical Guidance If You’re Set for a Clarificatory Hearing

Prepare Like It Matters (Because It Often Does)

Bring:

Copies of the relevant pleadings/motion and all annexes
A short outline answering likely clarificatory questions
Key dates, service details, and procedural history (courts often ask these)

Listen for the “Scope”

If the judge is clarifying for a specific motion/incident, keep answers within that scope. If questions veer into merits, you (through counsel) can:

Politely note the question goes into matters for pre-trial or trial
Ask that any matter beyond the incident be reserved
Ask for permission to submit a short written clarification if needed

Ask for Clarity on the Record

If something important arises (e.g., a supposed admission or agreement), request that:

It be clearly stated, and
Reflected in the minutes/order, and
If needed, reduced into a clear stipulation consistent with rules

Remedies If a Clarificatory Hearing Is Abused

If the hearing results in an order you believe was issued with grave procedural error or denial of due process, typical options (depending on context and timing) include:

Motion for reconsideration (often the first practical step)
If there’s grave abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy in the ordinary course, a special civil action may be considered (this is highly technical and fact-dependent)

Because remedies depend heavily on the specific order, the incident involved, and timing, getting advice from counsel with the actual orders and pleadings is important.

Bottom Line

Yes, a clarificatory hearing can be valid before pre-trial is set in a Philippine civil case.
It is generally proper when used to clarify and resolve preliminary issues or incidents and to manage the case efficiently.
It becomes vulnerable to challenge when it violates due process, exceeds its legitimate scope, or is used to bypass pre-trial requirements or decide the merits without proper procedure.

If you want, paste (1) the notice/order setting the clarificatory hearing and (2) what motion/incident it relates to (remove personal data). I can map it to the usual procedural rules and flag any due-process red flags in the setup and scope.