RULE 30 - TRIAL

 Upon entry of a case in the trial calendar, the clerk shall notify the parties of the date of its
trial in such manner as shall ensure his receipt of that notice at least five (5) days before
such date.
 Strict application of the Continuous Trial Rule does not preclude the judge from exercising
judicial discretion in allowing continuances.
 As a general rule when motions are well grounded and there is no intent to delay, they are
considered meritorious. Whether or not a motion should be granted or denied is addressed to
the discretion of the court. In filing a motion however, the party should not presume that the
same will be granted.
 Trial shall proceed in the following Order:
1. The prosecution presents evidence to prove the charge and if applicable, the civil
liability;
2. The accused presents defense evidence;
3. The prosecution presents rebuttal evidence (optional);
4. The defense presents sur-rebuttal evidence (optional, and only if the prosecution
presents rebuttal evidence)
5. The Court decides the case.
 If several defendants or third-party defendants, and so forth, having separate defenses
appear by different counsel, the court shall determine the relative order of presentation of
their evidence.
 The parties to any action may agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and
submit the case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence.
 The judge of the court where the case is pending shall personally receive the evidence to be
adduced by the parties. However, in default or ex parte hearings, and in any case where the
parties agree in writing, the court may delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of court
who is a member of the bar.
 In the case of De Castro v. De Castro, Jr., citing Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines,
the Court ruled that:

Where a party seeks postponement of the hearing of this case for reasons caused by
his own inofficiousness, lack of resourcefulness and diligence if not total indifference
to his own interests or to the interests of those he represents, thereby resulting in his
failure to present his own evidence, the court would not extend to him its mantle of
protection. If it was he who created the situation that brought about the resulting
adverse consequences, he cannot plead for his day in court nor claim that he was so
denied of it.