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)