OPINION
This Court granted allocatur to consider the effect of appellees’ failure to file a petition to open a judgment of non pros pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 3051 before filing a direct appeal from that judgment in the Superior Court. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the failure to initially file a petition to open resulted in a waiver of appellees’ claims. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the Superior Court and reinstate the judgment of non pros.
*595 On June 24, 1994, appellees filed a complaint seeking to recover damages for personal injury sustained by Janice Sahutsky during an amusement park ride. For almost three years thereafter, there was no docket activity. The next docket entry occurred on April 2, 1997, when appellant’s counsel withdrew from the case and new counsel entered his appearance.
On October 2,1997, appellant filed a motion for judgment of non pros. The court granted appellant’s motion, dismissing appellees’ complaint with prejudice. Thereafter, appellees filed a Notice of Appeal in Superior Court. Appellees did not file a motion to open the judgment of non pros in the Court of Common Pleas.
In its Superior Court brief, appellant argued that the Superior Court should not address the merits of the appeal. Appellant maintained that the failure to file a petition to open under Rule 3051 operated as waiver of the issues raised in the appeal.
Citing its decision in
Hughes v. Fink, Fink and
Assoc.,
Here, appellant argues that the Superior Court erred in addressing the merits of appellees’ appeal. According to appellant, Rule 3051, by its clear language, required appellees to petition the trial court to open the judgment of non pros before filing an appeal in Superior Court. Appellant finds further support for this argument in the Rule’s Comment, which appellant asserts specifically rejected a hybrid approach which would have permitted parties to choose between either *596 the trial court or the appellate court in seeking relief from a non pros. Finally, appellant argues that because appellees failed to comply with the dictates of Rule 3051, they failed to preserve their issues for appellate review.
Appellees counter that the Superior Court decision here is consistent with other decisions by that court, which have held that judgments of
non pros
dismissed
with prejudice
were appealable directly to Superior Court.
See Hughes, supra; Strickler v. Bell,
This Court’s standard of review of questions of law, such as the question of the proper interpretation of Rule 3051 presented here, is plenary.
See Commonwealth v. Baker,
Under case law existing prior to the January 1, 1992 effective date of Rule 3051, a party seeking review of a judgment of
non pros
could proceed in two ways: either petition the trial court to open the judgment or seek appellate review of the judgment.
See Valley Peat & Humus v. Sunnylands, Inc.,
Although we are of the opinion that the better course ... would be to file a petition to open, because it gives the trial court the first opportunity to open its judgment and at the same time provides a more complete record for appeal purposes, we recognize that counsel has a choice. If there is to be a change in this area of the law, this change must come from our Supreme Court.
Id. at 196.
After Valley Peat was decided, this Court promulgated Rule 3051. The Rule, which became effective on January 1, 1992, provides that:
Relief from a judgment of non pros shall be sought by petition. All grounds for relief, whether to strike off the judgment or to open it, must be asserted in a single petition.
Pa.R.C.P. 3051. The Explanatory Comment to Rule 3051 specifically addresses the previous dual approach reflected in Valley Peat:
Recently, President Judge James E. Rowley of the Superior Court noted [in Valley Peat ] “the perceived uncertainty of the procedure to follow after the entry of a judgment of non pros”, [sic] [581 A.2d at 203 ]. In that case, the Superior Court en banc considered ...:
the question of whether a direct appeal from a non pros judgment is proper, or whether a petition to open the non pros judgment must be filed and denied by the trial court prior to seeking appellate review.
[Valley Peat & Humus v. Sunnylands, Inc.,398 Pa.Super. 400 ,581 A.2d 193 , 195 (1990).] The Superior Court found *598 that under present law the parties could choose either procedure____[Id. at 196]
This new rule eliminates the choice and establishes uniform procedure when relief is sought from a judgment of non pros. The rule provides that relief from such a judgment is to be by petition ... and specifies that allegations to be made when the relief sought includes the opening of the judgment.
Pa.R.C.P. 852 (Comment) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Comment further states that:
The rule adopts a uniform procedure although there are different types of judgments of non pros. ... The rule will apply in all cases in which relief from a judgment of non pros is sought, whether the judgment has been entered by praecipe as of right or by the court following a hearing. Where the court has not participated in the entry of the judgment, the rule will provide a procedure for court involvement and the making of a record which an appellate court -will be able to review. Where the court has entered a judgment of non pros following a hearing, the rule will provide the court with an opportunity to review its prior decision. However, if the court is certain of its prior decision, it will be able to quickly dispose of the matter since the parties have already been heard on the issues.
