Short answer. No — not if at least one of you appears. Rule 70, Section 8 lets the plaintiff take judgment when a sole defendant fails to appear, but it expressly does not apply where one of several defendants sued under a common cause of action, who pleaded a common defense, appears at the preliminary conference.
What the law says
This procedure shall not apply where one of two or more defendants sued under a common cause of action who had pleaded a common defense shall appear at the preliminary conference.
Rule 70, Section 8 — Preliminary conference; appearance of parties. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall likewise be entitled to judgment in accordance with the next preceding section.
Rule 70, Section 8 — Preliminary conference; appearance of parties. Read the full provision →
The preliminary conference in an ejectment case
Ejectment cases — forcible entry and unlawful detainer — run on a deliberately fast track, and Rule 70, Section 8 is part of that design. A preliminary conference must be held not later than thirty days after the last answer is filed, and the provisions of Rule 18 on pre-trial apply to it unless they clash with Rule 70 itself. Appearance is treated as a serious obligation on both sides: a plaintiff who fails to appear has the complaint dismissed, while a defendant who does appear in the plaintiff's absence can even take judgment on a counterclaim. Postponements are grudging too — the rule allows them only for highly meritorious grounds, and even then the court may impose sanctions on whoever asked.
What happens when a defendant stays away
For a defendant standing alone, the consequence of absence is stark: "If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall likewise be entitled to judgment in accordance with the next preceding section." That means the court can decide the case on what is before it, without the absent defendant ever being heard at the conference. This is the "losing by default" scenario people fear, and for a defendant who is the only one sued, it is a real and immediate risk. But the rule that creates this consequence also carves out an exception built precisely for people in your position — co-defendants who stand or fall together.
The common-defense exception
Section 8 says: "This procedure shall not apply where one of two or more defendants sued under a common cause of action who had pleaded a common defense shall appear at the preliminary conference." Two conditions do the work. First, the defendants must have been sued under a common cause of action — the plaintiff's claim runs against them as a group. Second, they must have pleaded a common defense in their answers. When both are true, the appearance of even one defendant keeps the case contested for all of them, because the defense that one defendant presents is the same defense that protects the rest. The plaintiff cannot take judgment against the absent co-defendants on absence alone.
Where the protection ends
Read the exception's limits carefully before relying on it. It presupposes that someone from your side actually appears — if every co-defendant skips the conference, no one is left to carry the common defense and the plaintiff becomes entitled to judgment. It also turns on what was actually pleaded: if your answers raise separate, individual defenses rather than a genuinely common one, an absent defendant is not sheltered by a co-defendant's appearance. And whether defenses are truly common is judged from the pleadings and the facts, which can be argued both ways. The safe course is never to treat the exception as permission to stay home: appear, and let the exception be your fallback rather than your plan.