Rule 18, Section 3 — The “Notice of Pre-Trial” at a glance
**“The notice of pre-trial shall include the dates respectively set for: (a) Pre-trial; (b) Court-Annexed Mediation; and (c) Judicial Dispute Resolution, if necessary.
The notice of pre-trial shall be served on counsel, or on the party if he or she has no counsel. The counsel served with such notice is charged with the duty of notifying the party represented by him or her.
Non-appearance at any of the foregoing settings shall be deemed as non-appearance at the pre-trial and shall merit the same sanctions under Section 5 hereof.”* (LawPhil)
1. Where Rule 18 §3 fits in the civil-procedure timeline
| Procedural step | Who acts | Deadline | Governing rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Last responsive pleading filed | parties | — | R.18 §1 |
| Clerk issues Notice of Pre-Trial | clerk of court | within 5 calendar days from the last pleading | R.18 §1 |
| Date fixed for pre-trial (plus CAM & JDR) | court | not later than 60 calendar days from the last pleading | R.18 §1 & §3 |
(The table merely pinpoints the statutory deadlines; everything else below explains the “why” and the “how.”)
2. Evolution of the rule
| 1997 text | 2019 Amendments |
|---|---|
| Notice “shall be served on counsel, or on the party who has no counsel… Counsel is charged with the duty of notifying the party.” | Adds three mandatory dates (Pre-Trial, CAM, JDR) and declares that absence from any of them is absence from pre-trial itself, invoking the sanctions in §5. (LawPhil, LawPhil) |
The 2019 overhaul responds to two policy shifts:
- Front-loading ADR. By baking Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and, when needed, Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) into a single notice, the Court forces the parties to treat settlement as part of preparation, not an after-thought.
- Judicial case-management. A single missed date can no longer be excused as a “mere” mediation setting; the sanctions in §5 (dismissal with prejudice, ex-parte judgment, or other penalties) attach automatically.
3. Statutory components dissected
- “Include the dates…” – The clerk must write three discrete calendar settings. If the judge later decides JDR is unnecessary, that setting simply lapses.
- Mode of service – Personal, registered mail, accredited courier, or e-service under the 2019 e-Service rules; proof of service is the only jurisdictional element the Court needs to impose §5 sanctions.
- Service on counsel v. party – The default is service on counsel. The lawyer then becomes the Court’s deputized messenger and risks administrative sanctions if the client is left uninformed. The Supreme Court underscored this in Five Star Bus Co. v. CA (1996) (LawPhil) and earlier in Taroma v. Sayo (1975) (LawPhil).
- Deeming clause – Absence from CAM or JDR counts as absence from the pre-trial itself, short-circuiting excuses that the party “only” missed mediation.
4. Relationship with other pre-trial provisions
| Linkage | Effect |
|---|---|
| §1 (“When conducted”) | Triggers the clerk’s 5-day duty to issue the notice and the 60-day cap for the pre-trial date. |
| §4 (Appearance of parties) | Requires both party and counsel to appear at the three dates; a representative must carry a SPA with authority to settle. |
| §5 (Effect of failure to appear) | Supplies the sanctions referenced in §3: dismissal with prejudice (plaintiff absent) or ex-parte judgment (defendant absent). |
| §6 (Pre-trial brief) | The notice implicitly reminds parties that their briefs are due at least three calendar days before the pre-trial. |
5. Jurisprudential themes
| Case | Take-away |
|---|---|
| Five Star Bus Co. v. CA (G.R. 120496, 17 Jul 1996) | Counsel’s duty to relay the notice is non-delegable; client suffers the consequences of the lawyer’s neglect. (LawPhil) |
| Taroma v. Sayo (G.R. L-37296, 30 Oct 1975) | Courts must show that both party and counsel were notified before default; but once shown, default stands even if only counsel received service, so long as counsel was ordered to inform the client. (LawPhil) |
| Lim v. Animas (63 SCRA 408, 1975) and progeny | Reiterated that separate service on both party and counsel is ideal but not indispensable if counsel is expressly tasked to notify the client. (LawPhil) |
6. Practical pointers for litigants and lawyers
- Update your e-mail and postal address in every pleading; Rule 13 now recognizes electronic service.
- Calendar three dates, not one. Mark your planner for CAM and (provisionally) JDR on the day you receive the notice.
- Prepare settlement authority early. If the client cannot appear, the SPA must expressly empower the representative to settle, submit to ADR, and stipulate on facts and documents.
- File a robust pre-trial brief. Omissions (e.g., failing to list a witness) amount to waiver.
- If you truly cannot attend, file a motion to reset before the date, citing “acts of God, force majeure, or duly substantiated physical inability” (§4).
7. Common pitfalls & how the courts resolve them
| Pitfall | Court’s stance | Remedy (if any) |
|---|---|---|
| Counsel received notice but quit the case without informing client | Client bound; default or dismissal stands | Motion to set aside default must show fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect and a meritorious defense (Rule 38) |
| Party claims no notice because mail bounced | If service on counsel is proven, claim fails; counsel’s negligence is client’s negligence | Administrative liability for counsel; rarely a ground to recall default |
| Party attends pre-trial but skips CAM date | Deemed absence from pre-trial; §5 sanctions apply | Move for reconsideration citing “valid cause” before sanctions become final |
8. Why Section 3 matters
It is the procedural hinge on which modern case-management turns. By compressing litigation, mediation, and judicial dispute resolution into one compulsory timetable, Section 3 operationalizes the constitutional mandate for “speedy disposition of cases” and reflects the Supreme Court’s policy that every lawsuit must pass through ADR before consuming further court time.
Key take-aways
- Read the entire notice; it covers three dates.
- Treat absence from CAM or JDR exactly like absence from pre-trial.
- Counsel who loses the notice—or the client’s trust—still binds the client.
Failure to internalize those points does not merely irritate the judge; it kills cases.
This article is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. For specific situations, consult qualified Philippine counsel.