Id. (emphasis added).
The Rule makes no distinction between judgments of
non pros
entered with or without prejudice. The Rule’s mandatory phrasings that relief from a
non pros
“shall be sought by petition” and “must be asserted in a single petition” clearly connote a
requirement
that parties file a petition with the trial court in the first instance. The Comment, including the notation that the Rule addresses the dual procedure previously in existence as recognized by
Valley Peat,
corroborates that it applies to
all
judgments of
non pros.
Furthermore, although not expressly addressing the issue, such a construction was implicit in this Court’s characterization in another case involving Rule 3051.
See Shope v. Eagle,
The reason for requiring that the petition be directed to the trial court initially is both obvious and salutary: it ensures that the trial court, which is in the best position to rule on the matter in the first instance, shall have an opportunity to do so. Such an approach will avoid unnecessary appeals, thereby assuring judicial economy, and will provide a better record for review in those cases where the question is close enough to warrant an appeal. See Pa.R.C.P. 126. In short, there is nothing in Rule 3051 or its Comment to suggest that any differentiation between the various types of non pros orders is appropriate.
Having concluded that appellees were required to file a petition to open the non pros, rather than seek appellate review, the next question is what consequence should attend the failure to follow Rule 3051. Appellant argues that failure to file a Rule 3051 petition operates as a waiver of any claims of error concerning the judgment of non pros entered by the Court of Common Pleas. We find appellant’s argument convincing.
This Court has determined that issues not raised in post-trial motions are waived.
See Lane Enterprises, Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co.,
ensure[s] that the trial judge has a chance to correct alleged trial errors. This opportunity to correct alleged errors ... advances the orderly and efficient use of our judicial resources. First, appellate courts will not be required to expend time and energy reviewing points on which no trial *600 ruling has been made. Second, the trial court may promptly correct the asserted error. With the issue properly presented, the trial court is more likely to reach a satisfactory result, thus obviating the need for appellate review on this issue. Or if a new trial is necessary, it may be granted by the trial court without subjecting both the litigants and the courts to the expense and delay inherent in appellate review. Third, appellate courts will be free to more expeditiously dispose of the issues properly preserved for appeal ____
Id.
at 394 (citing
Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.,
Appellees nevertheless argue that not addressing their appeal on the merits would be a harsh consequence since the Superior Court here followed its own precedent in overlooking the waiver. But the precedent can have no force in light of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 3051. As noted above, that rule mandates the filing of the petition in the trial court. The Comment to the Rule reinforces that unambiguous meaning, while also making clear that the Rule was designed to effect a change in the law previously adopted in the Superior Court, and reflected in Valley Peat. We cannot simply ignore the language of the Rule, and the occasion for its existence, in favor of equities that appellees would prefer we balance. The Superior Court cases upon which Appellees rely address a pre-Rule 3051 scenario, and cannot stand in face of the Rule itself. Furthermore, as noted above, the rule serves a salutory, essential purpose.
It is also worth noting in response to appellees’ equitable argument that appellees made
no
attempt to comply with the Rule. As this Court discussed in
Kurtas v. Kurtas,
We are cognizant that at times the rigid application of our rules does not serve the intended purpose of justice and fairness but rather results in a harsh or even unjust conse *601 quence. For this reason, we promulgated Pa.R.C.P. 126 wherein we granted to the trial court latitude to overlook any procedural defect which does not prejudice the rights of a party.
(Emphasis in original.) However, as discussed in Metz, supra, this Court has not excused non-compliance with its Rules when the parties have made no attempt at conformity. The Court reasoned that:
exceptions ... have been made in certain limited circumstances — specifically, where the appellant raises the issue post-trial in a proeedurally defective manner and the trial court chooses to overlook the defect and address the issue on its merits.... However, this case presents no such circumstances. Here, the issue was not raised at all at the post-trial stage, not even in a proeedurally flawed manner.
Commonwealth v. Metz,
*602 For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Superior Court is reversed.
Notes
. Addressing the merits of appellees’ claim, the Superior Court reversed the trial court’s order, remanding the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of its judgment of
non pros
consistent with
Jacobs v. Halloran,
. In Valley Peat, following the entry of the judgment of non pros, the plaintiff filed a petition for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. The appeal to the Superior Court was considered a direct appeal from the entry of the non pros judgment rather than an appeal of the denial of the petition for reconsideration.
. Appellant also suggests that the Superior Court erred in not quashing the appeal below for failure to file a Rule 3051 petition. Quashal is usually appropriate where the order below was unappealable,
see Toll v. Toll,