Evidence in chief It refers to the evidence presented by the plaintiff at the initial hearing to prove that the defendant is liable. http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/researchLitigation/TrialPractice/PlaintiffsCIF.asp

It is the evidence given by a witness for the party who called him. (http://sixthformlaw.info/03_dictionary/dict_e.htm)

Where a witness is called to give oral evidence under paragraph (1), his witness statement shall stand as his evidence in chief(GL)unless the court orders otherwise. (http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part32)

Evidence supporting the basic premises of a partys case.(http://www.yourdictionary.com/evidence)

Cases:1. Gomez v. Alcantara G.R. No. 179556, February 13, 2009Facts: The case is a about a dispute over the ownership of a land. Gomez claimed that she was the owner of the land since it was part of her inheritance while Alcantara, her niece, got the lot through a deed of donation allegedly executed by one of her siblings. Her efforts to settle this amicably failed, thus, she filed a complaint for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. On the initial hearing, the petitioner's counsel as well as the respondent and her counsel failed to appear. The presiding judge ordered the dismissal of the case for failure of plaintiff to continue with her evidence in chief. Petitioner's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration but on its hearing he came late and the judge denied his motion. No appeal was made by the petitioner. Less than four years, the petitioner filed again a complaint on the same cause of action but was dismissed on the ground of res judicata.

Issue: Whether or not the principle of res judicata applies in the case?

Held: The Court held in affirmative.

The Court cited Section 3 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, which provides:SEC. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the courts own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure of petitioner and her counsel to attend the scheduled hearing on said date and was not appealed by the petitioner, allowing it to become final and executory. Having failed to appeal from that judgment, petitioner may not abuse court processes by re-filing the same case to obviate the conclusive effects of dismissal. It now operates as res judicata.

2. KO, et. al. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, et. al. G.R. Nos. 169131-32 January 20, 2006Facts: Petitioners filed a complaint for Annulment of Mortgage, Extra-judicial Foreclosure Sale, Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-21064 and T-21065 and Deed ofSalewith a Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order. The complaint alleged that the assailed mortgage and the foreclosure proceedings were null and void since the written consent of petitioners, as beneficiaries of the mortgaged property, were not secured. Respondent bank denied the claim and alleged that in the execution of the mortgage, petitioners in fact gave their consent. The petitioners failed to appear at the scheduled trial and upon motion of the respondent, the court ordered the dismissal of the case. They file a motion for reconsideration alleging that their failure was due to their negotiation with the bank.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of the petitioner's failure to appear on the scheduled hearing?

Held: The Court held in affirmative. The Court cited Section 3 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, which provides:SEC. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the courts own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.

In every action, the plaintiff is duty-bound to prosecute the same with utmost diligence and with reasonable dispatch to enable him to obtain the relief prayed for and, at the same time, minimize the clogging of the court dockets. The expeditious disposition of cases is as much the duty of the plaintiff as the court. It must be remembered that a defendant in a case likewise has the right to the speedy disposition of the action filed against himconsidering that any delay in the proceedings entail prolonged anxiety and valuable time wasted.

3. ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.G.R. No. 188956, March 20, 2013Facts:Petitioner filed an Application for Registration of Title over three parcels of land located in West Bicutan, Taguig City, before the RTC of Pasig City. After petitioner met the jurisdictional requirements, the court a quo issued an order of general default against the whole world, and the petitioner was allowed to present evidence ex-parte. The petitioner then presented as its witness and the court ruled in its favor. Upon receipt of a copy of the decision, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that it failed to prosecute because it was not able to prove that it has personality to own property in its name and also to show that the witness it presented was duly authorized to appear for and in its behalf

Issue:Whether the court a quo acted contrary to law and jurisprudence when it dismissed petitioners application for land registration on the ground that petitioner failed to prosecute the subject case?

Held:The Court held in the affirmative.The reason of the court a quo in dismissing petitioners application for land registration on the ground of failure to prosecute was the lack of authority on the part of Ms. Aban to testify on behalf of the petitioner.Clearly, the court a quos basis for pronouncing that the petitioner failed to prosecute its case is not among those grounds provided by the Rules. It had no reason to conclude that the petitioner failed to prosecute its case. First, the petitioner did not fail to appear at the time of the trial. In fact, the Decision of trial court ordering the registration of petitioners title to the subject lots shows that the petitioner appeared before the Court and was represented by counsel. Records would also reveal that the petitioner was able to present its evidence, and as a result, the RTC rendered judgment in its favor.