Short answer. Not automatically, but the consequence is close to losing. Under Rule 18, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, if a duly notified defendant and counsel fail to appear at pre-trial without valid cause, the plaintiff is allowed to present evidence ex parte and the court decides the case on that evidence alone.
What the law says
A similar failure on the part of the defendant and counsel shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his or her evidence ex parte within ten calendar days from termination of the pre-trial, and the court to render judgment on the basis of the evidence offered.
Rule 18, Section 5 — Effect of failure to appear. Read the full provision →
What the rule actually says
Rule 18, Section 5 spells out the price of an empty chair at pre-trial. For a defendant, the failure of both the defendant and counsel to appear — when duly notified and without valid cause — "shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his or her evidence ex parte within ten calendar days from termination of the pre-trial, and the court to render judgment on the basis of the evidence offered." Notice the two built-in conditions: the rule bites only when you were properly notified of the pre-trial setting, and only when the absence has no valid cause. An absence genuinely beyond your control is a different conversation from simply not showing up.
What presenting evidence ex parte means for you
Ex parte means the plaintiff presents the case with only one side in the room. The plaintiff's witnesses testify and documents come in without you or your lawyer there to object to them or cross-examine anyone, and the court then renders judgment on that one-sided record. You have not been declared the automatic loser — but you have lost the tools a defendant normally uses to win: challenging the plaintiff's proof and putting on your own. In practice, a case that might have been genuinely contestable can become very hard to survive once the only evidence the judge ever sees is the plaintiff's.
Why it is still not an automatic loss
The court does not simply grant the complaint because you were absent. The judgment must rest on the basis of the evidence offered — so the plaintiff still carries the burden of actually proving the claim, and a plaintiff whose evidence falls short can lose even against an absent defendant. The rule's own conditions matter too: it presupposes that you were duly notified and that the failure to appear was without valid cause. Whether a particular reason — illness, an accident, a breakdown in communication with counsel — amounts to a valid cause is something the court weighs on the facts, which is why an absent defendant should act quickly and through counsel rather than assume all is lost.
The rule cuts both ways
The same section is even harsher on an absent plaintiff. When the plaintiff and counsel fail to appear without valid cause, the action is dismissed, and the dismissal "shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court" — meaning the case ordinarily cannot be refiled. That symmetry tells you what pre-trial is in the current Rules: not a formality, but a stage the court expects both sides to take seriously, on pain of effectively ending the case for whoever stays away. If you are a defendant with a pre-trial date coming, the safe course is simple — appear with your lawyer, and if something truly prevents it, make sure the court hears the reason.